Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Biden's motion which he will, I understand, make in a few minutes--I do not think it has yet been made--to recommit the conference report because it fails to address a very significant gap in the law which we corrected when we passed the Senate bill regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction in criminal terrorist activities.

The Armed Forces have special capabilities, and they are the only people that have special capabilities to counter nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. They are trained and equipped to detect, suppress, and contain these dangerous materials in hostile situations. The police authorities of our country and the fire departments of our country do not have the capability to deal with chemical and biological attacks or the threat of those attacks. They do not have the equipment. They do not have the protective gear.

We have had four hearings in the last 6 weeks in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, of which I am the ranking member and Senator Roth is the chairman. Let us be very clear. With the testimony from law enforcement officials, from fire officials, from city officials, State officials, and from our own people in the Federal Government, that, if there were a chemical or biological attack in this country, we would have as the first victims those who came to the rescue. It would be those personnel coming to the rescue of those innocent victims who are caught in that situation that would also become victims themselves because they are not equipped to detect. They are not equipped to really deal with and they certainly are not equipped to withstand the lethal capability of chemical and biological weapons. Over a period of time they may be able to.

One of the things I am going to be talking about in the weeks ahead is a package of legislation which I hope Senator Lugar and I will be sponsoring. One of the things we are going to need to do is to give, I think, our military both the capability with funding and also the authority and responsibility to help begin training our police and law enforcement officials around the country. It is going to take a long time.

We are in a different era now, Mr. President. One of the things that many people do not recognize after the attack in Tokyo where the avowed goal of the group that had really prepared very extensive capabilities for chemical warfare on their own people is that if they had the kind of delivery system that a few weeks later they might have had, instead of 15 or 20 people being killed and several hundred being injured, there literally would have been tens of thousands of deaths right there in Tokyo. We are in that era now.

A lot of people do not also understand that in the World Trade Center bombing there was really very strong evidence that a chemical component was in the explosive material. There was an attempted effort at chemical attack there also, but the chemical element was consumed by the huge fire and explosion. So we have had that attempt also in this country.

My point is that it is a very dangerous omission in not giving the kind of clear authority in this conference report that we had in the Senate bill.

At the present time the statutory authority to use the Armed Forces in situations involving the criminal use of weapons of mass destruction extends only to nuclear material. Section 831 of title 18, United States Code, permits the Armed Forces to assist in dealing with crimes involving nuclear materials when the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense jointly determine that there is an emergency situation requiring military assistance. There is no similar authority to use a special expertise in the Armed Forces in circumstances involving the use of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

In the wake of the devastating bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City and also the World Trade Center, with the tragic loss of life in Oklahoma and the disruption of governmental facilities, I think it is appropriate and absolutely necessary to reexamine Federal counterterrorism capabilities, including the role of the Armed Forces.

For more than 100 years, military participation in civilian law enforcement activities has been governed by the Posse Comitatus Act. The act precludes military participation in the execution of laws except as expressly authorized by Congress. That landmark legislation was the result of congressional concern about increasing use of the military for law enforcement purposes in post-Civil War era, particularly in terms of enforcing the reconstruction laws in the South and suppressing labor activities in the North.

There are about a dozen express statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which permit military participation in arrests, searches, and seizures. Some of the exceptions, such as the permissible use of the Armed Forces to protect the discoverer of Guano Islands, reflect historical anachronisms. Others, such as the authority to suppress domestic disorders when civilian officials cannot do so, have continuing relevance--as shown most recently in the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

It is important to remember that the act does not bar all military assistance to civilian law enforcement officials, even in the absence of a statutory exception. The act has long been interpreted as not restricting use of the Armed Forces to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property in the event of sudden and unexpected circumstances. In addition, the act has been interpreted to apply only to direct participation in civilian law enforcement activities--that is, arrest, search, and seizure. Indirect activities, such as the loan of equipment, have been viewed as not within the prohibition against using the Armed Forces to execute the law.

Over the years, the administrative and judicial interpretation of the act, however, created a number of gray areas, including issues involving the provision of expert advice during investigations and the use of military equipment and facilities during ongoing law enforcement operations.

During the late 1970's and early 1980's, I became concerned that the lack of clarity was inhibiting useful indirect assistance, particularly in counterdrug operations. I initiated legislation, which was enacted in 1981 as chapter 18 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the rules governing military support to civilian law enforcement agencies.

Chapter 18, as enacted and subsequently amended, generally retains the prohibitions on arrest, search, and seizure, but clarifies various forms of assistance involving loan and operation of equipment, provision of advice, and aerial surveillance. Chapter 18 does not authorize military confrontations with civilians in terms of arrests, searches, and seizures. Chapter 18 also ensures that DOD receives reimbursement for military assistance that does not serve to provide a training benefit that is substantially equivalent to that which would otherwise be provided by military training or operations.

The administration requested legislation that would permit direct military participation in specific law enforcement activities relating to chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction similar to the exception that already exists under current law that permits the direct military participation in the enforcement of the laws concerning the improper use of nuclear materials.

Mr. President, the nuclear kind of incident is entirely possible. We have to be prepared for it. We are much better prepared to deal with nuclear than we are with chemical or biological. We have the capability in the Department of Energy with a team that has been training and working on this for years, and they are much better prepared. We do not have a similar capability for chemical or biological.

So by the omission of this specific authority in this bill, we are taking the most likely avenue of attack for terrorism in this country with mass-destruction weapons--and that is chemical or biological--and we are not putting that in the same category as nuclear, which is possible, and we must be prepared for it. But a nuclear attack is not as likely to happen as a chemical or biological attack.

Last June, the Senate included such legislation in the counterterrorism bill with safeguards to ensure that it would only be used in cases of emergency and under certain specific, carefully drawn limitations. In my judgment, the question of whether we should create a further exception for chemical and biological weapons should be addressed in light of the two enduring themes reflected in the history and practice and experience of the Posse Comitatus Act and related statutes:

First, the strong and traditional reluctance of the American people to permit any military intrusion into civilian affairs.

Second, the concept of any exception the Posse Comitatus Act should be narrowly drawn to meet the specific needs that cannot be addressed by civilian law enforcement authority. The record is abundantly clear that we are talking about exactly that. These are cases where local law enforcement and State law enforcement simply could not handle the job.

These issues were examined at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee on May 10, led by the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch, and the ranking minority member, Senator Biden. At the hearing, five major themes emerged:

First, we should be very cautious about establishing exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which reflects enduring principles concerning historic separation between civilian and military functions in our democratic society.

Second, exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act should not be created for the purpose of using the Armed Forces to routinely supplement civilian law enforcement capabilities with respect to ongoing, continuous law enforcement problems.

Third, exceptions may be appropriate when law enforcement officials do not possess the special capabilities of the Armed Forces in specific circumstances, such as the capability to counter chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction in a hostile situation.

Fourth, any statute which authorizes military assistance should be narrowly drawn to address with specific criteria to ensure that the authority will be used only when senior officials, such as the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, determine that there is an emergency situation which can be effectively addressed only with the assistance of military forces.

Fifth, any statute which authorizes military assistance should not place artificial constraints on the actions military officials may take that might compromise their safety or the success of the operation.

The Senate provision was drafted to reflect the traditional purposes of the Posse Comitatus Act and the limited nature of the exceptions to that act. The motion to recommit that we will be voting on in a few minutes would require the conferees to reinstate that provision with a minor technical clarification that has come to our attention since the Senate bill was passed.

Under the motion to recommit, the Attorney General would be authorized to request the assistance of the Department of Defense to enforce the prohibitions concerning biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction in an emergency situation.

The Secretary of Defense could provide assistance upon a joint determination by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General that there is an emergency situation, and a further determination by the Secretary of Defense that the provisions of such assistance would not adversely affect military preparedness. Military assistance could be provided under the motion to recommit only if the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense jointly determined that each of the following five conditions is present. This is very narrowly drawn.

First, the situation involves a biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction.

Second, the situation poses a serious threat to the interests of the United States.

Third, that civilian law enforcement expertise is not readily available to counter the threat posed by the biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction involved.

Fourth, that the Department of Defense special capabilities and expertise are needed to counter the threat posed by the biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction involved.

Fifth, that the enforcement of the law would be seriously impaired if Department of Defense assistance were not provided.

I have a very hard time understanding why the House of Representatives would not accept this provision. Maybe there is a reason, but I certainly have not heard that reason. Nothing that I have heard indicates why our military could not be used, when we have a biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction involved in the situation, a serious threat is posed to the interests of the United States, civilian law enforcement expertise is not available to counter the threat, Department of Defense capabilities are needed to counter the threat, and law enforcement would be seriously impaired if DOD assistance is not provided.

I think the American people would expect us to be involved in that with the military, to protect the lives of American citizens.

The types of assistance that could be provided during an emergency situation would involve operation of equipment to monitor, to detect, to contain, to disable or dispose of a biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction or elements of such a weapon. The authority would include the authority to search for and seize the weapons or elements of the weapons.

We may get into a situation where it is not entirely clear whether there is a chemical or biological weapon but someone has threatened that that kind of weapon is contained in a basement somewhere in a city.

If the President of the United States does not have this statutory authority, he is going to be very reluctant to put the military into downtown New York to look for chemical or biological weapons. It would be extremely dangerous for law enforcement to undertake that task, but the President will be on the very conservative side and very reluctant to take that step unless he has absolute belief that there is such a weapon and a disaster is impending.

Unfortunately we are not going to have that kind of clarity, in my view, in the future. So it is important for Congress to speak to this issue.

If the Biden amendment is agreed to and it goes back to conference, and this becomes law, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense would issue joint regulations defining the type of assistance that could be provided. The regulations would also describe the actions that the Department of Defense personnel may take in circumstances incidental to the provision of assistance under this section, including the collection of evidence. This would not include the power of arrest or search or seizure, except for the immediate protection of life or as otherwise authorized by this provision or other applicable law.

This provision is set forth in the motion to recommit. If it is agreed to, and I hope it is, it would make it clear that nothing in this provision would be construed to limit the existing authority of the executive branch to use the Armed Forces in addressing the dangers posed by chemical and biological weapons and materials.

The motion to recommit would address two important concerns. First, as a general principle, the types of assistance provided by the Department of Defense should consist primarily in operating equipment designed to deal with the chemical and biological agents involved, and that the primary responsibility for arrest would remain with the civilian officials. As a law enforcement situation unfolds, however, military personnel must be able to deal with circumstances in which they may confront hostile opposition. In such circumstances their safety and the safety of others and the law enforcement mission cannot be compromised by putting our military in that dangerous situation and then precluding them from exercising the power of arrest or the use of force.

Mr. President, some people wanted to pass a statute saying the military could do everything but they could never make an arrest. I think they ought to defer to civilians in almost all circumstances. But we do not want to have our military team out there in chemical gear, looking for chemical weapons, some of which may already be escaping, no policemen being able to go in because they do not have the equipment, no fire authority able to go in, run right into the people perpetrating the act and not be able to do anything about it. So we have to give them that kind of limited authority in unusual, and hopefully circumstances which, God forbid--I hope they will never occur. But I must say the likelihood of something like this occurring in the next 5 to 10 years in America is, in my view, very high.

The motion to recommit would require the Department of Defense to be reimbursed for assistance provided under this section in accordance with section 377 of title 10, the general statute governing reimbursement of the Department of Defense for law enforcement assistance. This means that if DOD does not get a training or operational benefit substantially equivalent to DOD training, then DOD must be reimbursed.

Under the motion to recommit, the functions of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense may be exercised, respectively, by the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, each of whom serves as the alter ego to the head of the Department concerned. These functions could be delegated to another official only if that official has been designated to exercise the general powers of the head of the agency. This would include, for example, an Under Secretary of Defense who has been designated to act for the Secretary in the absence of the Secretary and the Deputy.

The limitations set forth in the motion to recommit would address the appropriate allocation of resources and functions within the Federal Government; and are not designed to provide the basis for excluding evidence or challenging an indictment.

The motion to recommit, which reflects the Senate-passed provision, is prudent and narrowly drafted. It was strongly supported in the Senate by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond. It was unanimously adopted by the Senate. The administration, both the Department of Defense and Department of Justice, have testified that current law is inadequate and they need authority to deal with chemical and biological terrorism similar to the authority they now have for nuclear terrorism. It is irresponsible to leave our law enforcement officials and military personnel without clear authority to deal with these dangers.

I know the argument is made that we already have the insurrection statute on the books, which possibly could cover this situation. I would like to just share with my colleagues, before I close, a reading of that statute so they will understand why we need to have clarification.

So this immediate-threat-to-life inherent authority, though possibly available in desperate situations, is simply not the way to proceed. It would be a classic lawyers' debate. What we are doing now, if we leave the law as it is, as this bill before us will do unless it is amended, unless it is sent back to conference and amended, we are basically saying we are going to have one big furious debate among lawyers as to what authority would be used in what could be a matter of urgency, extreme urgency where every minute and every hour counted for the military to get into the business where we have a true emergency and American life is threatened.

So the present law is inadequate. The constitutional inherent authority of the President is inadequate in this situation, and the insurrection law would be, I think, resisted fiercely by any President where you would have to basically make an almost preposterous-type plea for the people who are perpetrating this act of terrorism to disperse and retire peacefully to their abodes within a limited time.

I would like to hear someone explain why this is not part of this conference report. I know that the Senate supported it. My colleague, Senator Hatch, I am sure, urged its adoption in the House of Representatives. I do not understand why this has been taken out of this bill.

Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Biden amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.

[Page: S3373]

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from Washington would like to make some remarks, but let me just make a few comments about the remarks of my distinguished friend from Georgia.

I do not entirely disagree with Senator Nunn, the distinguished Senator from Georgia. At the outset, I want to call my colleagues' attention to the fact that the Congress has already acted in this area this year. Section 378 of the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 1996, which is already law, specifically states the military can provide training facilities, sensors, protective clothing and antidotes to Federal, State, and local law enforcement in chemical and biological emergencies.

From this country's earliest days, the American people have sought to limit military involvement in civilian affairs. In the wake of the terrible tragedy in Oklahoma, with the heightened sensitivity to the threat of terrorism this country faces, some feel like giving the military a more prominent role in combating terrorism both here and abroad. This is not a policy we should rush into.

I must add, I support the provision, which is known as the Nunn-Thurmond provision, in the Senate bill. Americans have always been suspicious of using the military in domestic law enforcement, and rightly so. Civilian control of the military and separation of the military from domestic law enforcement feature prominently in the early history of this country, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence listed among our grievances against the King of England that he had `kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature,' and had `affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.'

It was abuse of military authority in domestic affairs, especially in the South after the Civil War, that motivated Congress to impose the first so-called posse comitatus statute. The term `posse comitatus' means power of the country and has as its origin the power of the sheriff through common law to call upon people to help him execute the law.

The statute, in 18 U.S.C. 1385, prevents the Federal Government from using the Army or Air Force to execute the law, except where Congress expressly creates an exception. Domestic law enforcement thus remains as is, in the hands of local communities.

Currently, as I understand it, Congress has created only limited exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The President can call out the military if terrorists threaten the use of nuclear weapons or if the rights of any group of people are denied and the State in which they reside is unable or unwilling to secure their lawful rights.

The military is also authorized to share intelligence information with Federal law enforcement in attempts to combat drug trafficking. These are limited exceptions to the act, however, and do not generally empower the military to be actively involved in the enforcement of domestic laws. We have done well with a separation between military authority and domestic law enforcement. Although this proposal seems sensible and appears simply to expand upon the military's preexisting authority, to become involved if the use of nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons is threatened, it may, in fact, be unnecessary.

The premise underlying this amendment is that there does not exist among civilian law enforcement the expertise to deal effectively with chemical or biological agents. However, I believe that such expertise is available outside of the military. Particularly in the area of chemical agents, civil authorities and even the private sector have considerable experience in containing these substances.

Moreover, the military can already assist civil authorities in all aspects of responding to the type of crisis contemplated by this amendment but one: The actual use of military personnel to disable or contain the device. The military can lend equipment, it can provide instructions and technical advice on how to disable or contain a chemical or biological agent, and it can train civil authorities, if necessary.

The one thing that this amendment adds to the military's ability to assist civil law enforcement is the permission to put military personnel on the scene and inject them directly into civilian law enforcement. This is, in my view, the one thing we should not do.

This amendment would raise troubling implications going to the heart of the Posse Comitatus Act. It recognizes, as it must, that whenever law enforcement personnel are engaged in an evolving criminal event, there are unpredictable and exigent circumstances. The personnel on the scene must be able to take the necessary steps, including making arrests, conducting searches and seizures and sometimes using force to protect lives and property. Yet, the posse comitatus statute was enacted precisely to ensure that the military would not engage in such civilian law enforcement functions.

Let me just say this. I agreed to the language that the distinguished Senator would like to put back in this bill in the Senate bill. I would not be unhappy if that language was in this bill. Unfortunately, the reason it is not is because we have people in the other body who basically are concerned about some of these issues that I have just raised. Rightly or wrongly, they are concerned, and we were unable in our deliberations, as much as we got this bill put together, as much as we have made it a very strong bill, we were unable to get that provision in.

Let us just be brutally frank about this. If there is a motion to recommit on this issue, or any other issue, and that motion is approved by the Senate, then the antiterrorism bill is dead. If we do not, there will be a chance to put it through.

Frankly, we have a very good bill here. It may not have every detail in it that I would like to have. It does not have every detail in it that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would like to have or our distinguished colleagues Senators Biden or Nunn would like to have. I might add, it does not have all the provisions in it that Congressmen Barr and McCollum and Buyer and Schiff and others would like to have.

Nobody is totally going to get everything they want in this bill. But what it does have is a lot of good law enforcement provisions that will make a real difference, in fact, right now against terrorism in our country and internationally. We simply cannot shoot the bill down because we cannot get a provision in at this particular time that we particularly want.

We all understand this process. We all understand that we cannot always get everything in these bills that we want to. But I will make a commitment to my friend and colleague from Georgia, as I have on other matters. I do not disagree with him in the sense that this is something that perhaps we should do. I will make a commitment to do everything in my power to make sure we look at it in every way, and if we do not do it here--and I suggest we should not do it here on this bill under these circumstances--then I will try later in a bill that we can formulate that will resolve some of these conflicts that both the distinguished Senator from Delaware and I and the distinguished Senator from Georgia and I would like to see in this bill--and others, I might add.

So there is no desire to keep anybody's provision out of the bill. There is no desire to not solve this problem. The problem is we cannot do it on this bill and pass an antiterrorism bill this year. I think one reason the President called me last Sunday, I am sure, is because he has been asking us to get him a terrorism bill. This is it. This is the week to do it. I think we have done a really extraordinary job of bringing this bill back from what it was when the House passed its bill.

I give credit to the House Members. There have been a lot of wonderful people over there who have worked hard on this. I have mentioned some of them in my remarks here today. But certainly the distinguished chairman over there, Chuck Schumer, and others, and Bob Barr and others, have worked very hard on this bill.

None of us have everything we want in this bill. And none of us want to see it go down to defeat because of any one provision that we can solve later as we continue to study and look at this matter.

Also, one of the problems we have had in trying to bring together people on this very important piece of legislation is that there have been some perceptions over in the House as a result of some of the mistakes that law enforcement has made that perhaps we might be going too far if we follow completely the Senate bill as it came out of the Senate Chamber.

I think those perceptions are wrong, but the fact is they are there. I think we have to work on them and educate and make sure that we, by doing future bills, will resolve these problems, solve them in the minds of not only Members of the House of Representatives who have complaints against some of this information, but also in the minds of others who would like their own provisions in the bill.

I have to say there are some--and I do not include the distinguished Senator from Georgia among them--but there are some who are just plain and simply trying to stop this bill. They hate the habeas corpus provisions of this bill. I know the distinguished Senator from Georgia does not, that he is with me on those issues, but they do. And they will use any strategy to try to stop this bill because they do not want to have death penalty reform. This bill is going to bring that to all of us. It is worth it.

If that is all we had in this bill, it is the one provision that every victim who appeared here yesterday and in the past has said they want more than anything else. There is a very good reason to pass this bill for that reason alone. But there are so many other good provisions in the bill that we ought to pass it. We ought to pass it, even though one or more provisions that we think might make the bill better cannot be put into it at this time.

We have really worked our guts out to come out with a bill that I think can be supported in a bipartisan manner. We have really worked hard on that. I do not care who gets the credit for this bill. I can say we have worked very, very hard to have a bill that all of us can be proud of. And I think we do have one. Does it have everything in it? No. But it has so much in it that we really have to go ahead and get it done.

If this motion or any subsequent motions to recommit are passed, this bill will be dead. I think that would be one of the most tragic things that this body could do this week, just a few days before the anniversary date of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Yesterday, we had people from Pan Am 103 here as well. We had others. Frankly, they all asked us to get this bill through. I am doing everything I can to get it through. So I hope people will vote against this motion even though I myself have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Georgia, a great deal of empathy for his position, and I would, even if I did not understand it, I would want to support him as I often have done through the years here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

I think basically that says it. I hope people will vote against any motion to recommit because it would be tragic for this bill to go down. I cannot imagine the majority voting it that way. I hope they will not in this particular instance.

I yield the floor.

[Page: S3374]

Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will just make a few brief remarks.

I have tremendous respect for my friend from Utah. He knows that. He and I have been on the same side of the habeas corpus issue for a long time. Now the Governor of Florida, then Senator from Florida, Lawton Chiles, and I came to the floor for 2 or 3 weeks in a row every day back in the 1970's, I believe--time slips by--about the importance of reform in habeas corpus. So I certainly share his view on that.

As much as I think that needs reforming, I do not think that habeas corpus statutes are the problem now. It has been somewhat modified by the courts themselves. I do not think that is as urgent as what we are talking about here, because with the hearings we have had and with the tremendous amount of effort that I have made and Senator Lugar and others have made in this whole problem of the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, I do not know whether anything is going to happen next week, next month, or next year.

I do know that we could have some calamity happen without any notice in this area. I hate to see our Nation so ill-prepared to deal with a threat that is much more likely to happen than some of the threats that we are prepared to deal with.

Mr. President, something has happened to our Republican friends in the House of Representatives. I am not sure what deal was struck over there, but I recall very well being on the floor of the Senate--and my friend from Utah probably recalls this, too--when the House of Representatives passed an amendment--this was a good many years ago during the Reagan administration--that basically gave an order, waived the posse comitatus statute, gave the order, I believe by Congressman Hunter from California, to shut the borders down with our military, basically shut them down, I believe, within 45 days saying the military would be deployed all over the borders of the United States to basically close the borders, not let any drugs come through.

We computed that we would have to bring all our military forces back from Europe, from Korea, from Japan, everywhere else to put them side by side virtually on the border to comply with that. It passed the House, and it was a Republican-sponsored amendment. Of course, after some light was shone over here on the floor of the Senate, we rejected that amendment. It did not happen.

I also have a long history in this posse comitatus area because I thought certain carefully crafted exceptions to the statute needed to be made in the law enforcement and drug area, but carefully constructed so we did not get our military involved in search and seizure and arrest on a routine basis. I found myself debating the then-Senator from California, now Governor of California, where he proposed an amendment that would have had the military be able to make any kind of arrest and search and seizure for drug transactions in the domestic United States.

That was another very, very broad waiver of the posse comitatus statute that I would have opposed. This would have made, on a routine basis, a military response for law enforcement. I opposed that. That was going too far.

Here we have my colleagues on the House side, and for some reason now they have switched all the way over and they are worried about even using the military in a situation where we have a desperate situation with chemical and biological weapons where nobody else can handle it. I do not understand it. I do not understand what has transpired. But something strange has taken place here.

I do think we have to approach this whole posse comitatus area with great care. We do not want our military engaged in law enforcement except as an absolute last resort when there is no other alternative and when the result of failure to be involved would be catastrophic.

I also would ask my friend from Utah--and I know he has tried to sustain the Senate position on this; I know him well enough to know that he has done that, and you cannot do it on every item in conference--but I do not understand how people who supported the exception on the nuclear side to the posse comitatus statute that was made at the Reagan administration's request have a different view now. During the Reagan administration, they said they needed this exception. We had the same Constitution then, the same Supreme Court decisions, the same insurrection statute, but they wanted an exemption in the nuclear area so they could clearly have statutory authority. We supported that. That was not a partisan issue at all. Democrats and Republicans supported it. President Reagan signed it into law.

Now we have the same kind of situation, almost identical, in the chemical and biological area. We have a different President in the White House, who is a Democrat, and we have a whole switch in positions where people say, `Oh, we don't need this. We don't need it. We can't give them this authority,' and so forth.

I do not understand it. I understand partisan positions, but I do not understand completely switching philosophical positions on something of this nature.

I make one other point. The Senator from Utah mentioned the provision we passed recently in the defense authorization bill that allowed the equipment of the military to be used and to be loaned to law enforcement and other domestic officials in situations that are chemical-biological. That is a very useful addition to the present authority. What you have to have there is personnel who are trained to use that equipment. You cannot jump into chemical protective gear and know how to operate it in an emergency situation, if the Defense Department brings it in and hands it to local police. You have to be trained in that.

The military spends hundreds of hours training people in that regard. It will take years and years and years to train our domestic law enforcement and fire officials all over this country in the use of that kind of equipment. Unless they are already trained, that statute will not be available for practical use in an emergency situation. They may try to use it, but it will not do the job because it does not authorize military personnel to operate the equipment.

We simply have a multiple number of cities around this country that could be struck, and we cannot freeze out and prevent our military from being involved in an emergency dire situation as a last resort. We have to have people who are trained and know how to use the equipment, not only protective gear but protective equipment. It cannot be done at the last minute when there is an immediate threat of attack.

Mr. President, I would not be speaking in favor of this motion to recommit on an important bill like this if I did not think that the failure to act in this regard could have a very serious consequence. None of us can predict at what time interval something like this will occur. I hope never.

I must say, the probability of having some kind of chemical or biological attack in the United States in the next several years is, in my view, a rather high probability. We will have to do a lot more than we have done so far to get ready for it. I hope that somehow the House of Representatives will recognize that.

I know the Senator from Utah is absolutely sincere in his willingness to revisit this issue and try to put it on another bill. If this motion does not pass, I will work with him in that regard. I hope that those in the House will reexamine their position. I hope they get some of their staff to go through the records. We have had a considerable number of hearings on this explicit point.

We have had all sorts of expert testimony from the fire chiefs around the country, from law enforcement officials, from Justice Department officials, the FBI, the military. We have had detailed hearings on the attack in Tokyo, what occurred there. Not only are we not prepared law enforcement-wise in this regard, we do not have the emergency medical training required in most of our American cities to deal with the aftermath of this kind of event if it did occur. We would simply be overwhelmed, and people would ask all of us, `Where were you when this threat was being discussed, when you were, basically, responsible for doing something about it? Why did somebody not try to prevent it from happening, or at least prepare us to deal with the terrible medical, tragic consequence of this kind of attack?'

Again, I urge the Biden amendment be adopted.