Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning. I appreciate the chance to appear before this committee. Having followed the issue of terrorism for several years both inside and outside the government, I've watched what's unfolding with both a bit of amusement and bewilderment-bewildered because of the seeming discovery that terrorism appears to be a new phenomenon, when we've been facing it as a threat for over 30 years; amused that we have to go through the kinds of reports the GAO is doing. I have to say I endorse the report; I think the findings are right on target, because the interest of everyone that's involved with this I believe is genuine. No one is out trying to do something to either hurt the United States or to hurt some other agency. But, unfortunately, with all of this goodwill and good intention, we are left with what can best be described as a bureaucratic mess. I would like to begin by discussing what the actual threat of terrorism is to the United States and then make some comments on the chem-bio issue. The first chart you see is drawn from FBI statistics, and it's a good news chart, in my view. It shows that we're not seeing a rising tide of terrorism in the United States, but rather it's been declining. Last year they recorded 13 incidents, but 11 of those involved the same package bombs/letter bombs that were sent to Leavenworth Prison and the Al-Hayat Arabic Newspaper. The good news is in the red. The FBI is doing a very good job of anticipating, detecting, and preventing terrorist incidents. While I'm a critic of the FBI on some things, I think that they deserve a lot of commendation and praise for the effective job they've done. If we go to the second chart, the purple shows all international terrorist attacks. The yellow bars show those attacks which were considered anti-U.S. attacks by the Department of State. The red shows the number of attacks in which there were U.S. casualties. For anyone to make the claim that there are rising casualties from international terrorism and Americans are being increasingly victimized, they are simply not looking at the facts. That is not true. Mr. SOUDER. Are those annual? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, those are annual. This is not to say that there is not a threat of terrorism; I'm the first to admit it. We must be prepared to deal with it, but we should not exaggerate that threat and pretend that Americans are the No. 1 target in the world and that American citizens are being killed or wounded by terrorists. It's just not the case. We'll go up to the third chart. This shows countries where they've had at least two anti-U.S. terrorist attacks over the last 7 years. These statistics cover the 1990 through 1997 timeframe. I think what's instructive about this chart is that it destroys the conventional wisdom that terrorism is somehow a Muslim phenomenon. It is not. Where have most of the anti-U.S. attacks taken place? There is one in Peru, South America; one in Turkey, Europe, Middle East area; one in the Philippines-those three countries have had the most anti-United States terrorist attacks over the last 7 years. This doesn't mean that that's going to stay the same in the future, and as you look at it year by year, the countries change, but you're not looking at a situation where American citizens are being hit in 20, 30, 40 countries. If we go to the next chart, No. 4, this shows the vast majority of the attacks against Americans that involve casualties come from two sources: either ambushes or bombs. The bombs are shown by the red. If we go to the next chart, chart No. 5, this was no intent—I'm from the Midwest, as is Congressman Souder, and my intent is not to say that there is a problem with Indianapolis. But what this chart shows, it looks at the number of U.S. deaths in red from international terrorism. The blue shows the number of foreigners who have died in international terrorist attacks directed against the United States. The green shows the number of people who have been murdered in Indianapolis. There have been more people murdered in Indianapolis in the last 6 years than have died, both foreigners and U.S. citizens, from international terrorism. I'm not wanting to minimize the loss of life of either murder victims or victims of terrorism, but, again, we need to avoid the hysteria of pretending that we're besieged at every turn. That's not the case. What we saw, tragically, in both Tanzania and Kenya, where more of the locals died from the anti-United States terrorist attack, that has been the consistent pattern over time. We go to the next chart, chart No. 6. This shows who has actually killed Americans, where the major loss of life has taken place over the last 20 years. The largest loss of life from a terrorist attack remains the 1983 assault on United States Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, 241. In 1988, 198 Americans killed by the Government of Libya in an attack on PanAm 103; in 1995, Oklahoma City, the attack by Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Also, I've highlighted Tehran in 1996, the bombing of a United States Embassy in 1983, the 1998 attack in Kenya, as well as in 1993 World Trade Center. These are the high profile incidents. These are the areas where we've had the major loss of U.S. life. But let's put it into perspective. Chart No. 7, which you have, and I'll just briefly touch on it, shows two groups in particular that have been involved with attacks against Americans, Sindera Luminoso, and the question mark next to Osama Bin Ladin really should probably be relabeled the Al-Qaida, but this is developing information that has been unfolding this year, in part because of the effective work of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But, we're not looking at hundreds of groups attacking us. It's a fairly well-defined threat. If you look at chart No. 8, this shows exactly who's killing Americans, who's killing foreigners. The red with Osama Bin Ladin shows Osama has killed more Americans in terrorist attacks than any other individual or group. I don't think the FBI or the Central Intelligence Agency are simply coming up with a convenient villain of the moment. The fact is he's killed more and he's wounded more than any other group. The rest of the chart speaks for itself. Let me just conclude by saying, I think GAO is right on target with pointing out the need to have one lead agency. As you walk through the testimony, you'll see you have a lead agency for a variety of categories, but you have so many lead agencies; there's no one single leader. I would see that the duplication of effort, particularly in the hazardous material area, is silly. Firefighters are very well equipped, maybe not as well equipped as they should be, but quite competent to handle that mission. I think there should be one national response team. We don't need 10 national regional guards, National Guard units. We don't need hazardous material units from EPA. We don't need the FBI hazardous material team on top of that. There should be one and some organizations brought to this chaos. [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 56-394 99-2 TESTIMONY OF LARRY C. JOHNSON BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE October 2, 1998 I am pleased to appear before this committee today to comment on the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness (NLD) Program. While most of my experience in combating terrorism is in the international arena, I believe the lessons I have learned from previous operations are relevant to our effort to protect American citizens and their communities from the threat of terrorism. I have been working directly, and indirectly, on the problem of terrorism since 1985. I worked in operations and as an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency from 1985 to 1989. Subsequently, I served in the US State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism as a deputy director with responsibilities for police training, transportation security, and special operations. Since leaving the Department of State I have continued to work on terrorism issues, including analyzing the U.S. Government's databases on chemical and biological agents and helping script terrorism exercises for the Department of Defense. I represented the United States at the July 1996 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria and I have been involved in domestic anti-terrorism exercises conducted under the auspices of the NLD program. My goal today is to assist this committee in its efforts to evaluate the needs and resources required to protect American citizens from terrorism, but specifically the threats posed by chemical, biological, or nuclear devices. I will share with you the facts about the threat of terrorism to the United States and offer an analysis about the threat of chemical and biological terrorism. I will conclude by commenting on the recommendations advanced by the latest GAO |