WE IN THE FBI FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT KNOWLEDGE IS A VALUABLE TOOL IN THE FIGHT AGAINST WE KNOW THAT OUR COUNTERTERRORISM PROGRAM IS FAR BETTER TODAY THAN IT WAS IN THE 1970s. IT IS EVEN STRONGER THAN WHEN THE PROGRAM WAS DECLARED A NATIONAL PRIORITY IN 1982. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE MANY THINGS TO BE DONE BUT WE CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT, AS OUR ACHIEVEMENTS WOULD DEMONSTRATE, WE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. BUT, WE MUST ALWAYS BE PREPARED TO DEAL WITH CHANGES IN THE TACTICS OF TERRORIST GROUPS INCLUDING THEIR ADOPTION OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT AND TARGETING OF THE MOST SENSITIVE COMPONENTS OF OUR COMPLEX SOCIETY. Senator LEAHY. Ambassador Bremer, I do not mean to cut into your testimony ahead of time, but I think it is a good point to bring you into this on state-sponsored terrorism. How do you see that threat evolving? Is the threat greater in this country from statesponsored terrorism or from small, radical groups that owe allegiance to nobody but themselves? STATEMENT OF L. PAUL BREMER Ambassador BREMER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think an important development in terrorism in the last 10 years has been the emergence of state sponsorship of terrorist groups, particularly Syria, Libya, and Iran. State sponsorship gives a terrorist group a lot of support such as ready access to finances, some of the things you mentioned, access to diplomatic pouches in embassies, access to transportation, false travel documents, and so forth. It is a fundamental element of our worldwide counterterrorism policy to try to focus on that state sponsorship, get attention to it, and do something about it. I am reluctant to guess as to whether that is a more dangerous threat within our country than individual terrorist groups. I think Mr. Revell in his comments has already covered the kind of threat. I think it is true, as I have said in my prepared statement, that it is likely that groups which have access to state sponsorship will more readily be able to move up the escalatory ladder either in high technology or, also conceivably, to mass-casualty terrorism. Senator LEAHY. Well, let us go into specifics. Again, if we begin to get into areas that would require going into classified material, just say so and we will understand. We will wait until a later hearing when we can have a classified session, if necessary. Look at Libya. Every one of us, just reading the papers and without going into any classified material, watches with bated breath what might happen since the bombing in Tripoli a couple of years ago. We did see certain activities 2 years to the day afterward; and then there is the Iran situation, and now we have had a major escalation in the Persian Gulf. I do not think that anybody here expects that that is going to be the last word in the Gulf. We anticipate that there will be more fighting there. Iran cannot send its navy out to destroy our fleet. Iran, however, could do a great deal of destruction at the World Trade Towers or the Chicago Mart or almost anywhere else in the United States. What is your judgment of the likelihood of terrorist actions here within the continental United States caused by either Libya or Iran? Ambassador BREMER. I believe that the main reason we have not seen much international terrorism actually conducted in the United States is that it is far easier to conduct attacks against American interests overseas. If you look at the figures, every year between 20 and 25 percent of all attacks overseas are directed against American interests. In other words, we are a target. In fact, we are the second most likely target of terrorism already. We have more than 2 million Americans living overseas, almost 300 diplomatic posts, hundreds of military bases, and literally thousands of American companies overseas. Senator LEAHY. When you said we are the second most likely, for the sake of everybody who is taking notes, who is first? Ambassador BREMER. Israel. Senator LEAHY. OK, go ahead. Ambassador BREMER. In a word, if you are a terrorist state or a terrorist group, there is an abundance of American targets available outside the United States which are, by and large, more readily accessible than coming into the United States. I think that is the primary structural reason why, to date, we have not seen much international terrorism here. Like Mr. Revell, I agree that good law enforcement and good intelligence has also contributed to keeping that number down. And I agree with him, and your opening comments-I think it would be silly to think that we are going to avoid that forever. We will get international terrorism here at some point, but it is still much easier to attack American targets overseas. Senator LEAHY. At some point, somebody is going to start figuring out the psychological effect of bombing our consulate in whatever country, and figure out that while that is very serious and damaging to morale and prestige, it is not the same as a bombing of a major Government function here in Washington, DC, where it is going to be on the news minutes later. Ambassador BREMER. That is true, Mr. Chairman, but the question is, what is the objective of the terrorist group? If the objective is to change our policy, my impression from looking at polls and talking to people-and I would defer to your judgment of your constituents-but my impression is the American people are very solid on a firm policy toward terrorism. In fact, an event like that might be counterproductive for the terrorists' objectives if their objective is to get us to change our policy. If the objective is purely revenge, that is a different story, but most terrorist groups, despite their apparent irrationality to the rest of us, in fact, operate in a fairly rational frame. They have objectives, they have a purpose for what they are doing. If they get the American people really excited by terrorism attacks in this country, they have to be uncertain as to what kind of response they get from us. My guess is it would be very vigorous. Senator LEAHY. Having said all that—and I take some comfort in what you are saying, not comfort for our installations or citizens abroad-I am sure that you must still coordinate your efforts to make sure that does not happen. Let us just take a hypothetical situation. Suppose a jumbo jet is hijacked in the United States by foreign terrorists. Are you and Mr. Revell's agency and other appropriate agencies prepared to mobilize and deal with that? Ambassador BREMER. Yes, we are. There is a clear directive that establishes that for international terrorist incidents overseas the Department of State is the lead agency, and we would immediately convene an interagency task force to deal with that. In the case you have just hypothesized, if it is in the United States, the FBI would be the lead agency and Mr. Revell's organization would set up an operation, coordinating with us. In fact, it has worked that way. We have had examples where it has, in fact, happened. Senator LEAHY. We have obviously gone beyond the old Dillinger days of somebody pulling up in the big black Buick and jumping out with a Thompson submachine gun, holding up a bank, and hoping to get out of there. We are in the days of very sophisticated systems, communications, weapons, such as we saw in the Kuwaiti Airlines hijacking. In the press reports and interviews with some of the people on that airline, it appeared that one of the hijackers, at least one of those they may have picked up at some point, was able to fly a 747. I mean, we are getting into a very sophisticated area. Now, they obviously were well aware of how the communications gear worked on that aircraft and everything else about it. Do you have evidence, Ambassador, that Iran, Libya, and Iraq are giving terrorists greater access to three things-sophisticated devices, training, and tactics? Ambassador BREMER. I cannot give a full response to that in open session, Mr. Chairman, as you will appreciate. All of those countries have ongoing relationships with various terrorist groups that at various times have included the kinds of things you are talking about. I might say on the Kuwaiti hijacking, it is an interesting example, particularly for the subject of this hearing. There were sophisticated techniques used by the hijackers, but very low-tech weap ons. Senator LEAHY. Do you want to explain that, please, a little more? Ambassador BREMER. The weapons that were used were very simple .22 caliber guns and explosives of, so far as we know, no particularly exotic nature. But the techniques that were used, the ability to move around the airplane, the kind of training they had, the fact that someone was at least trained to understand how the plane operated, show that there was a good deal of sophisticated training that went into the operation. But, in fact, very low-tech weapons were used. So, when we talk about this threat of moving to more sophisticated terrorism, we should not become so transfixed with the exotic ideas of high-tech that we lose track that, in fact, you can use lowtech things in a sophisticated way and still have a fairly devastating incident. Senator LEAHY. But that goes also to the training. I am concerned about terrorists getting all kinds of specialized knowledge, from psychological training, which is, I think, a pretty significant aspect, to precise details on where everything is located in the target. If a terrorist tries to get into a building that is protected by all kinds of sophisticated electronic devices, they could be carrying a howitzer and still not get in. I am more worried about the terrorist who has had a lot of electronic training and can get in even though he might be carrying only a .22 pistol. Is that a trend you see happening now? Ambassador BREMER. I think the intelligence community and the rest of us in the counterterrorist community still have to do a lot of thinking and learning about the lessons of the Kuwaiti hijacking before we can draw final conclusions. But we are certainly concerned about it and training is clearly one of the main advantages which a state sponsor of terrorism can give to a group. Senator LEAHY. We got a little bit off the subject of a sophisticated terrorist incident here in the United States. Let's suppose a major hijacking or a very large bombing occurs here, and I have been told that the bomb that exploded outside the Marine barracks in Beirut was one of the most powerful conventional-type bombs that we could ever expect anywhere, so we know they can do this. And let's suppose this causes very significant casualties, major disruption of political or communications or economic infrastructure, and so on. Do you have plans to deal with that here in the United States? Mr. REVELL. We do, Senator. We have put together within the United States a number of contingency planning groups. The FBI's responsibility is, first, to prevent the incident, and then to respond to the investigation or the solution of the incident, but also to give information on the crisis to those agencies who are responsible for the treatment, the return of services, the restoration of order, and so forth. So, we have assumed under the lead agency aspects the lead in planning for the consequences of terrorism. Obviously, organizations such as FEMA and the State and local agencies who have the civil defense type of responsibilities are part and parcel of that. Also, the various industry associations, the power and electrical associations, the gas and oil and other industries that have a responsibility to provide to the public those resources necessary to keep society functioning, are brought into this planning process. The health care agencies, those who would deal with either biological or chemical aspects, are part of this process. Now, this is not to the level that we believe we are prepared to deal with any consequence. Frankly, one of the things that we are considering now is a study of the critical infrastructure of the United States and the consequences of an attack on that infrastructure, and Dr. Kupperman will talk about that. We know that we need to do more. Like any law enforcement agency, we deal pretty much with today's crisis and take care of tomorrow tomorrow. We are trying to get out in front of that and be prepared. Senator LEAHY. I understand. I am not suggesting the FBI should be building the hospitals or stockpiling the standby generators or anything else, but your analysis is going to carry a great deal of weight with corporate America-and a number of these things we are talking about are public utilities, gas and electrical utilities— both in terms of how they develop their own safeguards and their security, and also how they may develop redundancies and backup systems. Ambassador Bremer, when I was reading your testimony over last night, you had made mention in it of a ban on undetectable |