Pentagon officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also are cool to the idea, said Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. ``I've spoken to people in the White House who say that Rumsfeld is really resisting,'' King, a New York Republican, said in an interview yesterday.

One issue is what Bush's proposal might mean to armed forces already heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``The military right now is extremely stretched,'' said retired Admiral William Crowe, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ``If you have to train for it and make them into policemen and firemen, that will be a major distraction.''

There's danger of a political backlash in changing the 127- year-old U.S. law that bars federal troops from law-enforcement, said retired Army General John Shalikashvili, also a former Joint Chiefs chairman. ``I don't think the American people are ready for the U.S. military to do law enforcement,'' he said.

Even Admiral Tim Keating, commander of the military arm responsible for homeland defense, said, ``I don't think you necessarily want DoD forces in law-enforcement roles.''

Triggered by Katrina

Bush, in the wake of criticism of the slow and inept federal response to Hurricane Katrina, said he wants the Defense Department and Congress to review the current system with an eye to giving the military a broader and more immediate role in catastrophic natural disasters. He hasn't made a specific proposal.

Chaos, flooding and debris prevented relief and supplies from reaching thousands of people stranded by the storm, which killed more than 1,000. Law enforcement crumbled and looting, arson and vandalism erupted in New Orleans.

Rumsfeld said Bush's suggestion is under review, even as he made clear he's skeptical.

The U.S. military isn't ready ``to step in and to do domestic events,'' but it can provide ``parallel capability'' with other authorities, he said in a Sept. 27 press briefing. He noted that the response to Katrina included about 50,000 National Guard troops, who do enforce the law, along with 22,000 active duty troops and about 350 U.S. military helicopters and 20 ships.

Lawmakers Dubious

Lawmakers are suspicious of enhancing the military's role. The military can't continue to be given ``new functions for which they are not properly trained and be able to do their role in defending America,'' Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview.

``I don't think we need to change'' the law, Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said in an interview. ``The active duty folks are very good at search-and-rescue and supply and all the things that go with it, and the National Guard forces, of course, do a superb job of enforcing the law.''

King said the military is ``not trained really as a police force and they have to shoot to kill. And what often happens in these things is the person you kill is not some looter but a nine- year-old kid who happened to be coming around the corner.''

Representative Dan Lungren, a California Republican and former state attorney general, said Americans have ``made a decision for well over a hundred years that we don't want the president to have that kind of power, except in instances of insurrection.''

Current System

Under the current response system for homeland disasters, federal troops are a last resort. Local and state authorities are first responders and may seek aid from federal agencies if needed. Governors typically deploy National Guard troops in response to hurricanes, riots and other calamities. The president can take control of the National Guard to restore order in a crisis.

Committees in both houses of Congress plan to review the military's role in natural disasters and the question of changing the law.

Senator John Warner, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said the military must expect an expanded role in spite of concerns that it's overburdened.

``There is no other organization in the country that has enormous assets, particularly lift assets, and the trained manpower that can be brought to bear immediately as the military,'' Warner, a Republican of Virginia, said in an interview.

Warner, in a statement the day before, said his committee will review ``promptly'' any proposal from the president on changing the military's role. He said he'd already asked for the Pentagon's input.

Any notion of change ``merits close review'' because ``it affects the power of states to respond to emergencies in their own localities'' and ``it would increase the power of the federal government,'' Warner said.