suggest measures this committee should consider to improve the effectiveness of the U.S. Government's effort to combat terrorism.

Do We Face a Rising Threat of Terrorism?

The August bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania left an indelible impression that we are facing a worsening threat of terrorism. When we see the images of crumbled buildings shrouded in smoke and battered, bloody victims crawling to safety from the rubble it is no surprise that Americans feel vulnerable and helpless. These events have reopened the wounds left in our national psyche from the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

While mourning the loss of American, Kenyan, and Tanzanian citizens and taking every necessary measure to catch those responsible for this heinous deed, the U.S. Government also has a responsibility to accurately describe the nature of the threat we face.

• Terrorism is not widespread.

· Terrorist groups are not proliferating at an uncontrollable rate.

• Terrorism has and can be contained.

We are not helpless victims who have no option but to cower in fear. There are things we can do to reduce the threat and manage the risk.

The following charts present the facts about who is attacking Americans and the frequency of these attacks. These are not my facts, rather these charts are drawn from information gathered by the FBI and the Diplomatic Security Service of the U.S. Department of State:

1. There has been little terrorism in the United States. There have been no significant acts of domestic terrorism this year. Chart #1 shows that the number of domestic incidents has been falling since 1982. Eleven of the incidents in 1997 were letter bombs sent to an Arabic newspaper office in New York City and to Leavenworth prison. Fortunately, none of these

devices exploded. Since 1990, we have had three dramatic, high profile attacks in the United States:

· The World Trade Center bombing in 1993, which killed six and injured

1024 persons;

• The Oklahoma City bombing, which took the lives of 168 Americans and left hundreds wounded; and

The Olympic Park bombing of 1996, which killed a Georgia woman and injured several dozen bystanders.

The lack of terrorism in the United States is, in my view, a consequence of at least three factors. First, we have a democratic society that provides people a chance to express their views freely. Second, we have highly skilled, professional law enforcement at national, state, and local levels. Finally, we have caught, prosecuted, and imprisoned many of those who have committed acts of terrorism.

2. Internationally the trend in terrorism also is down. Chart #2 shows that the number of terrorist incidents has been falling since 1991. More importantly, US citizens rarely are killed or wounded in these attacks. In 1997, for example, there were 304 international terrorist attacks. According to the State Department 123 of these were anti-US attacks. Only five of these attacks involved casualties-7 Americans died and 17 were wounded while 38 foreigners died and 427 were wounded. The bombings last month in Kenya and Tanzania were not atypical in the sense that anti-US attacks tend to kill and wound more foreigners than Americans. This fact alone is a compelling reason for other countries to work with us in combating and stopping those who engage in terrorism.

3. Which countries have been most dangerous for Americans? Conventional wisdom generally points to the Middle East, but Chart 3 reveals that Peru, Turkey, and the Philippines have been the sites for the most anti-US attacks

involving casualties since 1990. Yet the list of countries is constantly changing. In 1997, for example, the attacks that caused casualties occurred in Colombia, Israel, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The simple fact is that the number of countries where Americans face consistent threat is relatively small.

4. How are most of the casualties caused? Chart 4 shows that bombs and ambushes, i.e. attacks with guns, are the two most common means for killing and wounding Americans, with bombings the biggest culprit.

5. Chart 5 is a comparison of Americans killed in acts of international terrorism, citizens of other countries who have been killed in anti-US international terrorist incidents, and the number of murders in Indianapolis. I chose Indianapolis at random since I am from the Mid-West. I am not suggesting that Indianapolis is the most dangerous place in America but the juxtaposition of the data puts the threat of terrorism in a new light. More people have been murdered in Indianapolis in a six-year period than have been killed in anti-US terrorist attacks over a seven-year period. In fact, since 1990 only 116 Americans have died from terrorist attacks. The loss of even one US citizen at the hands of terrorists is too many, however we should also acknowledge that there are other threats far more serious than terrorism that merit our attention.

6. Chart 6 takes a combined look at the major terrorist attacks, domestic and international, that have killed Americans. The three deadliest terrorist attacks in American history are the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon by Hizbollah; the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 by the Government of Libya; and the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City by Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Six of the seven incidents listed on the pie chart involved a truck bomb.

7. Who is killing and wounding American citizens? Generally it is foreign rather than home grown terrorists. Chart 7 identifies 21 groups that have carried

out attacks during the period 1990-97. For several of these groups, American citizens were incidental rather than primary targets. However, there are many groups that have targeted, and continue to target, Americans. Principal among these is the organization, Al-Qaida, headed by Osama Bin Ladin. The question mark beside Bin Ladin indicates several attacks where his involvement was suspected or has only recently been identified. Let me emphasize that he is not simply the scapegoat of the moment, rather he has deliberately encouraged, supported, and planned for attacks against US targets.

8. The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 8. I have calculated the number of killed and wounded by each group and divided it by the number of attacks. Osama Bin Ladin and his cronies on average have killed or wounded 125 people (this includes US citizens and foreigners) per incident.

This data tells us where we have been. It does not tell us where we are going. I disagree with recent declarations by President Clinton and Secretary Albright that we are facing a "new terrorist war". I do not recall that the United States ever declared a truce with terrorism and would note that we have been fighting this threat for almost thirty years. Terrorism is not spiraling out of control but neither has it disappeared. We should not exaggerate it but neither should we ignore it. It is a threat that we must be continually prepared to confront.

We have had some important successes capturing and deterring terrorists. Our experience over the past decade suggests instead that sound policies, aggressive law enforcement, and good intelligence yield important results in containing terrorism. Moreover, I believe there is circumstantial evidence that groups and individuals that advocate terrorism are losing support rather than winning adherents. Consider Osama Bin Ladin's fatwas that have called for Muslims to rise up and attack US citizens and installations around the world. His fatwa has fallen on deaf ears. It is one thing to make a threat another to put the

threat into action. Bin Ladin's failed fatwa is a reminder that Muslims are not terrorists and they do not endorse his tactics. He represents a fanatical, isolated minority.

How Serious is the Threat of Chemical and Biological Terrorism?

This hearing comes at an opportune moment given the recent news that Mr. Bin Ladin's followers allegedly tried to obtain chemical and nuclear weapons. Yet, even before Bin Ladin appeared on the scene, the United States has been worried about the risk that terrorists could use chemical and biological weapons against US citizens here or abroad and has taken steps to confront that threat. In 1990, for example, I participated in an inter-agency counter terrorism exercise that included training with a live chemical agent. This threat was considered and prepared for long before Aum Shiryko appeared on scene. As the Congress considers how best to prepare American communities to meet this contingency it is important to temper the fear of such attacks with a clear understanding that such threats are difficult to put into action.

Chemical and biological weapons are not easy to produce. They require a level of sophistication in technology and personnel that not readily acquired at the local pharmacy or hardware store. Chemical and biological agents are greatly influenced by temperature, wind, and moisture. It is not a simple matter of finding a recipe and whipping up a batch of plague. Moreover there must be technological and scientific infrastructure in place to take chemicals and biological materials from the precursor stage to full weaponization. The Department of Defense makes this point several times in its November 1997 report, Proliferation: Threat and Response. Libya, for example, is a sponsor of terrorism and has been working aggressively for years to create chemical and biological weapons capabilities. On page 37 of the DOD report we learn that Libya's biological warfare program "remains in the early research and development stages, primarily because Libya lacks an adequate scientific and