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

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.

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