STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. GRASSLEY ON THE BIOLOGICIAL WEAPONS ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 1989 FIRST OF ALL, MR. CHAIRMAN-SEN. KOHL, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO CHAIR ONE OF THE OLDEST COMMITTEES OF HAVING BEEN THERE MYSELF, IT IS A THE UNITED STATES SENATE. GREAT HONOR AND A GREATER RESPONSIBILITY. I KNOW YOU TAKE THIS RESPONSIBILITY SERIOUSLY AND I KNOW YOU WILL DO WELL. AGAIN, CONGRATULATIONS. 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 BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS THE BILL WILL ASSIST IN THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM BECAUSE IT WILL HELP PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY THAT 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 WERE TO INTERFERE WITH A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE'S EFFORTS TO FULFILL ITS CONTRACT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THEN IT IS A BAD IDEA. 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, 11 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 INCOMPREHENSIBLE. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY RECENT INCIDENTS AROUND THE WORLD INVOLVING WEAPONS WITH SUSPICIOUS SIDE EFFECTS. WE MUST INSURE THAT THE UNITED STATES HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST THESE WEAPONS BY THOSE WHO WISH US ILL I LOOK FORWARD TO THE TESTIMONY OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS HERE TODAY. |