STATEMENT OF

SENATOR CHARLES E. GRASSLEY

ON THE BIOLOGICIAL WEAPONS ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 1989
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
JULY 26, 1989

FIRST OF ALL, MR. CHAIRMAN-SEN. KOHL, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO CHAIR ONE OF THE OLDEST COMMITTEES OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. HAVING BEEN THERE MYSELF, IT IS A

GREAT HONOR AND A GREATER RESPONSIBILITY.
RESPONSIBILITY SERIOUSLY AND I KNOW YOU WILL DO WELL.

AGAIN, CONGRATULATIONS.

I KNOW YOU TAKE THIS

MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING THE COMMITTEE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE BILL BEFORE US. THE ISSUE IS COMPLEX BUT VERY IMPORTANT, SO I INTEND TO LISTEN INTENTLY AND STUDY THE ANSWERS OF OUR WITNESSES.

AS WE REVIEW THIS ISSUE, OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO HELP ENSURE THAT BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS WILL NOT BE USED AGAINST ANYONE. THAT WAS AND IS THE WORTHY PURPOSE OF THE TREATY WHICH THE U.S. SIGNED IN 1972, AND WHICH THE SENATE RATIFIED IN 1974.

AS WE ARE ALL AWARE, THE 1972 TREATY PROHIBITS THE COUNTRIES THAT SIGNED IT FROM DEVELOPING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS "IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES". THE SIGNATORY COUNTRIES AGREED THAT NOT TO MAINTAIN BIOLOGICAL AGENTS OR TOXINS "THAT HAVE NO

JUSTIFICATION FOR

...

PROTECTIVE OR OTHER PEACEFUL PURPOSES".

ARTICLE IV OF THE TREATY STATES THAT SIGNATORY COUNTRIES "TAKE ANY NECESSARY MEASURES TO PROHIBIT AND PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION, STOCKPILING, ACQUISITION, OR RETENTION" OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS "WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF EACH [SIGNATORY NATION], UNDER ITS JURISDICTION OR UNDER ITS CONTROL ANTWHERE."

SEVERAL OF THE COUNTRIES THAT SIGNED THIS TREATY HAVE INTERPRETED THIS PROVISION TO REQUIRE ENACTMENT OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS IN THEIR DOMESTIC CRIMINAL LAW.

THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT ENACTED SUCH A STATUTE.

THE SUPPORTERS OF S. 993 MAINTAIN THAT BY

MAKING IT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE FOR PRIVATE PARTIES TO KNOWINGLY DEVELOP

23-443 O 90

TERRORISM BECAUSE IT WILL HELP PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY THAT
PRIVATE PARTIES WILL USE BIOLOGICAL AND TOXIC AGENTS.

THE BILL WILL ASSIST IN THE PREVENTION OF

IF LEGISLATION CAN ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING TERRORISTS FROM USING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, THEN PASSAGE OF SUCH A MEASURE WOULD BE ADVISABLE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE MUST BE MINDFUL OF THE BILL'S POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR'S BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY AND POSSIBLY, THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S EXISTING BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

IN A SYSTEM SUCH AS OURS, PRIVATE COMPANIES MAKE CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO ACHIEVE PUBLIC GOALS. IF THIS BILL

BASED ON A PROVISION IN A TREATY WE HAVED SIGNED

INTERFERE WITH A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE'S EFFORTS TO FULFILL ITS CONTRACT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THEN IT IS A BAD IDEA.

-

WERE TO

-

A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SENATE IS TO CONSIDER LEGISLATION SUCH AS S. 993 IN LIGHT OF THE DEFENSE NEEDS OF THE UNITED

STATES.

WHEN CONSIDERING ISSUES OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, WE MUST BE WARY OF ANY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THAT WOULD UNILATERALLY HAMPER OUR DEFENSIVE EFFORT. TO TAKE SUCH ACTION WOULD BE SHEER

FOLLY.

IF THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT

UNDER THE INTERPRETATION

OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE TREATY, WHICH SAYS THAT SIGNATORY NATIONS MUST "TAKE ANY NECESSARY MEASURES TO PROHIBIT AND PREVENT THE

-

DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION, STOCKPILING, ACQUISITION, OR RETENTION" OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS "UNDER ITS CONTROL ANYWHERE, A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR MAY STILL FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES' GOVERNMENT, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO IMPACT ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

I AM IN NO WAY SUGGESTING THAT THE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSRTY NOR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT BE GIVEN A BLANK CHECK. I ABHOR THE VERY EXISTENCE OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AS MUCH AS ANYONE AND HOPE TO SEE PRESIDENT BUSH ACHIEVE HIS GOAL OF ELIMINATING THESE WEAPONS.

HOWEVER, AS UGLY AS THESE WEAPONS ARE AND DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF THE 1972 TREATY, THEIR USE IS NOT

THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY RECENT

INCIDENTS AROUND THE WORLD INVOLVING WEAPONS WITH SUSPICIOUS

INCOMPREHENSIBLE.

SIDE EFFECTS.

WE MUST INSURE THAT THE UNITED STATES HAVE THE CAPABILITY

TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST THESE WEAPONS BY THOSE WHO WISH US ILL

INCLUDING TERRORISTS

OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

TODAY.

AND WHO MAY NOT "PLAY" BY THE RULE

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE TESTIMONY OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS HERE