    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [May 27, 1995]
    [Pages 757-758]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's Radio Address
    May 27, 1995

        Good morning. It has now been over 5 weeks since the tragic bombing
    in Oklahoma City. In the days immediately after that tragedy,
    congressional leaders pledged to have the legislation I proposed to
    crack down on terrorism on my desk by Memorial Day. The Senate is now
    considering the antiterrorism bill. I'm glad they're working on it. At
    the same time, I disagree with the position of some Senators from both
    parties that three crucial weapons in the fight against terrorism should
    be stripped from the bill.
        The first concerns my proposal to expand the wiretap capabilities of
    Federal investigators. Terrorists move around. They don't want to be
    caught. They go from State to State, from motel to motel, from pay phone
    to pay phone. We need the power to move our taps and surveillance as
    fast as the terrorist moves his base of operations. But those who want
    to weaken my antiterrorism bill want law enforcement to go back to court
    for a new wiretap order each and every time a terrorist moves, unless we
    can specifically show that he's trying to evade our surveillance.
        We should protect citizens' privacy rights. But we shouldn't force
    law enforcement to lose valuable time by making them get a court to
    agree that a terrorist is trying to knowingly evade us. Have you ever
    heard of a terrorist who wasn't trying to evade the police? I don't care
    whether a terrorist is trying to knowingly evade the police. I care that
    he or she may be trying to

    [[Page 758]]

    plan another Oklahoma City bombing. And I want the police to stop those
    people cold.
        The restrictive view taken by some people in Congress would handicap
    our ability to track terrorists down, follow them when they move, and
    prevent their attacks on innocent people.
        The second disagreement I have is about my request that we should be
    able to use the full resources of the military to combat terrorists who
    are contemplating the use of biological or chemical weapons. In general,
    the military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement in any
    way. That's why it's against the law. But there is a limited exception
    to this authority, granting the authority to cooperate with law
    enforcement to the military where nuclear weapons are involved. There's
    a good reason for this. The military has the unique technical expertise,
    sophisticated equipment, and highly specialized personnel to fight a
    nuclear threat. Well, the same is true for biological and chemical
    weapons, which seem even more likely to be used in terrorist attacks in
    the future, as we saw recently in the terrible incident in the Japanese
    subway.
        Therefore, I can't understand how some Senators could actually
    suggest that it's okay to use the military for nuclear terrorism but not
    to use them for chemical and biological terrorism. We need their unique
    knowledge in all instances. I want law enforcement to have the authority
    to call in the military to deal with these chemical or biological
    weapons threats when they lack that expertise, equipment, or personnel.
    There's simply no reason why we should use anything less than the very
    best we have to fight and stop the extraordinary threat now posed by
    chemical and biological terrorism all around the world.
        Finally, I strongly disagree with Senators who want to remove a
    provision of my bill that will help us track down terrorists by marking
    the explosive materials they use to build their weapons. It would be a
    relatively simple matter to include something called a taggant in
    materials used to build explosive devices. That way, law enforcement
    could track bomb materials back to their source and dramatically
    increase their ability to find and apprehend terrorists.
        There is no reason to delay enactment of a law that would require
    taggants in explosive materials. Every day that goes by without a law
    like that is another day a terrorist can walk into a store and buy
    material that is virtually untraceable. As long as the basic building
    blocks of bombs are sold without taggants, we can only hope they're not
    being bought by terrorists.
        The Senators who want to oppose my bill on these points simply argue
    that these provisions will open the door to an overly broad domestic use
    of military troops, to overly invasive wiretapping, or to an erosion of
    the constitutional rights of those who buy explosives. I disagree.
    Constitutional protections and legal restrictions are not being
    repealed. We are simply giving law enforcement agencies who are
    committed to fighting terrorists for us the tools they need to succeed
    in the modern world.
        I want to work with Congress to resolve these differences and to
    make my antiterrorism bill the law as soon as possible.
        On this Memorial Day weekend, we honor those who fought and died in
    our Nation's wars to keep America free. In the 21st century, the
    security of the American people will require us to fight terrorism all
    around the world and, unfortunately, here at home. It's a fight we have
    to be able to win.
        Thanks for listening.

    Note: The address was recorded at 2:22 p.m. on May 26 in the Oval Office
    at the White House for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on May 27.