[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 11, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6222-H6225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESS MUST CREATE SINGLE, UNIFIED AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS 
  COMMITTEES FOR NEW DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO BE SUCCESSFUL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to reflect 
on the incidents of the past year and to discuss the next phase of our 
war against terrorism and our war for homeland security.
  Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago on this day at 8:30 in the morning I was on 
the third floor of this building in the press gallery beginning a press 
conference with our colleagues from both sides of the aisle. We had 
assembled before the national media to call for support of a bill that 
I was introducing that day asking for an additional $6 billion of 
defense spending. That defense spending was to go specifically for 
readiness for our troops, for homeland security, and for the war 
against terrorism.
  The first plane hit; the second plane hit. The media had to stop the 
press conference, and by 9 o'clock we realized that we were going to 
have to vacate the building. The Sergeant at Arms called for vacating 
the Capitol, and we began the orderly process of descending from the 
third floor of this building to the parking lot.
  On the way out, I talked to our Sergeant at Arms. I said, What is 
happening? He said, There are at least two more planes in the air, and 
we feel one of them may be headed for the Capitol building. By the time 
we got to the parking lot and looked across Washington, off in the 
distance we could see the black smoke rising from the Pentagon.
  There was total chaos on Capitol Hill that day, Mr. Speaker, because 
no one had anticipated that kind of action against us, in spite of the 
calls for America to be secure that had been made by many Members of 
this body on numerous occasions prior to 9-11.
  We wandered on the Hill as they evacuated the office buildings, and 
moved down toward the Capitol Hill police station. Near the train 
station we would get our first briefing. About 120 of us got that 
briefing. I came back out and walked back toward the Capitol when my 
cell phone rang, and I got a call that was extremely disturbing and 
very emotional for me. I learned from my friends in the New York City 
Fire Department that one of my good friends was missing with the 
collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings.
  See, what was so tragically emotional for me was that individual had 
taken me through the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. As many 
of our colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, I would not be in this body were 
it not for my work in the fire service. Having grown up in a fire 
service family and becoming chief of my own local department, a fire 
instructor, and going back to school for a degree in that area, I have 
been identified with those brave individuals since I first came to this 
body 16 years ago.
  So in my capacity as a Member of Congress and the founder of the 
Congressional Fire and Emergency Services Caucus for the past 16 years, 
I have made it my business to attend every disaster we have had, from 
the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City to the wildlands fires in 
the West to Hurricane Andrew and Hugo in the South to the Mid Western 
floods to the Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes and the World 
Trade Center bombing in 1993.
  It was in 1993 when I went up as a guest of Commissioner Howard Safir 
that I first met a brave young firefighter in New York who would later 
become the chief of all special forces and rescue in that department. 
He and members of the New York City Fire Department took me through the 
bombed-out parking garage in the Trade Center in 1993, where I saw the 
terrible, horrible devastation caused by bin Laden the first time he 
hit America.
  He and I became friends. We traveled around the country and spoke at 
many events together on the need to prepare for homeland security and 
our common defense. In fact, it was the suggestion of a commission that 
came from some of the recommendations he gave me that resulted in 
legislation I introduced 4 years ago to create a commission chaired by 
former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia called the Gilmore Commission.
  My friend, Ray Downey, was a member of that commission. The Gilmore 
Commission's purpose was to make recommendations to the Congress and 
the White House about how we could better prepare for what none of us 
wanted to think about: the ultimate tragedy against our country. Four 
years ago, no one was thinking that could be a reality, but the Gilmore 
Commission in fact three times issued reports before 9-11 with specific 
recommendations that we in the Congress and the White House should 
follow.
  Ray Downey was a member of that commission. Ray Downey was the 
incident command officer on the scene in New York at Ground Zero 
directing the bulk of those 343 firefighters who were killed as they 
went up into the stairwells of those buildings to bring people down. In 
fact, when I went to the Trade Center Ground Zero site 2 days later, 
not as a Member of Congress but as a member of the fire service, I 
spent the day with the New York City firefighters.

  The day that I arrived, unfortunately, the tragedy was that Ray 
Downey's two sons, who were both New York City firefighters, one a 
captain and one a lieutenant, were looking for the remains of their 
dad. How terribly tragic it was to be asked by the firefighters union 
in the city to go back to the Javits Center to greet the families of 
those that were going to visit with President Bush that night, the 
families of those that were missing.
  I did that, and I saw our President for 2\1/2\ hours meet privately 
with the families of those victims who were tragically taken in the 
course of the rescue, in the course of the firefighting, in response to 
the World Trade Center disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor for two specific reasons. One is to 
first of all talk about the next phase of where we have to go. It is 
extremely important that this body understand that even though we 
passed the Homeland Security Act creating a new Federal department, and 
we did a good job in that process, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Speaker Armey) and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
deserving of credit for the outstanding piece of legislation that we 
finished very early in the morning hours of August, the other body will 
shortly complete their version of that bill; and by the end of this 
month we will send to the President a piece of legislation that creates 
a brand-new large agency in fact consolidating 22

[[Page H6223]]

existing agencies with over 170,000 employees and a budget of nearly 
$40 billion.
  This new agency is needed, and this new agency is absolutely 
essential if we are going to win the war on terrorism and if we are 
going to properly protect our homeland.
  The four departments of this agency are critically vital to our 
Nation's security: the Border and Transportation Security Division, the 
Emergency Preparedness and Response Division, the Chemical, Biological, 
Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures Division, and the Information 
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Division.
  This new cabinet agency I think is the right solution that the 
administration has proposed for America to be secure. But, Mr. Speaker, 
I come tonight to tell my colleagues that in my opinion the passage of 
this legislation and the signing of it into law by President Bush will 
only accomplish 40 percent of the solution.
  Now, Members of Congress in both parties will pat themselves on the 
back; the President will sign the bill into law with a Rose Garden 
ceremony; and everyone will say, America should feel safe because we 
have created a new agency. This new agency will, for the first time, 
consolidate the efforts of 22 existing departments.
  I come before my colleagues tonight to tell them that this agency 
cannot and will not succeed unless the Congress does its job. Mr. 
Speaker, I just mentioned that Congress completed their legislative 
work in the House and the other body is about to complete it, so what 
in fact am I talking about?
  Mr. Speaker, as it currently stands, this new agency, with its new 
cabinet member director, will oversee 170,000 employees with a budget 
of nearly $40 billion. But here is the dilemma, Mr. Speaker: this 
agency will have to report to 88 separate committees and subcommittees 
of the House and the Senate. When we add in the intelligence committees 
and the other select committees, this new agency will have to answer to 
90 separate committees and subcommittees of this body and the other 
body.
  Mr. Speaker, this agency is doomed to failure unless this Congress 
does something that the leadership does not want to talk about. The 
reason I raise this tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to begin a process that I 
will continue for the rest of this year to call for the creation of one 
single authorization committee in the House, one single authorization 
committee in the Senate, one single Committee on Appropriations in the 
House, and one single Committee on Appropriations in the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Congress does not rise to the occasion and put 
aside our petty differences, put aside our jurisdictional concerns, and 
realize that this agency cannot succeed having to answer to 90 separate 
committees and subcommittees, then this Congress will not have done its 
job.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this will not be done by legislation because the 
committee structure is a part of the rules of the House, so I am asking 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to communicate with the 
leadership of both parties so that whoever wins control of the Congress 
in November understands that our new rules in January must create 
single, unified authorization and appropriation committees to give the 
proper support to this new agency that we will have just created.
  Now, I realize there are committee chairs and subcommittee chairs 
that do not want to give up jurisdiction. In my case, Mr. Speaker, I am 
the chairman of one of the largest subcommittees on the Armed Forces in 
the House, the Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
  My subcommittee, with its membership from both sides of the aisle, 
oversees approximately $100 billion a year of our defense budget. But, 
Mr. Speaker, I understand the need for us to have a quantified 
oversight function if the homeland security agency is going to succeed. 
I am willing to give up the jurisdiction that my subcommittee has and 
am willing to support giving up the jurisdiction of the full Committee 
on Armed Services to a new committee structure that will have the 
ability to coordinate the work of this new committee.
  Now, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we all know there are committee 
chairs, ranking members, subcommittee chairs and ranking members in 
both bodies that are not going to be willing to give up their committee 
jurisdiction.

                              {time}  1830

  And if they prevail, I contend this agency will not be able to be 
successful. We cannot expect a new agency of this complexity with the 
challenges of information dominance, information assessment, 
transportation security, homeland response, first responders, research 
and testing for weapons of mass destruction and all the other 
activities that this agency will oversee, we cannot expect this agency 
to be successful if the Secretary of this agency, if the leaders of 
this agency have to come up to the Hill for the individual hearings and 
briefings that will be required by 90 committees and subcommittees of 
this body and the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot overemphasize enough on this day 1 year after 
the attack on our country, the need for us to follow in the second 
phase of the battle for homeland security. As someone who has been 
involved on the Committee on Armed Services for 16 years, as someone 
who has been involved in homeland security ensuring the Congressional 
Fire and EMS Caucus and having founded it, the largest caucus in the 
Congress with 340 House and Senate members, with someone who has worked 
the issues of intelligence and data fusion and issues involving weapons 
of mass destruction, I am absolutely convinced, Mr. Speaker, the only 
way this new agency can succeed is if we rise above petty politics and 
if we rise above the parochial concerns each of us have with our own 
committees and subcommittees to give this new agency a chance to 
succeed.
  The first few months of the existence of this agency, in fact, the 
first few years of the existence of this agency, are going to require 
organization, are going to require new structures, new budgets, new 
techniques, reaching out to deal with new challenges. The last thing 
this agency needs is to have 90 committees of this Congress calling 
them up to the Hill, getting them to come in and brief them on various 
aspects of what they are doing.
  By setting up two new committees in the House, one authorization and 
one appropriations, two new committees in the Senate, one authorization 
and one appropriations, we will give our colleagues, and our steering 
committees will determine who those members are, we will give our 
colleagues the kind of jurisdictional control that will allow this new 
agency to succeed.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to challenge our colleagues, to do 
something that I know is not inherently and logically what Members 
would want to do. And that is to take the jurisdiction away from 
existing committees, both appropriations and authorization, and 
consolidate all of those efforts into the new committee structures that 
would oversee a coordinated agency.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be sending a dear colleague letter to all of my 
colleagues. I have talked to our colleague, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) who will be working the other side of the aisle. I 
invite other Members of this body who feel as I do to join with us in 
calling on the leadership in both parties to begin the process to 
prepare for the makeup of the rules of the 108th Congress, for those 
that return, to make sure that in the new committee structures of this 
House and the Senate, the other body, is that this new committee 
structure be put into place.
  If we take these steps now, if we lay the groundwork, then I am 
convinced this new agency has an absolutely outstanding opportunity to 
succeed. I would also encourage, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues and their 
constituents from around the country to weigh in with their 
representatives and let them know that the homeland security battle is 
only 40 percent complete when we established the new homeland security 
agency. The other 60 percent of that battle is in a consolidated 
committee structure that gives the jurisdictional control to a group of 
our colleagues in both bodies to coordinate, to have aggressive 
communication and to help provide the proper oversight of this new 
agency that we will, in fact, create by the end of this month.
  Mr. Speaker, the second follow-on to homeland security involves the 
President's decision to move forward in an

[[Page H6224]]

aggressive way against the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam 
Hussein has acquired in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been here 16 years. The toughest votes I have had 
to make are those votes we have taken that commit our sons and 
daughters, our brothers and sisters, our uncles and aunts to go into 
harm's way on behalf of this Nation. Because every time we do that we 
have casualties, we have injuries and we have loss of life. And all of 
our colleagues, as you know, Mr. Speaker, take this responsibility 
extremely seriously because they understand these are America's sons 
and daughters that we place in harm's way.
  I am also concerned because in the last 10 years we have used our 
troops at a level that we have not seen in the past 100 years. From 
1991 to 2000 our troops were deployed to 39 major involvements around 
the world from Haiti and Bosnia, from Kosovo and Macedonia, from 
Somalia and East Timor to Colombia and to numerous other destinations 
at home and abroad. Our troops are stretched. Our troops have been 
overworked, but this President has told us and will tell the world 
tomorrow at the U.N. that America has to continue this war against 
terrorism, and that includes dealing with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and 
the terrible capabilities that he, in fact, has acquired.

  Now, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the President's request and call, I 
have questions and I have asked the administration and I am hopefully 
going to get all of the answers. Those questions are simple and they 
are: The absolute factual information about what technology Saddam 
Hussein has today in the area of weapons of mass destruction and how 
soon he will require more aggressive technology.
  The second is what ties are there between Saddam Hussein's actions 
and his leadership and the al Qaeda, bin Laden network.
  The third question relates to what kind of military action might we 
see. A surgical strike taking out Saddam and his upper guard or an all-
out war as we saw in 1991 requiring massive commitments of our troops.
  The fourth question involves the support of our allies. Not the 
public rhetoric that we hear, but the behind-the-scenes commitments, 
the behind-the-scenes private conversations between our President and 
our State Department and those nations that when we commit will have to 
support us.
  The last question is what will be our exit strategy? What will happen 
when Saddam Hussein leaves? And I have no doubt that when we undertake 
such a mission we will be successful. But the key question for us to 
answer is who will follow Saddam Hussein? What organizational structure 
will be put into place? What role will the U.N. play, and what will be 
the response of our allies and the neighbors to Iraq?
  The President is answering those five questions as we assemble today. 
In fact, yesterday before the Committee on Armed Services we had 
classified briefings with arms control inspectors from the U.N. who 
came before us and in private gave us a very candid assessment along 
with our intelligence community as to what capabilities Saddam Hussein 
has.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that every Member of this body and the 
other body ask the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI and 
our other intelligence apparatus to come in and brief the member 
privately and confidentially on what we know about Saddam Hussein's 
capabilities.
  Now, we know he has chemical weapons capabilities because he has used 
chemical weapons against his own citizens, the Kurds, in the past. We 
know he has been working on biological weapons capabilities and, in 
fact, we now know and this has been verified publicly, that he has this 
capability as well. In fact, he has strains of anthrax, small pox, 
botulism and other illness or other diseases of that type and organisms 
that can promote those types of diseases easy.
  We know that Saddam has been working on nuclear capability, but it is 
not yet unclassified as to whether or not bin Laden has the capability 
to deliver a nuclear weapon. We are certainly aware he has missile 
technology because it was Saddam in 1991 who fired that low complexity 
scud missile into our barracks in Saudi Arabia that sent 28 young 
Americans home in body bags, half of them from my State, because we 
could not defend against that missile.
  Mr. Speaker, the leadership in the White House is now offering 
Members of Congress the answers to the questions that I have posed. 
But, Mr. Speaker, we must not be satisfied until we have taken every 
step possible to use every means possible to avert war.

  Several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle approached me 
this past week, colleagues who had traveled with me to Vienna when the 
war in Yugoslavia started several years ago. They came to me because at 
that time we were, with the support of our State Department, took a 
bipartisan delegation with 11 members of this body to Vienna to meet 
for two days with the leadership of the political factions in Russia. 
We were joined by a representative of Milosovic.
  For two days we met with the State Department representative in the 
room with us. At the end of those two days, we hammered out the frame 
work which would 2 weeks later become the basis of the G-8 agreement 
which would end the war in Yugoslavia with Russian involvement.
  So my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who went with us on 
that trip, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) who chairs the 
Progressive Caucus and others approached me and said, Perhaps we can do 
something similar again. I said, What are you talking about? He said, 
Perhaps we should join with our Russian friends and see what influence 
they can provide with us to convince Hussein that his time is up, that 
he can no longer run aware from the requirements that were placed upon 
him by the nations of the world in six U.N. resolutions that were 
passed in 1991. Those U.N. resolutions were not adopted in this body, 
by America alone. Those U.N. resolutions were hammered out by the 
nations of the worlds with the support of the U.N. Security Council 
which means that Russian and China and the other nations in the 
Security Council were in agreement with those resolutions.
  Those resolutions at that time call for Hussein to abide by certain 
conditions after the U.S. removed his military from the independent 
nation of Kuwait. One of the primary requirements of those resolutions 
was that Iraq had to open up its doors for independent U.N. inspectors 
to verify whether or not weapons of mass destruction were in fact being 
produced.
  Initially there was some limited success. But as we heard yesterday 
in a public hearing with two of our leading arms control inspectors 
from the U.N., the cooperation by Iraq quickly ended. In their 
estimation there is no doubt in their minds that Saddam Hussein today 
has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapon technology. 
And within a few short months if he is able to acquire the fissile 
material he needs, the weapons grade material he needs, he could have a 
nuclear bomb at his disposal.
  Now, contrary to what another inspector has said who traveled to 
Iraq, these inspectors were emphatic. They provided evidence. And they 
have provided their firsthand experiences.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to take action. Now, I am convinced that we have 
to at this time go to our friends in Russia who have reached out so 
aggressively to us and we have to ask and in fact in a polite way 
demand that they come with us as partners as they did with us back 
during the Yugoslavian or Kosovo war. We responded when the Russians 
came to us and asked me in particular as the co-chairman of the Duma 
Congress group with the Russian Duma and Federation Council to join 
them in finding a way to end that war and we did. And now I have 
challenged them after a response from our colleagues on the other side 
to work with us to make a case in Moscow and to President Putin that 
Saddam Hussein must comply with the orders of the world community or he 
will be dealt with by the U.S. led coalition.
  Now, I have been in communication for the past several days with the 
leadership of the Russian Duma. I have told them that we would like to 
bring a delegation to Moscow as soon as they will agree to the terms 
that we have established. The bipartisan delegation that we will take 
to Moscow on a military aircraft would have discussions with the 
Russians about a joint statement, a joint statement of Russian and 
American legislatures demanding that Saddam Hussein do what is right in 
terms

[[Page H6225]]

of the leadership of the world's communities established in 1991 
through the U.N. resolutions.

                              {time}  1845

  In fact, it is my hope that when we arrive in Moscow at the 
invitation of our Duma friends we would also have a chance to meet face 
to face with President Putin, as I have done in the past, to deliver 
our feelings directly to him.
  Why this focus on Russia? It is rather simple. Russia has become a 
new ally of ours. As our colleagues in this body know, I focus on 
Russia. It is of primary interest to me. I have traveled to that 
country 29 times, and I have a great many friends throughout Russian 
society, both elected and nonelected.
  Russia has reached out to America, unlike many other countries in the 
world. It was President Putin who was the first foreign leader on 
September 11, 1 year ago, who telephoned President Bush and offered the 
support of the Russian people. It was President Putin and the Russian 
Government that opened the doors of their intelligence agency to share 
what intelligence they had on al Qaeda. It was President Putin and the 
Russian military that opened former Soviet military bases in 
Uzbekistan, which I took a delegation to visit in May, where our troops 
are today stationed, fighting the war against terrorism.
  Russia has made a fundamental decision to join with America and the 
West in the 21st century, but Russia also maintains significant ties to 
Iraq. Iraq has relied on Russia in the past for technology, for the 
sale of legitimate military technology that can be sold in the 
marketplace. Russia also has just signed a $40 billion long-term energy 
deal with the Iraqi oil industry. Mr. Speaker, it does not take a 
rocket scientist to figure out Russia has ties with Iraq that are deep, 
that are both political and economic.
  We have new ties with Russia. We have become Russia's friend, and we 
spend approximately $1 billion a year of the U.S. taxpayer dollars on 
programs to stabilize Russia, the cooperative threat reduction program, 
programs through the Department of Commerce, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Department of State, environmental programs, 
education programs, initiatives involving all aspects of Russian 
society.
  In fact, it was this Congress that 2 years ago created a brand-new 
program called Open World, funded through the Librarian of Congress, 
Jim Billington and his office. Each year we bring over thousands of 
Russian leaders to spend up to 10 days in our local towns and cities 
understanding the strength of the American system.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here in this next phase of the 
war on terrorism. That opportunity I think requires us to call in our 
chips with Russia.
  I am prepared, Mr. Speaker, to take time off from this body with our 
colleagues to go to Moscow to meet with our Russian colleagues from all 
factions, the Communist, Udinstyo, Yabloko, even Zhrionovsky's faction, 
to come together on a common agenda as civilized human beings as new 
partners and friends to tell President Putin that we need him to make 
the personal case to Saddam that the world will not tolerate the kind 
of buildup of weapons of mass destruction technology that he has built 
up over the past 10 years.
  If Saddam refuses our request for unconditional visits, unconditional 
visits, not where Saddam can know 24 hours in advance where our 
inspectors are going, not where Saddam can predetermine what sites we 
are going to visit, unconditional visits, not by the U.S. but by U.N. 
and world-sanctioned inspectors, hundreds of inspectors, then Saddam 
has to understand that America will take the action required and 
requested by our President.
  I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker, that Saddam will accept such a 
request; but as a Member of Congress responsible for the lives of my 
constituents who wear the uniform, I will not be happy unless I use 
every possible opportunity that I have to try to find a way to avoid 
the ultimate conflict. I think joining together, Democrats and 
Republicans, liberals and conservatives, joining with members of the 
Udinstyo, Yabloko, Union of Right Forces and all the other factions in 
the Russian political sphere, that we can find a common agenda that 
follows on and expands the U.N. resolutions passed in 1991.
  What a dramatic statement it will be if Russian leaders and American 
leaders, George Bush supported by President Putin joined together, and 
tell Saddam Hussein the game's up, you have been doing for 10 years 
what you agreed not to do in 1992, not because the U.S. demanded it, 
but because the U.N. passed resolutions demanding that you adhere to 
the requirements of the civilized nations of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that in following through on this request 
we would give the President the kind of support that he needs during 
this difficult time. All of us will be listening intently tomorrow as 
the President makes a key address before the United Nations, as he lays 
out factually the evidence that we have as to Saddam's efforts and the 
potential use of that technology against our Nation, our people, our 
friends and other nations with weapons of mass destruction.
  This is a key and fundamental part of the war against terrorism. If 
we allow Saddam Hussein and Iraq to go unchecked, it is only a matter 
of time before we will face the threat that would be caused by the 
weapons that he has produced.
  Mr. Speaker, in our hearing yesterday, we questioned the inspectors 
from the U.N. about the possible effects on American and other lives if 
smallpox were used as a weapon of mass destruction. At our hearing 
yesterday, in a public format, they admitted that Saddam Hussein today 
has smallpox capability. The question asked by our colleagues on the 
committee was, What would be the potential impact on America if 
smallpox were used here or at one of our installations? They really 
could not give a solid answer.
  When it came time for my questioning, I made reference to a war game, 
a simulation that our military funded in May of 2001 at Andrews Air 
Force Base. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, war games are held to 
simulate the worst possible conditions that could face our country. 
This war game was conducted by the Army and by CSIS, the Centers for 
Strategic and International Studies, headed by Dr. John Hammer, former 
deputy Secretary of Defense.
  What was the war game? The war game was called Dark Winter. What was 
the simulation? The simulation was a deliberate outbreak of smallpox in 
three cities in just three States of America. It was a very credible 
exercise. Former Senator Sam Nunn played the role of the President. 
Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey played the role of the CIA director and 
former top officials from both administrations of both parties played 
the role of our leadership.
  What was the outcome? A single case of anthrax was given and put 
forward quietly in Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Arkansas, one case in 
each State. Within 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker, 2 million Americans were 
afflicted with smallpox, 2 million Americans. As my colleagues know, we 
have no smallpox vaccine. It is one of the reasons why the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, asked for the money we gave 
him to purchase 350 million vaccines.
  The point is, Mr. Speaker, as bad as the World Trade incident was a 
year ago, as bad as the attack on the Pentagon was a year ago, as bad 
as the plane going down in Pennsylvania was a year ago, the next 
incident could be much worse. Saddam Hussein has continued to build 
these terrible weapons of mass destruction that both the U.S. and 
Russia are now destroying.
  We must come together as an institution and find ways to support the 
next phase of our battle for homeland security. That means we have to 
pass in the next rules for the next session of Congress a unified 
oversight structure for authorization and appropriation of dollars in 
the House and the Senate for this new agency, and it means that we must 
hold accountable our new Russian friends to help put maximum pressure 
on Hussein; and if that fails, then we must be prepared to support our 
President in his effort to rid the world of the kind of sources of 
terrorism that can destroy mankind.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair and the staff for staying.




                          ____________________