💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › antiterr captured on 2023-06-16 at 19:55:49.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
HEARING OF THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
AND HUMAN RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: US ANTI-TERRORISM POLICY
CHAIRED BY: REP. TOM LANTOS (D-CA)
WITNESSES:
TIM WIRTH, COUNSELOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HARRY BRANDON III, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, FBI
RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 2172
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1993
REP. LANTOS: (Sounds gavel) The Subcommittee on International
Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights will please come to
order.
Today we are holding our third hearing on US anti-terrorism and
counter-terrorism policy. And our two distinguished witnesses are the
Honorable Tim Wirth, counsellor at the Department of State, and Mr. Harry
Brandon III, assistant director in the Intlligence Division of the FBI.
We are very pleased to have both of you, gentlemen.
In 1992 there were 361 terrorist attacks, the lowest number since
1975. Americans continue to be the top targets of terrorism: some 40
percent of terrorist attacks were directed at United States citizens or
United States property. There have been some spectacular terrorist attacks
in recent months, and there have been some spectacular successes in
preventing terrorist attacks in the recent past.
Nevertheless, the American people for the first time in a decade have
recognized that terrorism has come to the United States. There is a great
deal of concern both about the World Trade Center outrage and the attempted
assassination of members of Congress, attacks on important facilities in
New York City and elsewhere. We have also seen a very well-coordinated
series of attacks by Kurdish terrorists against Turkish facilities some --
in some 29 cities across Western Europe.
We are also very much concerned that in a number of instances where
the fact of terrorism is beyond any doubt, such as the Pan Am bombing which
took place three and a half years ago, nothing basically has happened to
bring the perpetrators to justice. Sanctions have been in effect
concerning Syria for well over a year with little or no visible effect.
Qadhafi has clearly decided he will not turn over the two suspects in the
Pan Am 103 bombing. And it's clear that some of our allies -- perhaps the
French in particular -- will never agree to an oil embargo within the
highly politicized context of the UN. And the time has arrived when we
need to look at dealing with punishing terrorists no longer on a
multilateral basis.
I would like to commend the FBI for its extraordinary success both in
arresting people in the World Trade Center outrage and in preventing what
are reported to be potentially very serious terrorist plans in New York
City and elsewhere.
But there is a great deal of concern, as both of you gentlemen know, in the
country about lack of coordination among our various agencies. There is a
great deal of discussion, and we have held some hearings and we'll have one
next week about how various individuals inciting to terrorism obtain entry
into the United States. And clearly, as a free and open society we are
just feeling our way in this very new and complex and dangerous arena.
There is concern about the continuing failure to place a number of
countries on the list of states that are supporting terrorism. Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria are designated as states currently
sponsoring terrorism. But many of my colleagues are intrigued as to why
the Sudan is not on the list when the Sudan is clearly engaged in
sponsoring terrorism and acts as a surrogate for Iran in many cases, and
there are questions with respect to the placement of Pakistan on the
terrorism list. We would like both of you gentlemen to address these
issues.
Before I ask you to make your opening statements, I'm very pleased to
call on the ranking Republican member of the full committee, who has been
engaged in the subject of fighting terrorism for many years, Congressman
Gilman of New York.
REP. BENJAMIN GILMAN (R-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
commend you for arranging this timely hearing on US anti-terrorism policy.
It's something we must address squarely and promptly. And I'm particularly
pleased to welcome our disinguished former colleague, Tim Wirth, in his
new role as counselor to the State Department. And as a point man for
global affairs, his portfolio now includes terrorism, but in this area I
must say the administration to date has been out to lunch. Those arrested
in the World Trade Center bombing and the plan to attack the UN
headquarters and other targets in Manhattan are followers of Sheik Omar
Abdel Rahman. He entered the country through a string of errors and
failures that suggest that Abbot and Costello may have been in charge of
our visas. Their equipment is obsolete. No one is assigned to make sure
that visa applicants are properly screened. The left hand, apparently,
doesn't know what the right hand is doing and, apparently, didn't seem to
care.
Legislation I've co-sponsored will fix many of these problems, but the
State Department says it will take more than a year just to modernize the
visa screening system. This is more than an abstract issue for me. Many
of my constituents work in Manhattan. One of them died in the World Trade
Center bombing. More could easily have been victims if the FBI had not
smashed the latest conspiracy.
Mr. Counselor, I don't want any more of my constituents blown up in
New York any more than my colleagues want. For that matter, I don't want
any more Americans at risk of terrorist attacks anywhere in our country.
I'd like to read to you a letter I've just received in the mail, and the
text goes as follows: "As an American born and living in New York City for
38 years and now in Rockland County for 30 years, I no longer feel safe in
this country. The latest incident of foreign terrorists in New York City
has made me realize you must institute legislation that changes completely
our immigration laws. We cannot continue to allow these people into our
country. The laws are wrong. We've allowed our US to become a dumping
ground for hoodlums, terrorists, and people who are not interested in any
good. They merely wish to destroy the US. I demand changes be made, and
tomorrow will not be too soon."
And I would venture to say that that's probably a feeling that's
rampant amongst many of our constituents.
I've spoken a number of times about this with administration
officials, and Secretary Christopher says it will be fixed. And I realize
that you are just coming onto the scene and we can't put the blame on your
shoulders, but all we have been hearing about is talk and no action, no
sense of urgency. The fence that should be keeping out terrorists has been
riddled with holes. And I don't think we can wait more than a year, and I
say it should be fixed now.
So, today, I'm introducing legislation calling on the Secretary to
submit to the Congress within 60 days following the enactment of that
legislation an emergency plan to straighten out this mess in both the short
and long term. Counselor Wirth, you and Secretary Christopher are going to
have to work together to personally drain this swamp, or it won't happen.
And we in the Congress will certainly do what we can to work with you to be
of whatever assistance we can. The safety of all Americans here at home
demands no less.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much, Congressman Gilman.
Let me say before turning to my colleague from Nebraska that, with the
possible exception of the flood in the middle of our country, there really
ought to be no subject less open to partisanship than the subject of anti-
terrorism and counterterrorism. And for the sake of accuracy, I would like
to correct my good friend's statements as to who has been out to lunch.
Sheik Rahman entered the United States under two presidents, President
Reagan and President Bush. I do not blame either President Reagan or
President Bush for the entry of Sheik Rahman into this country, but I think
it's utterly unacceptable to blame an administration that took office on
January 20th for the entry of the sheik that took place during the 1980s,
and I believe that my friend and colleague will want to make that
correction. If Abbott and Costello were in charge, Abbott and Costello had
different party affiliations than the one implied by my good friend.
REP. GILMAN: If the gentleman will yield, I think --
REP. LANTOS: I'll be happy to yield.
REP. GILMAN: I think the focus of our attention is on the system and
not who's to blame in the past, but let's find the holes in the system and
correct it and not wait a year to do it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: That was precisely my point. The holes are in the
system, and the system failed during the two previous administrations. And
I think it is unfair and palpably inaccurate to blame this administration
for those failures. And I think my friend understands this just as clearly
as I do.
Congress Bereuter.
REP. DOUG BEREUTER (R-NE): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
want to commend you for holding these hearings and say to our distinguished
former -- to welcome all the witnesses, but to say to our distinguished
former colleague in the House, Tim Wirth, welcome, a sincere warm welcome
back to you. You had a great and very distinguished career here in the
House and the Senate. And you have big sets of diverse responsibilities in
the State Department, and we wish you well. Hope to work constructively
and positively with you as you approach your responsibilities there for the
country.
This, as many people know, is the third in a series of hearings on
terrorism convened by the chairman.
I recall when we had the first hearing of this series in March. At that
time, Judge William Webster made the point that the United States is not an
easy target for terrorists. Yet our sieve-like borders, I would say, and
our openness to foreign visitors and our lifestyle makes us very vulnerable
to those terrorist attacks.
The recent arrests of the terrorist cell in New York City, caught in
the very act of creating a bomb, provides vivid proof of the extraordinary
job done by the relevant US agencies. As a rule, the public is not aware
of the efforts of our law enforcement agencies in this area. They tend to
do their job as they should, attracting little public attention. It's only
when something dramatic, as in the case of the arrest of the would-be
bomber terrorists, that our counterterrorism efforts become clear. But
there have in recent years been a number of equally impressive
counterterrorist operations that have not received public attention.
Still, no one can be totally secure from the terrorist threat.
Recently, Chairman Lantos and I were part of a US congressional
delegation that met with members of the European parliament. At that
meeting, British and Spanish parliamentarians spoke with great passion and
great sadness about the destruction that terrorism has brought to their
respective countries. And they gave us some very graphic examples that I,
for reasons of security, are not going to -- that I'm not going to
reiterate here, about the changes that would be necessary in our society in
order to cope with what they're facing today in London, for example. They
spoke about the ability of the IRA and the Basque guerrillas to bring the
country to a standstill, either by exploding a random bomb or by phoning in
a phony bomb threat. They warned that if terrorists gain a serious
foothold in the United States, the kinds of disruption caused by the World
Trade Center bombing will become all too commonplace.
While Americans, thus far, have been relatively effective in combating
terrorism state-side, it is important to note that US tourists and US
property throughout the world continue to be prime targets for terrorist
organizations. Our counterterrorist organizations and efforts are only as
effective as the intelligence we receive, our ability to work with our
friends and our allies, and the ability of our people to correctly
interpret and respond to the information we receive. Serving now as a
member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I have some appreciation of
the job that our intelligence and counterterrorist forces perform. I hope
my colleagues will remember that as we take up the authorization and
appropriation for the intelligence community.
It's a thankless task that they pursue oftentimes with no public
attention for all their successes. It is, however, these people doing
their jobs correctly that causes us to have some successes that no one ever
knows about. If there's a lapse, of course, they'll be subject to
microscopic examination.
There are a great many proposals designed to enhance the effectiveness
of our counterterrorism efforts. I know my distinguished Republican leader
on the full committee, Mr. Gilman, has a strong interest in preserving the
organizational structure of the Counterterrorism Bureau in the State
Department. And Mr. Gilman, I think, has been focusing on this subject of
counterterrorism longer than any member of the House.
I would say to our witnesses and my colleagues that I have a
particular concern regarding the abuse of US political asylum laws that
have, in some instances, permitted would-be terrorists to operate freely in
the United States. For example, the person who killed the CIA employees
while they were driving to work, Mr. Kansi, had claimed political asylum on
what turned out to be a patently fraudulent basis. One of the Sudanese
recently arrested, he was here claiming political asylum. We know, of
course, that the blind Sheik made claims for political asylum and that has
presented great difficulty in dealing with him for that and for other
reasons.
My own view is that some form of summary exclusion of patently
fraudulent political asylum claims is absolutely essential. We have 18,000
cases pending in New York City alone today -- no hope that those people
will ever show up for those hearings, they'll just fade into the fabric of
American society. And I do not blame the executive branch for that
problem; the blame belongs squarely on the Congress of the United States.
The INS is pleading for summary exclusion authority, and yet our judiciary
committees will not address this issue. So that is one particular concern
that I want to make known here today, and hope that my colleagues here, and
the public listening to any proceedings, will cause some action to be
taken.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. It's quite
timely. And I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses.
REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much, Congressman Bereuter. Let me just
mention -- my colleagues know -- just a short while ago, we held a
confidential closed hearing on Sheik Rahman and the series of events that
led to his repeated entry into the United States. Next week, on Thursday,
this subcommittee will hold an
open hearing on that entire issue, and while obviously we can discuss that
matter fully today, we have set aside an entire hearing for that purpose.
I would also like to associate myself with the comments of my friend
from Nebraska concerning summary exclusion. I think the time is long past
that the United States can expose itself to terrorist threats by misguided
policies in this field of political asylum and related matters. Probably
no member of this body has done more to point to state sponsored terrorism
in the former Yugoslavia than my good friend from Indiana, and I'm happy to
call on Congressman McCloskey.
REP. MCCLOSKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. No questions or
statements.
REP. LANTOS: Secretary Wirth, we're delighted to hear from you.
Oh, I'm sorry. Congresswoman Snowe? (Pause.) Won't you at least
welcome our distinguished guest? (Laughter.)
Okay, Secretary Wirth.
SEC. WIRTH: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to be here with my
colleagues, and want to begin by thanking you and the committee for holding
these hearings. As a new member of the executive branch, I can assure you
that the preparation for a hearing does cause a good deal of focus and
coordination, exactly the kinds of things that you all have been talking
about, and so I just want to assure how constructive we believe these
hearing are and how helpful they are in helping to pull together data
downtown.
Also, we greatly appreciate and respect the bipartisan or non-partisan
approach that you and Congressman Gilman have taken to this, both this year
and in the past. We greatly appreciate it. That's precisely the way that
we have to approach this. As you pointed out in your opening statement,
probably no issue is less partisan -- perhaps only the flood issue. So let
me just draw a little bit more out on the metaphor that you raised related
to the floods and the problems that we have there.
During flood conditions, if you don't repair the levees and keep them
constructed, if you don't have a roof that works, you're going to get wet
and run into significant problems. The parallel to that are the
information systems that the State Department has had. And unfortunately,
looking back on this, we have not kept the levees repaired and kept the
roof repaired. We have not kept the information systems up, and this has
been in fact a major, major problem. We are dealing with, as you have
heard in previous testimony and will hear next week, extraordinarily
antiquated information systems in an area that is not rocket science any
more. I mean, all of us deal with information systems, for example, in our
own personal lives with credit cards and credit checks. There are very
broad computer systems that allow us with great ease to check on millions
and millions -- tens of millions of Americans, and yet we have such an
antiquated system that dealing with 2-1/2 million people who are on the
various lists around the world, we can't keep track of them.
We have, as you know, made requests to the Congress in the coming
appropriations, requesting funds to sharply update this. As pointed out,
it does take time to put in these new systems, but we really appreciate the
support that we've gotten from the Congress in helping us to repair the
levees, so to speak, to put in the new systems that are absolutely
imperative so that we at least have the information necessary at all of our
consular offices spread around the world to do a better job, to catch
individuals before that water or those thugs seep into the country. So we
appreciate that, and I just wanted to carry out your metaphor as a start,
because I think it is an appropriate way of beginning.
The past several months have brought more than their share of dramatic
terrorist-related events. Even since the department's last testimony in
this issue before your committee in March, we've seen Iraq's attempt to
kill former President Bush, the arrests of suspect planning to blow up the
UN headquarters and other facilities in New York City, coordinated
incidents by Kurds in European cities, the burning of a Turkish hotel with
the loss of 40 lives, and continuing violence by groups such as the PIRA
(?) in the United Kingdom and the ETA in Spain.
This spate of domestic and international terrorist attacks has raised
terrorist concerns in many countries. More directly, the World Trade
Center bombing and the threat of attacks against the United Nations
headquarters, against tunnels leading to New York, and against Senator
D'Amato personally, have brought the terrorist threat home to us in the
United States,
a point so clearly made in Congressman Gilman's opening -- opening
statement.
Naturally, these developments cannot help but make us wonder about
what may happen next. As a government and people, we also have to consider
what else can be done against the terrorist threat. How best can we
protect our society without generating a sense of panic that may well
further the terrorists' goals of disrupting and sapping confidence in our
institutions?
The terrorist threat will not go away. It takes too many forms.
There are too many potential criminals seeking publicity for their views,
and their weapons are often rudimentary and widely available. This should
not, however, be cause for despair. There are steps we and other
governments can take together to counter the threat posed by terrorists,
steps that we are taking, and steps that we are augmenting week by week.
I look forward to discussing the administration's counterterrorism
policies and programs with you today, and I would suggest that perhaps we
might first examine emerging trends in terrorism and our strategies to
combat those threats, and then discuss areas in which the essential
partnership between the Congress and the executive branch to counter
terrorism can be strengthened.
In 1992, as you pointed out in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman,
there were a total of 361 acts of international terrorism, the lowest level
in 17 years. Through May of this year, our preliminary figures show that
there have been 115 incidents of international terrorism as compared to 144
for the similar period in 1992. These statistics are subject to revision
and do not include the spate of anti-Turkish incidents undertaken by the
Kurdish Workers' Party in late June. Casualties of terrorism increased
dramatically, however, because of the number of persons injured in the
World Trade Center bombing. That number will go up approximately a
thousand people injured, as Congressman Gilman again pointed in his
remarks.
American citizens and property remain the principal targets of
terrorists throughout the world. Nearly 40 percent of last year's
incidents were directed at US targets, US individuals, US institutions, US
firms. We expect that trend to continue this -- this year and into the
future. The US influence in economic, cultural, political, and military
terms is so much greater than any other nation that we inevitably represent
a high profile target to terrorists around the world.
Regrettably, while the number of overall terrorist incidents is down,
the first six months of 1993 have seen a surge in terrorist spectaculars.
Terrorists, as we all know, seek publicity. Those behind the World Trade
Center bombing, Iraq's attempt to kill former President Bush, and the
recent and chilling coordinated wave of Kurdish attacks across Europe
sought the headline. We condemn such heinous acts and the result of
violence against innocent people.
Making accurate predictions about future trends in terrorism is, of
course, difficult. Terrorism is often cyclical in nature. As old passions
and groups fade, often we see new factors, new groups, new causes emerge to
produce deadly terrorist attack. Addressing where terrorism will come from
in the future is difficult, and experts disagree. But there is little
dispute that we will be dealing terrorists and their crimes for years to
come.
Terrorism at its most basic is an attempt to change through violence
and intimidation the practices and policies of people and governments. We
are not going to yield to this. To do so only encourages future terrorism.
The Clinton administration is committed to exerting strong and steady
leadership in a rapidly-changing world. History has taught us the United
States and all nations can meet that challenge by maintaining a commitment
to democratic institutions and to the rule of law. Promoting democratic
governments and institutions are full -- that are fully accountable to
their citizens is our most basic tool for advancing free markets and our
long-term national security, and addressing the great and complex global
issues of our time.
Democracy does not sponsor terrorism. It is no accident that states
that do -- Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba -- are also among the most repressive
for their own citizens.
Mr. Chairman, let me assure you the that Clinton administration
will remain vigilant in countering whatever threats may be posed by
international terrorists to US interests. Working in close consultation
with the Congress, successive administrations have developed a set of
principles which continue to guide us as we counter the threat posed by
terrorists. These include making no concessions to terrorists, continuing
to apply increasing pressure to state sponsors of terrorism, forcefully
applying the rule of law to international terrorists, and helping other
governments improve their capabilities to counter the threats posed by
international terrorists.
Countering terrorism is, of course, more than a matter of policies.
It's the effective day-to-day implementation of these policies that is so
important. The Clinton administration is committed to an effective and
interagency approach to combatting terrorism. Every day, officials at
State, Justice, Defense, the CIA and FBI cooperate closely in an ongoing
effort against the threats posed by international terrorists. Indicative
of these close working relationships is the presence here today of the good
witness from the FBI, Mr. Harry Brandon. We clearly recognize that
countering the threat of terrorism does not consist solely of applying the
rule of law or bringing intelligence or diplomacy to bear on the problem or
resorting to military might. Instead, our approach is and will be an
interagency one. This ensures that all of our efforts are coordinated and
bring to bear the best capability of our government and its people as we
jointly deal with that threat.
The post-Cold War international environment is simultaneously less and
more hospitable for terrorists. Terrorists no longer enjoy safe haven or
receive support in Eastern Europe. Moscow has reduced the flow of arms to
several of the six nations -- Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and
Syria -- that we identify as state sponsors of terrorism. At the same
time, however, state sponsorship of terrorism remains a significant growing
threat to American interests and nationals. Iran continues to sponsor
international terrorism, maintains its unacceptable fatwa against Salman
Rushdie and represents a significant terrorist threat to American
interests. Iraq, despite the requirements imposed by the United Nations,
regularly engages in terrorism against UN relief operations and, most
dramatically, tried to kill former President Bush. Libya refuses to comply
with the requirements imposed by the UN Security Council in light of its
clear responsibility for the bombings of Pan Am 103 and UTA 772. Syria
continues to allow terrorist groups to maintain offices and training sites
in the territory it controls.
As we look toward emerging threats, we must also recognize that long-
suppressed ethnic- and religious-based conflicts may lead to new violent
expressions such as we're already seeing in the Balkans. We need to be
alert to the possible emergence of international terrorism from such ethnic
conflicts. In the Middle East and North Africa, new and radical groups
such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the FIS in Algeria have
emerged in recent years, invoking Islamic ideology but using terrorist
tactics to advance their extremist agendas. In Egypt, the Islamic group,
the group with whom Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman is so closely involved, has
undertaken violent attacks on Egyptian officials, secular intellectuals and
foreign tourists in an effort to destabilize the Mubarak government. I
would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Egypt on its forthright
decision to seek the extradition of the Sheik to stand trial for attacks
that he inspired while still in Egypt. Tough decisions such as that made
by Egypt demonstrate the worldwide recognition that applying the rule of
law is one of the most effective means possible to confront the threat
posed by terrorism.
The misuse of Islamic political rhetoric by these groups should not
cause us to confuse in our own minds terrorism and Islam. Our problem is
not, of course, with Islam or the people who practice that religion; it is
instead with the use of violence and terrorism by any person, regardless of
religion, national origin or ethnicity. Even with Iran, the most effective
state sponsor of terrorism, we have made clear that it is unacceptable
behavior, not the religious nature of the regime, that is the source of our
concerns. Drawing a distinction between behavior and religion also helps
defeat the Iranian desire to lead Islamic opinion and draw lines of
confrontation between Islam and the West.
Our counter-terrorism strategy has three key elements: to implement
our policy of no concessions, to keep pressure on state sponsors, and to
apply the rule of law. These basic policies have served us well in the
past and will do so in the future. Our strategy applies equally well to
groups such as the Abu Nidal organization or a small and unnamed group
which may come together to undertake only a single attack. Terrorists,
whether from the Provisional Irish Republican Army, Sendero Luminoso, or a
more loosely organized group such as the group that appears responsible for
the World Trade Center bombing, always have had the advantage of being able
to take the initiative in selecting the timing and choice of targets.
It's unfortunately true that terrorists have to be successful or lucky
only occasionally to gain international attention. That is one reason that
gathering intelligence is so essential to frustrating the work of
terrorists. In this regard, the efforts by the FBI to infiltrate the group
planning to undertake a savage series of attacks in New York will serve as
a landmark example of the importance of intelligence in interdicting
terrorist operations. Improving our intelligence capabilities is a major
part of our response.
Another major element of our counter-terrorism policy is a firm
response. When President Clinton ordered the cruise missile strike against
the headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service, he delivered a firm,
proportional and necessary response to the continuing threat against the
United States posed by Iraq, a shown by the outrageous Iraqi attempt
against the life of former President Bush. The strike demonstrates that
the Clinton administration will respond vigorously, decisively and
effectively to the terrorist threat around the world.
Increasingly, governments are willing to join in steps against state
sponsors of terrorism and the groups they support. An outstanding example
of international cooperation is the United Nations Security Council
condemnation of Libya for Pan Am 103 and UTA 772. The passage of landmark
UN Security Council Resolution 731 and 748 is a significant indication of
this changed attitude. Until Libya complies fully with the requirements
imposed by the Security Council, these sanctions will remain in place.
Indeed, the sanctions may be strengthened if that nation continues to
refuse to comply with the legitimate conditions imposed by the Security
Council.
Let me assure you that I personally continue to work closely with our
British and French allies on this issue. I met in Paris just two weeks ago
with my counterparts from these nations to discuss additional sanctions on
Libya. All three governments have gone on record that new and tougher
sanctions should be considered if Libya does not comply with the Council's
demands. Libya would be well advised not to misjudge our resolve.
Mr. Chairman, the State Department has the lead role in dealing with
international terrorism overseas and does so through an interagency
coordinating mechanism. The Justice Department has a similar lead role in
terrorism issues occurring within the United States.
In confronting international terrorism, we recognize that terrorists do not
just engage in acts that are purely political. They are criminal acts in
their -- to their -- there are criminal aspects to their activities.
Hijacking or bombing an aircraft or planting a bomb in a marketplace is a
crime no matter what the motivation. Furthermore, some terrorist groups
which do not enjoy state-sponsorship have tried to develop independent
means of support. Some groups have resorted to crime, such as bank robbery
or extortion, while others, particularly in the Andean region, have
developed close working relationships with drug dealers.
When the transition team began to work at the State Department, it was
struck by the number of small independent offices and bureaus that had been
established to deal with problems such as narcotics and terrorism. Many of
these offices enjoyed direct access to the Secretary or part of a complex
and ineffective management structure. One step toward rationalizing this
process was the recommendation that we form a new Bureau for Narcotics,
Terrorism and Crime. Under the reorganization plan, this new bureau will
be under my direction as the Undersecretary for Global Affairs. The
reorganization will ensure that the range of issues associated with
terrorism, including narcotics and international crime, will have my
personal attention. I strongly believe that this synergistic approach will
make our counterterrorism policies and programs more effective,
particularly in this hemisphere, where a combination of criminal activity,
narcotics trafficking and terrorism threatens the growth of fragile
democratic institutions, particularly in Central America and the Andean
region.
I recognize that there have been concerns expressed about the
reorganization. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to assure you and your colleagues
that there will be no diminution of the US government's commitment to
counterterrorism. I can and do bring counterterrorism matters directly to
the Secretary and to others in the administration. I am and will remain
available to the Congress on this important issue. And I will continue to
provide that leadership under the proposed reorganization. Besides
offering management rationality, this reorganization also offers
significant benefits by improving coordination in our international efforts
to train personnel in anti-terrorism and narcotics capabilities, a
leadership role which we in the United States are increasingly playing
around the world. In addition, this reorganization allows us to apply the
lessons learned from one strategy to counter similar problems in another
type of criminal activity.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me touch briefly on congressional activity
that we hope to work with you to pass through the Congress. At the
beginning of my testimony, I mentioned the need to strengthen further the
partnership between the Executive and Legislative Branches. There are a
number of legislative initiatives which need action during this session,
and I would hope that you and your colleagues could help us in the
Executive Branch by providing for prompt congressional action on these
important, yet relatively noncontroversial initiatives. Our
counterterrorism priorities include the following:
The President last month signed documents transmitting to the Congress
the Convention on the Marketing of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of
Detection, a new international convention dealing with detecting and
controlling plastic explosives. After the December 1988 destruction of Pan
Am 103 by a plastic explosives bomb, the United States and other nations
agreed to identify chemical marking agents which could be incorporated into
plastic explosives during the manufacturing stage in order to make these
explosives detectable. Our aim was to develop an international agreement
that would help prevent bombings using plastic explosives. As a result,
this international agreement was completed in Montreal in 1991. It is has
been signed by the United States and 50 other nations. The administration
is seeking urgent Senate action on this agreement.
We also seek congressional action this year on implementing
legislation for two important counterterrorism treaties -- the Protocol for
the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving
International Aviation and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Attacks Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. These treaties extend
the prosecute or extradite principle embodied in previous multilateral
anti-terrorism treaties to attacks on airports serving civilian aviation
and to attacks on civilian shipping and off-shore platforms. These
treaties were prompted in part by the 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks
and by the hijacking of Achille Lauro passenger liner. The Senate gave its
advice and consent to these international conventions in 1989, but approval
of the implementing legislation was delayed because it was incorporated
into the Omnibus Crime Bill. The Clinton administration included the
counterterrorism legislation in its proposed State Department authorization
bill for fiscal years 1994-95.
I understand that during its mark-up last month, your full committee
felt it could not act on the treaty legislation and the other
counterterrorism provisions because of jurisdictional issues with the
judiciary committee. I hope your committee and perhaps those who also
serve on Judiciary can be helpful in securing final approval for this
implementing legislation, the absence of which prevents US accession to
these important international agreements. Perhaps these can best be dealt
with in conference.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, before turning to your
questions, I'd like to emphasize again our commitment to the long-term
struggle against terrorism. As both President Clinton and Secretary
Christopher have made clear, the issue of domestic and international
terrorism is a high priority for this administration. Obviously, there are
no magic solutions or silver bullets for this problem. Instead, working in
a close relationship with the Congress, we must and will maintain our
vigilance, increase and adjust our capabilities, and further development
cooperation to help ensure the safety of Americans and American interests
throughout the world. We need and appreciate your continued support, and
we thank you for your help.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I also want to
welcome Ms. Barbara Bodeen (sp), who is acting coordinator for
counterterrorism at the State Department.
If it's all right with you, Mr. Brandon, since Secretary Wirth will
have to leave before noon, we would like to get to questions with him now
so all of my colleagues will have a full opportunity to question him. Is
that all right with you, sir?
MR. BRANDON: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: I appreciate your -- your courtesy.
Before beginning the questions, let me express my appreciation to the
full committee's specialists on terrorism, Ms. Beth Ford, to Ms. Marianne
Murray (sp), our outstanding summer intern Frank Salufo (sp), the
Republican staff specialist, Mike Innis (sp), and staff director Dr. Bob
King and John Mackin (sp) for the preparation of -- of this hearing.
Mr. Secretary, you said a great deal that I agree with, but there are
a number of issues that disturb me and perhaps where the department and at
least I have differing points of view. So let me begin by focussing on the
dramatically different reaction we have had to the attempted assassination
of President Bush and the Pan Am 103 tragedy.
President Bush visited Kuwait this spring. And after a thorough
investigation, and there is no doubt in my mind that the investigation was
thorough and the evidence is conclusive, President Clinton -- and I'm
quoting from your testimony -- "ordered the cruise missile strike against
the headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service. He delivered a firm,
proportional, and necessary response to the continuing threat against the
United States posed by Iraq as shown by the outrageous Iraqi attempt
against the life of former President Bush. The strike demonstrated the
Clinton administration will respond vigorously, decisively, and effectively
to the terrorist threat around the world."
Well, let me first to clear the record tell you what I said the moment
I was advised of this attack by -- by our forces, that I fully support the
President's action. I think it was absolutely necessary. It was firm.
And unfortunately, it was proportional. I have grave doubts about the
proportionality of response to terrorist attacks. This gives the terrorist
entity the opportunity to determine tit for tat what will take place. And
I would like to, in the first place, ask you to respond to the wisdom of
this proportionality issue, and then indicate whether you will take back to
the secretary and the President the concern that many of us have that the
proportionality of response is not an effective way of dealing with
terrorism. Response has to be disproportionate, response has to be so
punishing and so severe that the terrorist will think twice before
repeating this attack or similar attacks. But be that as it may, President
Bush visited Kuwait this spring, and a couple of months later, the United
States firmly and, in my judgment, appropriately responded.
Now there is clearly no doubt about the terrorist attack having been
perpetrated against Pan Am 103. If my memory serves me right, that outrage
occurred 3-1/2 years ago -- 3-1/2 years ago. And what the failure of
response to me indicates is an internationally advertised impotence by the
civilized world to deal with such an outrage.
I was stunned by your prepared testimony, Mr. Secretary, and this is
what you are saying. Increasingly governments are willing to join in steps
against state sponsors of terrorism and the groups they support. An
outstanding example of international cooperation is the United Nations
Security Council condemnation of Libya for the Pan Am 103 and the UTA 772
bombings. Well, presumably the two people who have been identified as the
perpetrators of this outrage which resulted in the death of scores of
innocent people -- scores of innocent people with their families still
crying out for justice -- there has been nothing.
Two weeks ago, you met in Paris with your counterparts, as you say,
and you may ratchet up the sanctions. Well, you may ratchet up the
sanctions if you succeed in persuading them, but that also will result in
nothing. And I would like to ask you to engage in some introspection on
the part of this administration in this appallingly double standard in
responding to international terrorism. When the terrorist attack is aimed
at a former President, we respond practically instantaneously, as soon as
we complete the inquiry -- and forcefully. When the terrorist attack
results in the death of innocent civilians, large numbers of innocents
civilians, years ago, by a country that we have defined as a state-sponsor
of terrorism for years under the Reagan, Bush and now the Clinton
administration, we are still diddling with diplomatic niceties, and there
is no penalty
and no punishment. And I, for one, cannot comprehend the totally different
intensity and speed with which response was forthcoming.
Now, I realize that most of this occurred before your tenure. I think
retaliation should have taken place long before now, certainly under the
Bush administration. But you have now been in office, this administration
has been in office now for five, six months, and we are still talking about
ratcheting up sanctions against Libya. The people have still not been
extradited. There is still no visible punishment of the perpetrators. And
I'd be grateful if you'd try to respond.
MR. WIRTH: Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
your question and it is one that on the surface poses a dilemma. But I
think, looking underneath it, they are two very, very different situations,
different timing, and two -- as you point, two very different
administrations.
First, focusing on Iraq, it was a carefully considered response by
this administration. As you know, it was a matter that after the proof
became clear that this was the group that had attempted the assassination
of President Bush, after it was clear that that was also a state
sponsorship of that group and all of the evidence was in, we were very
careful about working that through and the response was considered. A
number of options, as you can imagine, were looked at, and the chosen
option was to operate over the weekend and to go after the headquarters of
Iraqi intelligence, to do so in a manner that we thought was proportionate
and we thought would also cause the least loss of innocent civilian life.
That was the decision made by this administration to, one, demonstrate
the fact that we were clearly willing and able and were committed to a fast
response, but also wanted to do so without killing a number of innocent
people. We are also in that business of trying to demonstrate that kind of
humanity regardless of what terrorists might do.
Related to the comparison with Pan Am 103 --
REP. LANTOS: Well, Mr. Secretary, no one is advocating the killing of
innocent people, so let's get that clear.
The question I have is whether the action, which you again
appropriately describe as proportionate, shows good judgment. Because it
seems to me, at least, that Saddam Hussein's ability to plan and carry out
further terrorist attacks may have been slightly impaired but has certainly
not been eliminated.
I very much doubt that this will have any long-term effect on Saddam's
propensity for terrorism and, as many have indicated, there may be counter-
retaliation because, clearly, the impact was so minimal. It was minimal.
We did some damage to one of the many intelligence headquarters. There are
plenty of other intelligence organizations, there are plenty of other
military organizations that Saddam has, planning terrorism, supporting
terrorism, participating in terrorism.
So the response, while it may have been effective symbolically, and it
certainly enjoyed the overwhelming support in the Congress, including mine,
and that of the American people, it does not answer the question as to why
the response was not more effective in crippling Saddam's capabilities.
MR. WIRTH: Well, Mr. Chairman, again, it was the judgment of the
administration, looking at all of
the alternatives that were available, and once it became clear that this
was an act of attempted state-sponsored terrorism, as to what the response
ought to be, and the response that was chosen was the one that was
executed.
One can, I'm sure, disagree on what the level of response ought to be.
As I pointed out, one of the variables in our thinking was what impact this
would have on, and how we could identify and isolate various targets with a
minimum loss of the lives of innocent individuals. It was clearly one of
the variables that we at this point were concerned about.
REP. LANTOS: Speaking of loss of innocent lives, what is your answer
to the families of the Pan Am victims whose innocent lives were lost 4-1/2
years ago? Now four years of that period was not under this
administration, but a half a year has been.
MR. WIRTH: Mr. Chairman, we share exactly your exasperation, your
frustration, and your -- the reaction to the appalling bombing of Pan Am
103. I have met on a number of occasions with the families of the victims,
as has Secretary Christopher, as have any number of high-level officials in
this administration, and they are a remarkable, patient, and persistent
group of Americans who deserve not only our understanding but our enormous
admiration.
The Pan Am 103 situation, as you pointed out, occurred four-plus years
ago. The forensics, the tracing of the bomb that blew up Pan Am 103 was
really quite a remarkable but very time-consuming achievement, as you know.
Once it was very clear -- which was about two years ago -- once it was very
clear -- a little more than that -- two years ago, that this -- where the
bomb had come from, and who had made it, and it was traced back, then the
previous administration chose the route that they chose to take. And you
know, I don't want to second guess the decisions made at that point. They
were made, and that is history.
When I said that there was, in my testimony, a quite remarkable coming
together of nations on this, this is the first time that this had happened,
Mr. Chairman. Most nations have viewed the issues of terrorism, and --
like the issue of narcotics as, well, those are American problems. You
know, we don't have those, those are yours, Uncle Sam, you take care of
those. Now increasingly, countries are coming to understand that
terrorism, like narcotics, is resting in their backyards as well, and that
it is absolutely imperative that we as a community of civilized nations
under the rule of law attempt to act together forcefully through
international bodies where appropriate, and the previous administration
chose to go through the United Nations. The French, the British, and the
United States got together and led the resolution that passed through the
Security Council and then passed the United Nations to apply sanctions
against Libya. Those were economic sanctions.
Now Mr. Chairman, to suggest that those have had no impact whatsoever
I think is perhaps not to give them the credit that they deserve. I think
if we were to look carefully at the activities of the Libyans since then,
the Libyans' economy is in significant problems, the Libyans have not, to
my best knowledge, become active on the world scene as they were before.
We have, through this set of sanctions, been able to isolate the Libyans
and been able to demonstrate to them thatthe world was very concerned about
their activities and --
REP. LANTOS: Is Libya continuing to be able to sell its oil?
MR. WIRTH: Excuse me?
REP. LANTOS: Is Libya selling oil at the moment?
MR. WIRTH: The next step is what sanctions ought to be carried out as
the next step. Libya's still selling oil. Oil provides about 95 percent
-- 90 to 95 percent of Libya's foreign exchange and is 25 to 30 percent of
the Libyan economic base. The United States has been very concerned, as
you and I have discussed, to -- while the Libyans are hurting as a result
of the first set of sanctions, we would like in the United States to
ratchet those sanctions up to a next level, and that's what I was meeting
with our French and British colleagues about. There is a difference of
opinion between the allies about what sanctions ought to be undertaken. It
is our hope --
REP. LANTOS: Who is opposing placing an oil embargo on Iraq -- on
Libya?
MR. WIRTH: Well, the French have been less enthusiastic about an oil
embargo than an assets freeze. The British have been less enthusiastic
about an asset freeze than an embargo on oil or oil equipment. What we are
attempting to do is to work through a kind of brokerage arrangement so that
the three of us can be in agreement, and that is, as you probably know, a
difficult negotiation. But we would like to be able to ratchet up those
sanctions. We believe that that's the appropriate response by the United
States of America and by the United Nations.
REP. LANTOS: Mr. Secretary, I believe we have six countries on the
list of states currently sponsoring terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya,
North Korea, and Syria. Is that correct?
MR. WIRTH: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: Is there any intention on the part of the administration
to remove any of these six nations from that list?
MR. WIRTH: I know of no intent to remove any of those six nations
from the list, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: Is there any intention on the part of this
administration, Mr. Secretary, to add any countries to this list? And I
particularly have in mind the possibility of Sudan, which in the view of
some of us should have been placed on the list a long time ago, and
possibly Pakistan.
MR. WIRTH: The Sudanese situation is currently under review, Mr.
Chairman. The previous administration had determined that there was not
evidence of state-sponsored terrorism from Sudan, and that is the
criteria, is not individual acts of terrorism but state-sponsored
terrorism. We are reviewing that at the current time and are almost
completed with our own review of the Sudanese situation.
Similarly, ahead of that was a review of Pakistan, and that decision
will be forthcoming in the next few days.
REP. LANTOS: Speaking of -- of Pakistan, a Pakistani citizen was
charged with killing two CIA employees earlier this year. Is that correct?
MR. WIRTH: I beleve that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: What degree of cooperation have we received from the
government of Pakistan in pursuing this matter?
MR. WIRTH: We have extensive negotiations and discussions with the
country of Pakistan, and have made it very clear to them -- they are very
aware of the fact -- that if the country of Pakistan is placed on the
terrorism list, that, then, has significant economic repercussions for
Pakistan and for the relationships between our two countries. And as a
consequence we have found increasing cooperation from the Pakistanis.
REP. LANTOS: Are you satisfied at the moment, Mr. Secretary, that
Pakistan is giving us full cooperation in apprehending the killer of two of
our CIA employees?
MR. WIRTH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Pakistanis have been very
forthcoming and cooperative on this. But again, I would point out that the
procedures established by the Congress and implemented by the State
Department in terms of listing countries, you know, for state-sponsored,
and that is in the report that we put out annually, and, you know, is an
enormously important tool that is available. And countries are absolutely
aware of the fact that this tool is there and that we're willing to use it.
REP. LANTOS: Now, it's the information of some of us that Sudan is
acting as a surrogate for Iran. What is the State Department's view of the
degree of cooperation between Iran and Sudan, both in the field of
perpetrating state-sponsored terrorism and in other areas?
MR. WIRTH: There -- it appears to us, Mr. Chairman, to be a number of
suggestions that there is that linkage, and we're in the process of
examining that right now. It is no mystery that the airport in Khartoum is
a -- is a conduit out of which and into which fly all kinds of contraband,
whether those are individuals or narcotics activities or others, and we are
very, very concerned about that. And as I pointed out earlier, we are
right in the middle of our re-examination of the US position toward --
toward the government of Sudan.
REP. LANTOS: Now, a number of us in the Congress have been disturbed
by official US contacts with various terrorist radical Islamic
organizations that have been involved in violent terrorist acts such as
Hamas or the Islamic group in Egypt. What did we gain from such contacts,
Mr. Secretary.
MR. WIRTH: (to staff) Do you know what those were?
MS. : I have -- (off mike)
MR. WIRTH: You'd have to refresh my memory. I can't comment on that.
I'll do that for the record, Mr. Chairman. I don't know about the -- I --
I cannot tell you about those specific contacts. Let me review that and
get back to you, if I might.
REP. LANTOS: That's -- that's -- that's very good.
Congressman Gilman.
REP. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN (R-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wirth, first let me say that nobody is attempting to put blame on
your responsibilities in this office, this administration, or prior
administrations. It's just that all of the prior administrations have left
something to be desired with regard to the effective approach to
counterterrorism. And particularly now with what's happened in the last
few months, a greater amount of emphasis is due with regard to finding some
more effective ways of dealing with this.
Now, our enforcement people tell us that the most important part of
their prevention program is to get intelligence, to be able to spotlight
groups and persons who are intent on doing harm to our nation. And that's
why we've concentrated most recently in trying to close the loopholes on
our immigration areas and trying to make certain that we provide the kind
of information that's needed at our ports of entry with regard to potential
terrorists and criminals. And I know that we can't talk about the
specifics of the recent IG report on the visa to Sheik Rahman at this point
until it's finally -- the confidentiality is removed.
However, that report at the end of June pointed out some very serious flaws
in the visa system and in trying to keep terrorists out of our nation,
serious flaws which we knew about, which your office knows about. So tell
us, what is the Department, and your office particularly, charged with the
anti-terrorism portfolio, doing now and immediately to try to close these
gaping holes in our ow house of defenses against terrorism?
MR. WIRTH: Well, I think, Mr. Gilman, your initial description of
Abbot and Costello is probably pretty accurate. In the situation of the
blind sheik getting into the country, in exploring that I came to a very
simple conclusion. Everything that could have gone wrong did, and it
happened over a significant period of time. Fundamental to this is, as we
discussed earlier, an information system. We have a tendency in our
government to neglect the basic bricks and mortar, to neglect the basic
foundation, to neglect the processes that make government work. I mean, I
can tell you, going to the State Department after being in the Congress,
the State Department makes the Congress look like a Swiss watch. And I
know that may come as a surprise because you and I were probably frustrated
in the same way, but it's remarkable. The computer system in the --
REP. LANTOS: Let the record show it's not an expensive Swiss watch;
it's an inexpensive Swiss watch. (Laughter.)
MR. WIRTH: I'll leave the -- I'll leave that unattended, Mr.
Chairman.
But just to give you an example, the computer system in the State
Department was installed in the late 1970s. The computer system at OMB
effectively doesn't exist, and the same thing happened in the White House.
I mean, how you can get along with a telephone system surrounding the
President that is effectively the same kind of plug-in the telephones that
we all saw on "Saturday Night Live" 25 years ago -- you know, it is as much
a joke looking at this, but it's a tragedy, as well. You know, the State
Department itself just internally simply does not have the capability to do
the job that it's being asked to do in this simple matter of processing
information.
And we can't do this in our own backyard, and we certainly can't do it
around the world. We have consular posts, hundreds and hundreds of
consular offices around the world that are not linked together with any
kind of an information system. I mean, as I pointed out earlier, the
easiest parallel to think about is our own credit ratings. If you move
from New York to Colorado to California to Nebraska, you can have
information on Gilman or Wirth or Lantos or Bereuter within a matter of
minutes, and that information is very thorough, very complete, and very
simple to obtain with the technology of 1993. That does not exist in the
State Department.
The State Department Consular Affairs operation is still heavily
dependent on an old microfiche operation which is enormously awkward to
work, which is extremely old-fashioned, takes a great deal of time, and is
not capable of taking the spelling -- a transliteration of an Arab name to
English and looking at all of the permutations of that kind of a name. You
just can't do it. The consular office in Khartoum, the consular office in
Cairo both were dependent upon that old microfiche system. We are, as you
know and as you have helped us to do, trying to rapidly put new technology
in so that, in effect, our consular system can operate as a credit system
does in the United States. And again, that parallel is an easy one to come
to understand. So that's one problem that exists.
We have come to the Congress and asked for funds to do this. The
Congress has committed so far through the appropriations process most of
the money to do this, and it's essential that we do it. It's the kind of
very small investment that pays off enormously.
MR. GILMAN: Counselor Wirth, how long will it take us to attack the
priority areas, the areas where there is the most danger of having
terrorists come to our nation from those areas? What are we doing to
prioritize that kind of a reform of their systems?
MR. WIRTH: The current operation is upgrading in particular those
consular offices and embassies through which the greatest number of
individuals come. And so, therefore, we're talking about the largest
embassies in the world are the ones that are being upgraded first, because
they are the ones where you get the greatest return and have the greatest
need for that kind of upgrade.
REP. GILMAN: Is that underway at the present time?
MR. WIRTH: That is currently under -- that is current underway. We
are also requesting funds for the much smaller posts, of which we have a
large number, and unfortunately, included in those, you know, is the post
in Khartoum, are a whole variety of new embassies in the former Soviet
Union, other areas around the world that, from our perspective, are a very
high priority. But until we have the funds to do it, we won't be able to.
It won't happen until the next year.
REP. GILMAN: We're ready to help you out in any way we can to close
up those problems. In --
MR. WIRTH: Well, we appreciate that, and I think we are in complete
agreement with your sort of Abbott and Costello description earlier.
Dealing with this with a technology that's effectively 30 years old made it
extremely difficult for consular officers to do the job that they're
trained to do.
REP. GILMAN: Well, I welcome your thrust. In 1991 --
MR. WIRTH: Thank you, Mr. Gilman.
REP. GILMAN: -- Counselor Wirth, the State Department stopped
checking the FBI criminal record histories of visa applicants. That
occurred, we've been advised, because of an interagency dispute with the
FBI over whether or not the State Department would have to pay a fee for
those checks on possible known criminals. Can you tell us when the State
Department will get back into the FBI criminal record system so that we can
get some sense of their government agencies working together to try to
thwart terrorists and other criminal elements from getting visas to travel
to our nation and that threatens our very safety? And if you need to pay
the FBI a little more, we can try to negotiate a treaty with them.
MR. WIRTH: Mr. Gilman, the -- during the late 1980s and early 1990s,
in the Congress we were all fascinated with user charges, and one of the
mandates for user fees came from the Congress that user fees be charged by
the FBI, and so, therefore, the State Department was required by law to pay
user fees to the FBI for gaining access to their information. I have been
-- met with the attorney general, Ms. Reno, no more than two weeks ago, and
we are putting together a long list of areas where we believe the State
Department and the Justice Department have got to increase and better
coordinate our activities. She has been absolutely terrific on this, and I
will defer to Mr. Brandon on this, but the -- I will say her first question
of me was, "What do you need from us?" One of our first responses is,
"Lower prices for access to your data."
Let me ask Mr. Brandon if he might want to comment on this, if I
could.
REP. GILMAN: I welcome that.
Mr. Brandon?
MR. BRANDON: This was mandated. The user fee was mandated. We
didn't think it was a very good idea. We don't think it's a very good idea
today.
REP. GILMAN: Could you move the mike? Could you move the mike a
little closer, please?
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir. These fees were mandated. We didn't think it
was a very good idea at the time. We don't think it's a very good idea
today, because it can, unfortunately, restrict the flow of information.
REP. GILMAN: Well, what are we talking about? How much are we
talking about to provide this kind of information to the State Department?
MR. BRANDON: I'm not aware of the exact fee. I tend to think it's in
the record of $6 or $7 a record check. I'm not sure of the accuracy of
that fee.
BARBARA BODINE (Acting Coordinator, Office of Counterterrorism):
Probably somewhere in that neighborhood, and when you get into the
thousands of --
REP. GILMAN: Well --
MS. BODINE: -- when you get into the thousands of record-check names,
you start getting into some serious money.
REP. GILMAN: Could you move that mike a little closer, too? It's
hard to hear --
MR. BODINE: Sorry.
MR. WIRTH: Mr. Chairman, this is Barbara Bodine, who is acting
coordinator of the Office of Counterterrorism.
REP. GILMAN: Yes. Could you repeat that response?
MS. BODINE: I'd just say that, even though the individual fee may
only be about $5 a name, when you think of the thousands of names that we
will often run through, it can be quite a burden on our consular affairs
budget.
REP. GILMAN: It's a bit embarrassing for us as members of Congress to
have to go out to the public and say, "Well, you know, we have trouble in
finding out who these terrorists are because we can't pay the subscription
fee to the FBI to get that information to where it should go.
REP. LANTOS: Would the gentleman yield?
REP. GILMAN: I'd be pleased to yield.
REP. LANTOS: Has either the Department of State or the Department of
Justice requested Congress to have this fee waived?
MR. WIRTH: Mr. Chairman, we are working with the Senate on a whole
package of activities. When the legislation came through in the House of
Representatives, you -- we were recently arrived and had not got our whole
perspective together. We have a whole package related to this and other
activities for the legislation currently going through the Senate.
REP. LANTOS: Mr. Brandon, has the Department of Justice requested
that this fee be waived?
MR. BRANDON: I'm not certain of that answer, sir.
REP. LANTOS: Well, I think both departments have a responsibility of
advising the Congress how they think this could be better worked. I think
we find it absurd that we have a World Trade Center bombing with a damage
of --
REP. GILMAN (?): $600 billion, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: Of over $600 million, and we are --
REP. GILMAN (?): Billion.
REP. LANTOS: And we are haggling over $5 fees for finding out FBI
information. I think this is an absurdity which needs to come to an end,
and it needs to come to an end without delay. I mean, the FBI will either
stop charging you, or we will give you the money so you can pay them, but
this absurd lack of cooperation cannot continue.
I thank my friend for yielding.
REP. BEREUTER (?): Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman --
REP. GILMAN: I'd be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
REP. BEREUTER (?): You know, I could see where a user fee to outside
agencies -- not agencies, but outside individuals might be appropriate, but
not between government agencies. But the FBI now provides for all of the
banks. Every individual that goes to work for a bank there's an FBI check
run on them and it costs $42 per check. And I'm wondering if in some of
the fees that you charge outside people because you have to set up a
department for doing that and personnel and equipment and everything else,
that somewhere in those -- that fee structure is included enough for the
operation of that division or department to cover the cost of their
interagency -- I'm not sure that when the government -- when the Congress
passed that that you were talking about, Mr. Wirth, that they were thinking
so much about interagency as they were from outside sources because I know
at the time they were thinking primarily about the number of employees that
were being screened by the FBI for banks.
REP. LANTOS: (Off mike) -- do you want to comment?
MR. WIRTH: Just to say that we have attempted on the cost of this to
pass it through to the applicants, of course, as much as possible, but it
does create an awkwardness in the situation, but I think it would be --
it's fair to point out, Mr. Gilman, that the fee issue is not the key issue
in this. I mean, it's a troublesome, troublesome noise in the background.
More important is the fact that we have an information system that is
so obsolete that it can't be used efficiently and effectively, and that
once we have the new information system and have fed into that information
the 2-1/2 million -- 2-1/2 to 3 million names that are currently on various
watch lists, both in the -- of the State Department and the FBI, that this
problem will be alleviated very significantly.
REP. GILMAN: Well, of course, it's more than troublesome, Counselor
Wirth. If -- here's one agency within the government, the FBI, that has
the information we need, but isn't passing it over to State Department
because State felt it was too expensive at one time. And yet, here we have
a $600 million property damage and the cost of lives in the World Trade
Center, some 200 lives in the Pan Am loss of life.
It's abominable that we don't have a transfer of intelligence and
information based upon cost. Does the CIA charge your agency for providing
information to you, or to the White House? And does the FBI charge the
White House for information? I think it's high time we correct this
abominable situation, and I would hope that we could get to that
immediately. And, of course, the Congress, as the chairman has indicated,
is willing to take a look at any statutory need in revising this system.
I'd welcome any comment.
MR. WIRTH: I mean, I -- again, we will be in the -- looking at the
possibility of this in terms of the Senate legislation, which will be the
companion bill to the bill that's already gone through the House. Again, I
would say, Mr. Gilman, that while this has been awkward and not as easy as
-- as possible and somewhat expensive, this has not been a fundamental
problem. I think our system includes all of the information from the FBI.
I think that there is -- I was just checking with Mr. Brandon. I do not
know of situations where we have been limited in our access to information.
It's more difficult to get, it's more expensive to get, but we've gotten it
all.
There's been very good cooperation with the FBI. Their information is
in our system, our information system and theirs, you know, can work
together. It's just that they are not as easily compatible as modern
systems would be. And let me again go back to the fact that the basic,
fundamental reform and streamlining of our information system is the key to
this.
REP. GILMAN: Well, I understand -- I understood that in 1991 State
stopped checking with the FBI because of the user fee problem. Has that
now been eliminated?
MR. BRANDON: (Aside to Wirth) (Off mike) -- but it didn't stop.
MR. WIRTH: Mr. Brandon's telling me that there was a momentary
slowdown in 1991, but it did not -- it did not stop and it's now back --
REP. GILMAN: So we're back on -- back on track --
MR. WIRTH: -- it's now back where it used to be.
REP. GILMAN: -- despite the user fee.
MR. WIRTH: Yes.
REP. GILMAN: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: Congressman McCloskey.
REP. FRANK MCCLOSKEY (D-IN): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
commend you for holding these hearings. They are most helpful and
educational. Very good to see Mr. Wirth again.
Tim, as we talked before, I do -- I truly am in awe, and I'm not
envious at all of the complexity and difficulty of your jurisdiction. I
wish you well. But I think the -- the difficulty and the scope of your
issues are as -- probably as large -- about as large as anyone's in the --
in the -- in the federal government that have to be accountable in any
particular way. So I guess I -- I might -- I might weave a question or a
concern together that brings quite basically two of your major areas
together: terrorism and refugees.
I was almost awesomely saddened by a report about ten days ago in the
New York Times interviewing a 20-year-old Sarajevan Bosnian soldier who
said quite matter-of-factly -- and he was not -- he was not dramaticizing
(sic) or exaggerating -- he said "I am a member of a lost generation." In
essence, as we all know, the whole world has walked out on young Sarajevans
and -- and young Bosnians. What can we say to them? Most interest -- most
interestingly, he said if somehow he lives through this, he -- he plans to
be a -- a terrorist.
Mr. Chairman, to me, the Bosnian Sarajevo situation, Bosnia and --
Bosnia overall, Sarajevo specifically right now is the biggest pressure
cooker for the present and the future generating terrorism that we can
possibly imagine. And in the -- in the meantime, as you know, the -- the
partition plan goes on, the -- Lord -- Lord Owen and whatever in essence
telling the Bosnians with a gun to their head "Take this or leave it". We
see in the last four or five days the word coming from Owen and others
that, indeed, the -- the UN could be out within a matter of weeks both
militarily. And, as far as refugee aid resources, UNHCR is -- is talking
about getting out. There -- there's fuel trucks, as you know, Tim, that
would help generate the water now stranded at the Sarajevo airport. All
our -- all our resources, all our governments, all our -- all our words
somehow cannot -- cannot keep these people from
dying from thirst and being most malevolently slaughtered as they're lining
up for water. I guess on a positive note, I guess I'd like to ask you is
there any hope? Maybe more objectively, is there any slaughter, is there
any abomination, is there any travesty, is there any genocide that would
generate the administration to break from the fold and to generate the
leadership on this issue and stop this slaughter?
MR. WIRTH: Well, Mr. McCloskey, you describe the situation, I think,
very accurately, and it is an enormous tragedy. We are building to a time
of a real watershed moment, I think, in the history of Sarajevo. There are
currently, in terms of my portfolio, responsibility for the humanitarian
side of this -- we have got two problems. One is one of access, as you
point out. The siege of Sarajevo goes on. The airport in Sarajevo --
there is six miles from town, approximately, as you point out, a good deal
of activity, and I think were the siege to be broken, if, in fact, that
happened in some way, then we would see the flowing into Sarajevo of
supplies not only from countries but from PVOs and NGOs from all over the
world, both from the West and from the countries -- Islamic countries.
Do we have the funds to do that? The United States -- people have
said we're not doing anything. The taxpayers of the United States, the
citizens of the United States have been extraordinarily generous. It
should be point out that in the last year, citizens of the United States
have spent approximately $340 million in humanitarian aid to Bosnia alone,
$95 million in the last month alone. I regret to say that the
contributions from our allies have not kept pace with what they had done
last year or with what we expect of them. Ambassador Zimmerman, whom you
know, Warren Zimmerman, who was our last ambassador to Yugoslavia, has been
appointed by Secretary Christopher as his special envoy, recently was in
the capitals of Europe talking to every one of the European governments
asking them to up their contribution, will be meeting with Mrs. Ogata in
Geneva at a specially-called UNHCR meeting this Friday, and we are hoping
that we can increase that pressure, Mr. McCloskey.
REP. MCCLOSKEY: Tim, I was in Zagreb talking to President Tudjman
about two weeks ago, and while there had a chance to drop by the UNPROFOR
headquarters. General Gudreau (sp), the second in command in the Balkan
region there, basically said that the one thing that could generate
concerted Western action would be the total slaughter and dismantling of
Sarajevo. I was heartened that he said that, but quite frankly, I was
skeptical and a little bit disbelieving at the time. I mean, can you tell
me any thought? Is there any thinking or any policy in the administration
that would not allow that? I mean, they're starving, an endangered people,
probably worse in Gorazde. But are we going to allow 350,000 people to be
slaughtered in Sarajevo, to be starved, shot, without water for days at a
time?
MR. WIRTH: Well, just two responses to that. Of course, the
political-military options are under constant review, as you know. On the
humanitarian side, we are doing everything we can to increase the
contributions coming from sources, political, governmental sources and
nongovernmental sources, but that, as you know, is extremely difficult as
long as the siege of Sarajevo goes on. Without access, no matter how many
supplies we have, it doesn't do any good.
MR. MCCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. Wirth.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much.
Congressman Bereuter?
REP. DOUG BEREUTER (R-NE): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wirth, you are sitting down there and the recipient of some
expressed frustrations on the part of members of the House.
MR. WIRTH: They're not shared by any of us in the State Department, I
can assure you, Mr. Bereuter.
REP. BEREUTER: I'm sure they are. And they are not aimed at you
personally, as I'm sure you understand. You, as a former member of the
House, know that members of the House are in better contact with the
American people routinely, every weekend, in the course of the week, than
any other segment of this society. We're in much better contact day to day
than the people who cover the Congress and national events. We're in much
better contact than the people that are in the bureaucracies with the
American attitude and opinion, and that level of frustration, pent up for
some number of years, is coming forth here.
Let me tell you, going back to the comments about the strike against
the intelligence service building in Iraq, that I agree with Chairman
Lantos that the response must be overwhelming. That's the kind of
statement, that's the kind of action that Saddam Hussein understands. It's
the only one he respects. And I disapprove very much of this constant use
of the term "proportionality." I see no proportionality in what happened
there. I see indisputably the Iraqi government attempting to assassinate
President Bush, and we respond by knocking out a building, damaging a
building. A former president; a building. And I look at that building,
multi-winged building, six stories high, reinforced steel and concrete, and
I wondered why wasn't that taken out in the war. Well, it was. It's been
built since the war, along with the palaces that we destroyed. They've
been built in a larger and grander scale ever. And we take great pains to
avoid any loss of life within the building by going for a weekend.
Now, do I have a better idea? Yes, I've got a better idea. We take
on the weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that are being
constructed in Iraq, and we take on the weapons of mass destruction that
are being built and rebuilt and the facilities for them in Libya. We not
only send a direct and telling message to them,
but we try to keep that kind of -- those kind of weapons of mass
destruction, the means of delivery, from reaching the operations stage that
they can be used against us and against the neighbors of those countries.
That's the kind of proportional response I think that is understood. We
looked weak, and it was a weak response.
Mr. Wirth, I -- Counselor, I do hope that you will have a chance to
try to impress once again, if you haven't already, on our Judiciary
Committee the kind of actions that they need to take over there. I am
quite concerned, if we have an incident of mass terrorism which involves
illegal aliens or people here under political asylum, there will be a kind
of a xenophobia -- already falling on fertile ground, already seeing the
signs of it in this country -- that will bring us the kind of actions that
we won't want to see in the United States. So it is important that we take
these actions to avoid that kind of xenophobia in this country.
And I just think it's quite important that you add the weight of the
administration to the plea for action from our Judiciary Committees so that
the personnel that we have in the INS and the various law enforcement
agencies have the tools that they need. I think it's important, and you
would understand this, that we listen to the people who are on the front
lines and we don't let it get filtered through a permanent bureaucracy in
some of the agencies that are accustomed to doing things one way and not
down there at Dulles Airport, not down there at JFK, not there off the
coast of California. Those are the people who we ought to listen to, I'd
say.
Can you tell me if you've had, in conclusion, any kind of opportunity
at this point to appear before a Judiciary Committee or have any of your
colleagues in State or Treasury had that opportunity?
MR. WIRTH: The -- I can tell you I have not personally testified.
This is -- the issues of asylum and the summary or expeditious exclusion
are both issues in the Justice Department, and I would refer to Mr. Brandon
or to other testimony. But I do know that, as we look at making our whole
system better, we talked earlier about our responsibilities in the
information system. Our department is strongly in support of the
expeditious exclusion or the summary exclusion provision that I believe you
mentioned in your opening comments. The -- that was passed, as you
remember, last year by the Congress and was part of the omnibus crime bill
that ultimately got vetoed. And that is currently being reviewed by an
interagency working group in this administration. So is the reforming and
streamlining of our asylum system, which requires major changes of law.
And I think you're absolutely correct. In all of my contacts, less
intense than they used to be, I think the bond between citizens and their
government not only is from citizens a sense of the military security or
the defense that's given to them, but also a sense that their borders are
secure and they're not being overwhelmed. And I think that, you know, we
see in California and in Texas and Florida in particular a sense of
institutions just being overwhelmed and the system not being able to
respond to that. This administration is extremely sensitive to and aware
of that. And President Clinton himself has spoken to that on a number of
occasions.
REP. BEREUTER: Counselor Wirth, I want to just say in conclusion that
I am impressed with the incredible array of responsibilities that you have,
but I believe you have the right kind of experience, the right intent and
the right integrity to pursue it successfully. So I wish you well on that
effort.
MR. WIRTH: Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter, and I -- it's a
great pleasure to be back here. When I earlier in response to Mr.
McCloskey's last comment about frustration, reflecting out my own and I
think yours as well -- you know, there are so many things you'd like to
have done immediately, and you know, my frustration comes from that it
doesn't happen as fast as you'd like it to. But, you know, I think that we
are making some significant progress. At least I hope so.
REP. BEREUTER: Thank you.
MR. WIRTH: Thank you.
REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much.
Congressman Martinez?
REP. MATTHEW MARTINEZ (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, like
my colleagues, I think that it -- well, maybe I have a slightly different
view in retaliation for the attempted assassination of George Bush. Where
maybe a building wasn't sufficient, I think timing and everything else
wasn't what it should have been in response to that. But I'm not too sure
that we want to go out and declare war against Iraq. Of course, we might
do that. We did that with Grenada without declaring war, wiped out a
government there. Went into Panama and pulled a government leader out of
Panama. So I guess we can do just about anything we want, unless we're
going to abide by our membership in the UN, and then I think we are limited
in what our response would be. So I'm not sure I want to, at this time,
say that the adequate response would have been declare war on Iraq. But it
almost sounds that some of my colleagues' statements border on that.
But what I'm more interested in is, you know, you talked earlier about
how easy it was for someone -- an undesirable or someone who's been
affiliated with terrorism or a known terrorist -- to get into the country
because of the checks and everything else. And I'm wondering, more
importantly -- well, it's not more importantly. It's important to stop
them before they ever get in here, because we have seemed to allow people
to come when a lot of different -- in a lot of different ways: visas,
visitors visas and everything else.
And, you know, the average person that's coming from one of these
countries, we make it so difficult for them to get in to visit a loved one
or to even come to a funeral of a loved one here. I've had countless
number of cases in my district office arguing with the State Department and
the embassies in the other countries of allowing people to come. I
remember one where the young man wanted to come to visit his mother because
she was desperately ill, and the State Department said, "Well, she's
desperately ill, and if death is imminent as you suggest, why don't you
just wait until she dies and come to the funeral?" Smart. She did die,
and then they told him, "Well, it's too late. She's dead. Why do you want
to come and visit now?"
You know, I can't understand the State Department's mentality in some
cases like that and their other mentality when they make it not as
difficult as possible for people who are, to my own personal opinion,
undesirable in this country who would cause these problems, but more than
that, after they're here and we discover who they are, the process for
getting them out. You know, I think it takes too long. I think there's
too many appeals that they make. We give them the same system of justice
that every American citizen has, and they're not American citizens. And
they came here for dubious reasons, to commit foul play against us.
So have you or the administration or the State Department thought
about submitting legislation to us to try to correct the way to get these
people out as quickly as we can or, if they have already committed a crime,
bring them to trial as possible and take appropriate action against them?
MR. WIRTH: Well, Mr. Martinez, first, the answer to that is yes.
First, we are respectful, as the Congress is, of the balance between civil
liberties and the respect for individual rights which is at the
fundamentals of the United States of America and everything that we've
stood for. You know, that basis, as the earlier part of your statement
reflects, is absolutely imperative for us to continue to respect.
Understanding that framework, we are -- right now there is a very
high-priority interagency working group looking at the reform and
streamlining of our asylum system in particular and also the -- what we
used to call summary exclusion. I think it's now called expeditious
exclusion. But we are looking at attempting to get that legislation back
and passed as it was the Congress last year. Although part of the omnibus
crime bill which was vetoed, that did not become law, and we would like to
move that back up to the Congress, I believe, after the current review as
rapidly as possible.
REP. MARTINEZ: I think it's long overdue. Let me ask you on another
subject -- terrorism. I was, a while back -- I can't remember how long ago
-- in Israel, and it was kind of a lunch conversation with one of the
Israelis who had been briefing us on terrorism. And his comment was that
they are so much more advanced in their intelligent -- intelligence against
communist -- against terrorism than we are in this country
because they have had years and years of training agents to infiltrate and
et cetera. And I asked him at the time was there -- and I guess at that
time there was not -- an exchange of information with the appropriate
agencies here in the United States, and his answer was no, and I'm
wondering, has that changed? Is there --
MR. WIRTH: We have very good -- we have very, very good contacts with
Israeli intelligence as -- no, I'm very surprised to hear that.
REP. MARTINEZ: Well, it's been a couple of years ago, but maybe that
-- at that time -- evidently --
MR. WIRTH: What we have with them is very --
REP. MARTINEZ: -- to him there was not the kind of cooperation there
should be.
MR. WIRTH: We have with them, and increasingly we have contacts and
cooperation around the world. On Iran alone, the secretary has asked that
we really highlight the attention given by other countries as we give it to
Iran to try to lift up people's awareness of Iran as a real center of
state-sponsored terrorism.
It was two weeks ago, the first meeting of this group, Ms. Boudin (sp)
was there representing the United States of America and really leading our
efforts to attempt to get everybody's intelligence together and to get
everybody's awareness increased on this, and we again, exercising the
leadership we should exercise, are doing that there. So the sharing of
intelligence is going on on a number of fronts, and we've accelerated that
in the last four months.
REP. MARTINEZ: The retaliation afterwards is probably an appropriate
response, but you know, trying to stay ahead of them and stop them before
it actually happens I think is the best way to go, and it's awfully
difficult. You don't know when they're going to sprout up and where
they're going to sprout up.
That brings to mind -- you were talking earlier about state-sponsored
terrorism versus, I guess, independent terrorism. Do we have any
statistics or do we have any knowledge of how much of this is just
spontaneous in some little group, that they decide, hey, they have a cause
and they want to make a statement, and they go out and plan and carry out
some act of terrorism? Or do we have any information, does or intelligence
information provide us with a definite division, either percentage-wise or
numbers, between state-sponsored and independent actions?
MR. WIRTH: Well, as I pointed out in my -- the start of my testimony,
Mr. Martinez, on the one hand, our efforts in the overall level of
terrorism has gone down. We are -- the world is much more attuned to this,
our cooperation with other countries is much better, our interagency
cooperation is much better, our intelligence is much better. We've seen
the overall trend of terrorism decline.
While I say that, there are alarming trends on the other side. While
what we've done in the past seems to be working, we're seeing new phenomena
growing. One of those is what one would call sort of the self-starter, the
freelancers, the ones that you refer to which may be a new and growing
phenomenon. And we've got to be better at that, be more vigilant at that.
We may have seen -- we don't know yet, but we may have seen that in New
York, in the World Trade Center or in the other threats targeted on the 4th
of July. We don't know yet enough about those events to tie them to a
state or whether those are freelancers.
There are some other items that are alarming, and one of those was the
ability of the PKK to, in 29 different locations around Europe, to stage
terrorist events on one day. That was a very coordinated and I would say
impressively coordinated set of events. I mean, that is a major
undertaking to have that happen in 29 different places. And you know, that
was to gain attention, that was not a terrorist -- by a terrorist act we
don't think as the World Trade Center. It was a
different sort of thing for the purposes of publicity, and that's a
different kind of a phenomenon that we're seeing. So, it's a little bit
like Whack-a-Mole. Have you ever been to an amusement park and see that
game, Whack-a-Mole? You put in a quarter and you have so much time, and
you have the thing and you're whacking down and the things pop up. You're
whacking over here and they pop up over here. Well, we have to continue to
play Whack-a-Mole on this, and there are these new phenomena that are
coming up. And, you know, your question points out that we have to change,
be more adaptable and be increasingly vigilant and increasingly well-
coordinated in taking this on.
REP. MARTINEZ: The last statement, well-coordinated, leads me to my
next question, the last question. It seems to me -- and it only seems to
me, and I couldn't really state this as a fact, but that there isn't the
kind of cooperation or coordination between, let's say, the FBI, the State
Department and Immigration Department. It almost seems much like in the
old neighborhoods that I lived in there were the gang wars and the turf
wars, and this is mine and this is yours, and boy, you try to cross over
and you get into a heck of a battle.
Is there -- and if there is, is there a way of extending that so that
the INS is able to work with the FBI and the State Department identifying
people that need to be removed from our society?
MR. WIRTH: I came at this with the same skepticism that you had. I
expected when I was first looking at this, coming into this new job, Mr.
Martinez, to have the kind of fragmentation or non-cooperation or turf
battles that your question suggests, and I would say I found just the
opposite. This may have existed 10 years ago, this fragmentation, but
again, the previous administration set up a much broader, cooperative
effort between State, the CIA and the FBI, in particular, and that has
worked remarkably well. I mean, this is a very well-coordinated group that
works together on a steady basis. They are in touch on a daily basis. And
I would say that if there were ever an example -- if I've ever seen an
example of real interagency cooperation, government working the way it
ought to work, this was a base to me.
We are strengthening that. We are building upon that very good base.
I'll give you some examples of that. I mentioned our increased efforts
with Justice across the board. We're doing the same thing with the CIA.
We have a new border security working group that is operating out of the
counterterrorism office at the State Department. We have a group called
TREVI (sp) that we're working with, which is a European Community group,
which the United States is playing an increasing role in. We are working
with the European Community, as I pointed out, on Iran, trying to say,
okay, what lessons did we learn about this sort of cooperation, how can we
help other countries to get this kind of a cooperative effort, how do we
better share information with them. And the sense of urgency that
countries feel and that agencies feel is very real, indeed.
REP. MARTINEZ: Well, I thank you very much. It's gratifying to hear
that because there is a sense of urgency among the citizens. They see
things like the bombing more recently and the destruction in that building,
the billions of dollars of destruction, and they're concerned. And they
have no way of knowing just what our government is doing, exactly, and
you're giving us information like this, we're able to carry it back to our
constituents. Thank you.
MR. WIRTH: Thank you, Mr. Martinez.
REP. LANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Martinez.
Congresswoman Snowe.
REP. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome you, Mr. Wirth, a former colleague here in the
House. I appreciate your testimony here this morning.
Several of the issues that have been brought up here during the
question period, I have addressed in legislation that I've introduced with
Congressman Gilman, one that would require that State Department have
access to the FBI files with respect to the background of individuals and
criminal activity. The second part of that also would require an update by
the State Department of the computer system and the updated microfiche
system that led to the serious bureaucratic bungling that ultimately led to
the Sheik's admission to the United States. I'll get back to those issues
in a moment.
But in the discussion here this morning with respect to the access by
the State Department to the FBI files and the surcharge or the user fee
that is required in order to have access to that information, it seems to
me to typify the problem in the mindset that we have in this country, or
perhaps the inability to shift our mindsets from the fact that terrorism
always occurred abroad and not on domestic territory. And I know that
that's also going to be difficult, I think, for the various agencies,
including the State Department, the FBI and the immigration office, to deal
with this in a cooperative fashion. And I know there is cooperation now,
as you say.
But I think this illustrates the problem. The State Department does
not get access to FBI information
because it has to pay a user fee of only about $600,000, which is the
equivalent of three State Department officials abroad, out of 20,000
employees out of the State Department. So we're talking about a fraction
amount of money compared to the overall budget in the State Department.
And then, on the other hand, we have the FBI who has defined the fact
that we're only going to provide this information to law enforcement
agencies. So, of course, that doesn't include the State Department, rather
than looking at the overall issue, [which] is that what are we trying to
achieve here -- which is, of course, to save not only money in this
country, but to save human lives, and that the ultimate goal was to have
access to that information so that people are best equipped to make the
kind of decisions and judgments that do not allow people to come to the
United States who are dangerous individuals.
So we not only have that kind of problem -- which we do have, which in
my -- in my opinion does represent the kind of problems that I think we
have now in trying to shift, in trying to do what we need to do, in
changing the laws, whatever they may require, and that includes immigration
laws, to -- to address the problems that exist here in this country.
There was an article in the New York Times recently talking about this
very fact, and I think it's -- I think it's very good and it's realistic.
And in that article, it says America is better equipped to bomb Baghdad
than to thwart attacks on its own soil. And I think it's true. We have
yet come -- we have not come to grips with this notion, and it's a
difficult one to come to grips with. But I think that that problem with
access to the FBI files is sort of an illustration of the problem that
we're dealing with.
The second part of the issue in terms of admitting the sheik to this
country, it not only was a failed system in terms of technology and
updates, but it also was because of human failure. The individual involved
did not follow through on all the prescribed procedures in looking for that
information, and the information -- it was in the Cairo system. So it is
unfortunate that on one hand so that we do have a -- a computer failure in
terms of the -- not having the up-to-date information, but on the other
hand we also have the human failure. And my legislation would also include
the -- the requirement of personal accountability. We do that now with
ambassadors. And I think that we also should do that with individuals who
work in these embassies and consulate offices when they fail to do what
they're supposed to be doing, because this does, unfortunately, translate
into human tragedy, as we have seen here in the United States and may
continue to occur, unfortunately. And so I think that we have to sort of
shift gears here, and I think that that does require as well among the
agencies in trying to depart from how we've dealt with these issues from
the past.
Now you look at the sheik in terms of deportation and extradition. It
defies logic to suggest it's taking years. We have been trying to
extradite him and deport him since 1991, because he was issued a green
card. While one office in New York City was trying to deport him from --
in the Immigration office, in New Jersey they were issuing him a green card
simultaneously. I mean, so we are talking worse than Abbott and Costello
in my estimation, but the point is that it does defy imagination here that
it could take so long to deport a known dangerous individual.
And so I would hope that all the agencies, including the two that you
represent here today, will do everything that you can to change the
immigration laws so that we come back to -- to a situation that is far more
reasonable than currently exists today. And that's what I would like to
ask you, Mr. Wirth. Exactly what would you suggest for changes that would
make this system far more logical and far more -- much -- more safer --
more safe than it is today for Americans and what we can anticipate for the
future with respect to terrorist activities committed on American soil?
MR. WIRTH: Well, Congresswoman Snowe, we share your sense of urgency
about this, and I can assure you that that is felt not only in the
international part of this, but in a -- I felt the same concerns in my
discussions with the Justice Department, I would say, as I -- I don't know
if you were here earlier when I met with Ms. Reno. The first thing that
she says was "What do you want me to do?" I mean, that the same thing:
"We're here. We'll do whatever you want us to do." It was a very
forthcoming and terrific discussion.
Going through your points, one, I think that the -- we may be barking
up something of a -- of a blind alley here on the issue of the user fees.
There really has not been a stoppage of information as a result of this.
It's awkward, it's more difficult than it ought to be, but it has not
resulted, as far as I know, in any stoppage of information. But since this
has come up so intensely, Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to do is to go back
and have a look at this and maybe give you a formal response to this whole
question of the user fee and how that has interfered, and so on. I think
we all ought to really examine that more closely. And let me commit to
doing that by the end of the month, if I might. I think that would be
helpful for all of us. If I can't get it by that time and it's more
complicated, I'll let you know. But let's see if we can resolve this once
and for all.
Second, the information is a significant problem. We've talked about
that. Perhaps we ought to, Mr. Chairman, be going back to the
appropriations committee and asking for more money to more rapidly upgrade
that issue. We are determined to do that within the next year, to have the
new information system in place, and maybe it should be more rapid than
that. We thought that this was what the current system could bear.
Third, Congresswoman Snowe makes a very good point about human error
and what goes into the system. I mean, this goes back to what we all
learned first dealing with computers: garbage in, garbage out. You know,
if you don't put the right information into the system, you're not going to
get reasonable information coming out of the system. And we're aware of
that, and have augmented and increased the communiques going out to our
embassies and all of our consular offices on this. Their own frustration
is reflected in having to operate often with an extraordinarily
understaffed area, with a system that doesn't work very well, but that's no
excuse for the errors that were made related to the incidents that we've
been discussing which, again, the Abbott and Costello nature of it -- if
errors could be made, they were all -- they were all made, and some of that
was human errors. I would hope that we would not be criminalizing human
error. I think rather it goes to the point of really much better training,
and a much better sense of accountability, and a much better leadership in
each one of our consular offices. And I know that that's currently
underway by the new assistant secretary for consular affairs.
Finally, on the change of immigration laws, this really isn't our
bailiwick in the State Department, and I would defer to Mr. Brandon's
questions later. We did -- have made it very clear that we believe that
reform and streamlining of our asylum system is absolutely imperative. We
see the problems with that in so many different places whether, you know,
we're dealing with the Chinese coming in illegally and sitting off the
coast of Mexico today, to the problems of the blind sheik; the issue of
summary or expeditious exclusion is another one that has to be taken care
of right away. On both of those, this administration I know is moving
rapidly, but I would leave that to Mr. Brandon and to the Justice
Department since that does fall very specifically into their bailiwick. We
are supporting their efforts in every way that we can from the State
Department, providing both testimony, anecdotal evidence, and a push to get
this to happen.
REP. SNOWE: A couple of points -- we did include, you should know, in
the State Department authorization the requirement that you have access to
the FBI files and also an update of the computer system --
MR. WIRTH: Yes.
REP. SNOWE: So that that -- those two issues have been included.
Another point is in my legislation that has to go before the Judiciary
Committee, and I'm in hopes that they will deal -- address this issue this
year, and that is to go back to the immigration law prior to 1990 whereas
if somebody was a member of a terrorist organization, they would not be
allowed to be admitted to the United States.
The law was changed, unfortunately, in 1990 that required greater burden of
proof upon the United States government to prevent an individual from
entering the United States. Now you'd have to prove that they were about
to be personally part of a terrorist activity or were personally part of a
terrorist activity. So a much greater burden to prevent an individual from
coming to the United States, and certainly we ought to go back to the 1990
law. That would certainly have meant that the sheik would not have been
admissible, although he came in under, as we know, other circumstances.
But we would not have been able to deny him admission to the United States
on that basis, even though he was and is a member of a terrorist
organization.
Finally, one other point. You mentioned earlier in your remarks that
-- that the State Department has access to all of the criminal activity
files of an individual, crimes committed in the United States. It is my
understanding the State Department does not have access to such information
of crimes committed in the United States.
MR. WIRTH: I'm not sure that I said that we had access to all the
criminal files of crimes committed in the United States. We do have access
to the relevant FBI information, and I do not know of a problem on that,
but I would ask Mr. Brandon would you like to comment on any of that?
MR. BRANDON: There's -- there's not an open interface between the FBI
and State Department with regard to all criminal files. But upon request
we furnish them any information we have that's identifiable.
When I say "not an open system", it is -- the State Department is not
designated as a law enforcement agency, so they don't have their own direct
access. That's the only caveat, though. Any time they make an inquiry, if
we have the record, they get it.
REP. SNOWE: In conjunction with this issue, when I was developing
this legislation, I came across, I thought, a startling statistic, that
there was a 45 percent drop in denial of visas for individuals with past
criminal activities. And I don't know if this has any bearing or any
relationship, but I -- I certainly -- it's disconcerting, to say the least.
MR. WIRTH: Well, again, your sense of urgency is, I can guarantee
you, reflected both in the State Department and in the Justice Department
of looking at this whole system. And this again goes fundamenally back to
the point made by Congressman Bereuter about the absolute imperative to
assure to our -- all of our constituencies, the citizens of the United
States, that in fact our government is working effectively to protect them,
and this is a very, very significant threat which they perceive, which is
very real, and which we have a responsibility to execute.
REP. SNOWE: I appreciate it. Thank you very much -- (inaudible) --
MR. WIRTH: Thank you very much.
REP. SNOWE: -- thank you.
REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much.
I know, Mr. Secretary, you have to leave shortly, but Congressman
Smith has a couple of --
MR. WIRTH: I wanted to wait for Congressman Smith before leaving.
(Laughter)
REP. LANTOS: Very good.
REP. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH (R-NJ): I appreciate that, Tim.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding.
Mr. Brandon, I'd like to direct my first question to you. Last March
24th Mr. Gilman and I wrote Secretary Christopher asking for a full and
thorough investigation concerning the five fraudulent Nicaraguan passports
that were found on March 8th at the home of one of the suspects arrested in
connection with the bombings at the World Trade Center. We received back
correspondence on April 14th advising us that there would be a full
investigation by the FBI and by the Department of State's Diplomatic
Security Service.
As you know, as members of this committee know, there have been some
-- some people convicted in Nicaragua as a result of that -- of fraud. As
a matter of fact, one of those who was sentenced to six years in prison in
mid-April, Rodolfo Locao Baretto (sp), has stated that he was scapegoated
and just a couple of weeks ago was given a stay of his sentence for, quote,
"health reasons" and apparently is going to be leaving the country very
shortly. If you could advise the committee as to the status of that
investigation, because it is very important, I think, as we proceed with
our bilateral relations with Nicaragua, because even people like Ibarra,
who made some very substantial allegations -- true or untrue we're not sure
-- raised some very serious questions, especially when his information,
perhaps circumstantially, corroborated with some of the other facts of this
case. If you could respond to that.
MR. BRANDON: Well, I -- (off mike) -- going to have to answer this
way, but those -- there is investigative activity that's on-going. There
have been some -- there have been federal charges filed in the United
States involving one individual in connection with those passports. So
unfortunately I am basically going to have to say that it's not really
appropriate for me to -- to go into the status of the investigation.
REP. SMITH: If it --
MR. BRANDON: But it is on-going.
REP. SMITH: It is -- hopefully it's aggressive and --
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
REP. SMITH: -- no doubt, thorough. As soon as this committee,
whether it be privately or otherwise, could be informed, it would be very,
very helpful, because it remains --
MR. BRANDON: We will -- we certainly will do so.
REP. SMITH: I appreciate that.
One very brief second question, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: Could you -- could you direct whatever questions you
have to Counsellor Wirth first, Mr. Smith, because he has to leave.
REP. SMITH: I have no questions for Mr. Wirth at this time.
REP. LANTOS: Well, then, if -- if I may just intrude for a second,
Counsellor Wirth, we are all in your debt for a very comprehensive and
extremely informative testimony. We hope your colleague will be able to
stay with us for the balance of the hearing, and we look forward to having
you back again.
MR. WIRTH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask Ms. Bodeen (sp) to
stay, and I -- again I want to thank you two ways: one, having this kind
of a hearing does, you know, make agencies focus more clearly than they
might and to pull things together, and that is a -- that's a very useful
contribution all by itself; second, I think the dialogue that we have had
and continue to have, you know, is extremely useful and positive and we
greatly appreciate the support of you and Congressman Gilman and members of
the committee. We are deeply indebted. I had met with Secretary
Christopher related to issues surrounding this hearing, and he wanted me to
again convey his thanks to both of you, and particularly for your great
support for the efforts which he's undertaking at the State Department.
REP. LANTOS: Well, we appreciate this very much, and I understand Ms.
Snowe has a farewell comment to make to you.
REP. SMITH: (Off mike) -- quick question. Is the State Department
and FBI issuing awards to seek these international terrorists?
MR. WIRTH: What we are attempting to do is -- we have authority in
the State Department which the FBI does not have, and what we are
attempting to do is to rationalize that reward structure so that the FBI
can use much of the authority that we currently have.
MR. BRANDON: That's right. We do have authority -- I'll bring it up
later if I get the opportunity -- we just don't have the money.
REP. : Will the gentlewoman yield?
REP. SNOWE: Yes.
REP. : Is -- was the dispute resolved that I understand existed
between the State Department and the FBI on this --
MR. WIRTH: Yes.
REP. : -- with regards to the World Trade Center as to offering
rewards for the finding and capture of these perpetrators?
MR. BRANDON: There -- there was no dispute. I think --
MR. WIRTH: There was no dispute.
MR. BRANDON: -- that was probably an erroneous interpretation --
REP. SNOWE: As to -- as to whether or not there was enough
international connections --
MR. BRANDON: That's correct. That's correct. It was --
REP. SNOWE: So that's -- there's no dispute between --
MR. BRANDON: No.
REP. SNOWE: -- the agencies on that one.
MR. BRANDON: No. No.
REP. SNOWE: So the question is one of monetary.
MR. BRANDON: From our perspective it is. We -- we got authority in
1984 to have a reward system which is similar for acts within the United
States. We've just never been able to get any money to back that up.
REP. SNOWE: Doesn't State have a --
MR. BRANDON: There's -- their -- their authority is for acts abroad
or acts specifically that come from abroad.
MR. WIRTH: And what we are attempting to do is to broaden that for
information abroad as well as actions abroad --
REP. SNOWE: Yeah. Okay. That's --
MR. WIRTH: -- which would help -- that would -- it seems to me, the
flow --
REP. SNOWE: Okay.
MR. WIRTH: -- of information and the intelligence and cooperation
between the two agencies.
REP. SNOWE: Thank you.
REP. GILMAN: Mr. Chairman, just before Mr. Wirth departs, I would
like to comment how fortunate you are to have a career diplomat like Ms.
Bodeen (sp) working with you on counterterrorism who's had so many years of
experience in that office.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WIRTH: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman -- (inaudible) --
REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much. We're very pleased to have you.
If my colleague from New Jersey agrees, we would like to have Mr.
Brandon make his opening statement, then we will begin the questioning with
you. Is that all right with you?
REP. : (Off mike.)
REP. LANTOS: That's all you have. Then, please go ahead.
REP. : Mr. Brandon, if you could speak to the issue, and, in
previous years, I think we've all been very gratified by the kind of
coordination and protection that have been afforded US citizens and those
visiting major sporting events. And as we all know, the World Cup is
coming to the United States. My sons and I had the opportunity of joining
that overflow crowd at RFK recently to see Brazil and England square off in
an excellent soccer match.
Could you speak to the kinds of -- without, obviously, revealing
anything of -- that could compromise your work -- the kinds of preparations
that are being made, particularly since this is the truest form -- when we
talk about the World Series, it's really a US series, when we talk about --
other than the Olympic games, the World Cup is a truly international event
-- the kinds of special preparations that are being made to mitigate
terrorism events.
MR. BRANDON: We're very much aware that the World Cup is coming. And
starting about a 18 months ago, we began meeting with various law
enforcement services from abroad -- people who've had experience in dealing
with the World Cup and the tremendous problems that have to date gone along
with this.
We've also had four meetings now with law enforcement authorities
from, in which you've gotten all the US cities who will host these games
involved. They've come to meetings where we've all come together, along
with some of the authorities from abroad, so that everybody is sharing the
same information and so they have the same understanding of what may face
us. Along with that, we have other government agencies working in the same
working groups. We're also setting up -- in fact, it's actually operating
now or partially operating -- an electronic system for movement of
intelligence information from abroad into the United States and then to be
funneled out to all of the venues. And this will be done instantly as
information comes up.
We've also worked very closely with the World Cup officials with
regard to physical security at all of the sites and how they're going to
handle the various crowd checks -- that sort of thing. I think that we're
very much involved with that. We hope that it goes off without incident,
that goes without saying. I think that the systems are in place to give us
the best chance of having that happen.
REP. : You do have sufficient resources to get the job done?
MR. BRANDON: Yes, I believe we do have at this point.
REP. : Thank you very much.
REP. LANTOS: Well, Mr. Brandon, let me first thank you for being so
patient and understanding. Your prepared statement will be entered in the
record in its entirety. You may summarize any way you choose, then we'll
move on to questions.
MR. BRANDON: I appreciate that. I think that's probably a very good
way to proceed, as my prepared statement was probably too long. I'd like
to --
REP. LANTOS: Your statement is not too long. (Laughter.)
MR. BRANDON: I would like to make a few brief remarks, if I might,
Mr. Chairman.
In 1982, by Executive Order, the FBI was assigned specific lead agency
responsibility for combating terrorism in the United States. And at the
same time, the Department of State was given responsibility for combating
terrorism abroad. We believe we have a two-fold mission. The first and
primary mission that we have is to prevent acts of terrorism. If we are
not able to do that, then the secondary mission that we have -- which
becomes our primary mission, if there is an act of terrorism -- is to
immediately respond to an act of terrorism using all of our resources.
Throughout the 1980s and '90s, the United States has remained a major
target for international terrorist groups. The Department of State keeps
these statistics. According to their statistic, the overall number of
incidents worldwide has decline, however, the United States does continue
to be clearly the primary target abroad. At the same time, within the
United States, international terrorism has been very limited. Now, that
doesn't mean that we haven't suffered in the United States from terrorism,
because when you combine domestic and international terrorism, we've had,
since 1982, 166 separate incidents of terrorism in the United States that's
resulted in 21 deaths, hundreds -- and now with the World Trade Center
thousands of injuries.
And during the same period -- a fact that a lot of people don't know
about, because maybe we can't talk about it a lot -- the FBI and local law
enforcement authorities have prevented 74 potential acts of terrorism.
REP. LANTOS: I'm going to stop you right there --
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
REP. LANTOS: -- Mr. Brandon, because you are making an extremely
important point. In all of our anti-terrorism efforts, we need the support
of the American public.
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
REP. LANTOS: And I don't want this phrase just to slip by, because
this is really at the core of the issue we are discussing.
Now, just a short while ago, a few weeks ago, the FBI made public
attempted acts of terrorism in New York City involving the United Nations
Building, major federal building that houses the FBI, two tunnels, and
attempts at assassinating a member of Congress.
Now, you are saying to us -- and I accept this -- that there were 74
attempted acts of terrorism that were prevented by your action?
MR. BRANDON: By the FBI or a combination or by local law enforcement.
REP. LANTOS: Or the law enforcement agencies?
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir. Since 1982.
REP. LANTOS: Since 1982. That's a decade.
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
REP. LANTOS: I will not ask you, obviously, to itemize each of those
74 attempted acts of terrorism that were prevented by our alert law
enforcement agencies. I want to tip my hat to you and to your colleagues.
But I do want to ask you to give us some information about those without,
in any sense, interfering with confidentiality of sources and other such
matters. So, let me sort of help you by asking a few questions.
MR. BRANDON: Yes.
REP. LANTOS: What proportion of the 74 attempted acts of terrorism
that were prevented by your actions were state sponsored?
MR. BRANDON: I'm hesitant to try to answer that off the top of my
head.
REP. LANTOS: Well, just give me a ballpark. Was it 90 percent, 50
percent, 10 percent?
MR. BRANDON: I would say probably 15 to 20 percent.
REP. LANTOS: 15 to 20 percent were state sponsored acts of terrorism.
What states were involved in those attempted acts of terrorism? You are
certainly not revealing any intelligence secrets, because they know that
they were involved. So, it's high time the American people know.
MR. BRANDON: Specifically, to name three -- Iran, Iraq, and Libya.
REP. LANTOS: Iran, Iraq, and Libya. Were there any other states
involved in attempted acts of terrorism on American soil during the course
of the last decade?
MR. BRANDON: I don't believe so. I would like the opportunity to
respond further to you in writing.
REP. LANTOS: That's fair enough. Can you describe, in general terms,
the basic outlines of the attempted acts of terrorism that were sponsored
by Iran? We are not revealing any secrets to them, because they knew what
they were doing.
MR. BRANDON: In very general terms, I would say, Iranian preventions
-- or potential acts of terrorism have been directed against individuals
who were anti-regime, where state organs or representatives of the
government were used -- intended to carry out acts directed against
individuals who were considered to be anti-regime.
REP. LANTOS: How about Iraq sponsored acts of terrorism? Can you
describe those to us in general terms?
MR. BRANDON: Yes. And I can give you a very specific example in this
case.
REP. LANTOS: Please.
MR. BRANDON: In 1990, an individual was arrested in California and
charged with attempted murder -- or was planning to attempt to murder an
Iraqi dissident residing in the United States. His name is Andre Koshabe
(sp). He has subsequently entered a plea and been found guilty of this.
This was at the direction of the government of Iraq.
REP. LANTOS: Can you give us some additional information on Iraq's
sponsored terrorists acts within the United States?
MR. BRANDON: I think, probably, other than that one example, I would
be better -- we'd be better served if I were to say, in general, they have
been directed against anti-regime -- people who are viewed as being anti-
regime.
REP. LANTOS: How about Libyan sponsored acts of terrorism within the
United States?
MR. BRANDON: In 1988, we arrested six Libyans who were charged --
actually charged with various fraud violations in an attempt to finance --
what we believe, to finance activities on the government of Libya in the
United States. They were also involved in violating the trade embargo
between the United States and Libya.
We've also had similar incidents where Libyan national -- or people
acting on behalf of the government of Libya were searching out people who
were considered to be against Gadhafi, against the government of Libya with
intent to do harm to them. So, it's a fairly similar pattern with Libya.
REP. LANTOS: This is very helpful. Is there anything else you would
be able to reveal to this committee in connection with the 74 attempted
terrorist acts?
MR. BRANDON: I think that probably I would prefer to answer that on
the -- in writing for the committee to have in writing.
REP. LANTOS: That's fine. Please go ahead with your comments. I
thought this was very helpful.
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
While we have had 166 acts of terrorism and 74 potential acts stopped,
I do think we need to look at it and say that, in fact, even with this
number -- compared to many countries around the world, the United States
has had a relatively low rate of terrorism, both domestic and certainly
international within the United States.
Congress has played a major role in our efforts in counter-terrorism
by giving -- passing statutes, which have enabled us to investigates acts
of terrorism in the United States -- and also particularly legislation in
1984 and 1986, which resulted in a rather major expansion of FBI
jurisdiction that enabled the FBI or charged the FBI with going abroad to
investigate acts of terrorism directed against United States citizens.
We believe that the relatively low level of terrorist activity over
the past decade is simply because I think our government, our law
enforcement, and intelligence agencies have been most active in this area.
There's been a great deal of attention paid to this area, and this is
known. We've also had successes in terms of law enforcement activity in
this area. I think a way to characterize this is that I think that it is
fairly well known that the United States is a pretty hard operating area
for a terrorist. This is due to a lot of cooperation, including citizen
cooperation -- which you just mentioned. That's vital, absolutely vital.
We shouldn't, however, I think -- I think we're foolish if we try --
we become overly confident. We've just had a couple of recent incidents,
which I think serves to focus attention upon this area. Certainly, the
bombing in New York -- although I feel that what has occurred since then is
something that sends a clear message to terrorists who would come to the
United States. We have been successful in making arrests.
The plan to commit acts of violence in New York, which was just
stopped a couple of weeks ago, also serves, I think, to remind us that we
are vulnerable. There's no question about that.
REP. LANTOS: We have arrested nine people in connection with that
attempted acts of --
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
REP. LANTOS: -- terrorism. My understanding is that a tenth
individual is at large --
MR. BRANDON: That is correct.
REP. LANTOS: -- and has not yet been arrested.
MR. BRANDON: That's correct. Yes, sir.
REP. LANTOS: Is he actively being pursued, and is it our information
that he is still in the country?
MR. BRANDON: He is very, very actively being pursued.
REP. LANTOS: Please go ahead.
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir. I will -- I think you understand, because of
pending prosecution, any comments that I would make in these two cases are
extremely limited.
You had expressed an interest earlier this morning, and you've
previously
expressed an interest in what our assessment is of the terrorist threat.
Speaking of the terrorist threat in the United States, it is our position,
after looking at all of our sources of information which we do on a daily,
literally hourly basis, here and abroad, that, in fact, in spite of the two
recent incidents, if you will, that we do not believe that we are about to
see a wave of terrorism sweeping the United States. We just don't see the
indicators at present that indicate that. We're not unaware of it at all.
We're looking at it very hard. But we do not believe that we see that
today, that this is a precursor of a wave of terrorism.
During the past several years, we have seen and adapted, I think, to
various forms of terrorism. Terrorism has evolved over the last 20 years.
I think that we've dealt with them as a government in a fairly well-
informed manner and it's been successful. I say it again; the value of
cooperation cannot be overstated. There is cooperation within the United
States government with state and local law enforcement within the United
States and very vital cooperation around the world with intelligence and
law enforcement agencies from around the world.
Terrorism truly, with very few exceptions, is an area in which
politics don't become -- are not a factor. It is one of the few common
bonds that we find worldwide. People have a concern about this. So we are
-- we do have this, and we push cooperation around the world. We have
challenges ahead; there's no question about that. We need to continue our
effort, and we will continue our effort.
I think I would just really say that I want to assure you, and I hope
you know this, that the women and men of the FBI are firmly committed in
this area. There should be no doubt about this. We will undertake any and
all measures necessary to ensure that we can effectively combat this menace
in the United States and abroad.
At this point I'd like to stop and be responsive to questions.
REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much. And we certainly appreciate the
enormous work done by the men and women of the FBI.
Congressman Gilman has to leave, so I'll yield the first chance for
questions to him.
REP. BENJAMIN GILMAN (R-NY): I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
permitting me to go out of order. And I want to first compliment our
Bureau for its recent arrests in New York of those terrorists who would
have targeted our UN complex and other facilities in New York City. It
would have been dreadful if they had been able to complete their mission.
And I've already expressed that to Director Sessions. I think our entire
nation and citizens in New York are most grateful for the --
MR. BRANDON: Thank you, sir.
REP. GILMAN: -- good enforcement work that the Bureau has undertaken.
Can you tell me how many personnel are assigned to your day-to-day
counterterrorism work?
MR. BRANDON: We generally don't -- we don't give out that figure
publicly. I would be very happy to respond to that in writing certainly.
REP. GILMAN: If you would, I think our committee would welcome
knowing this.
MR. BRANDON: Yes. A side comment, and I'll just very quickly add to
that, is that the FBI is a rather unique organization. We do have the
ability to move resources very, very quickly. Trained criminal
investigators can be moved from one area to another. In the area of
terrorism, I can assure you when we have an incident such as the World
Trade Center or the investigation, the more recent investigation where the
people have been charged with conspiring to commit an act of terrorism, the
resources committed have been enormous. And without question, we've
shifted in some other areas. And then, as we can, we'll move them back.
REP. GILMAN: Your work, though, is essentially involved in
counterterrorism.
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
REP. GILMAN: That's full-time?
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
REP. GILMAN: I assume, then, you have some other full-time personnel
working on counterterrorism with you.
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
REP. GILMAN: And that's the information that I would hope you would
provide the committee.
MR. BRANDON: Absolutely.
REP. GILMAN: Now, Counselor Wirth indicated there was some inter-
agency task force at work, and I might pursue that with Mrs. Bodine as
well. Is that underway now? Do you meet on a regular basis? Can you tell
me a little bit about that inter-agency task force?
MR. BRANDON: We have, for a number of years, actually been meeting
with the various parts of the US government that have an involvement and
interest in counterterrorism. This is done quite often, sometimes almost
on a daily basis if events dictate. Lacking that, I'd say at a minimum at
least every two weeks we formally get together and meet to discuss issues
of common interest.
I think that it's an extremely effective way to do business. It
really does ensure that maybe we don't let the bureaucratic problems that
sometimes crop up get in our way, because we work together very well.
REP. GILMAN: That's encouraging. Ms. Bodine, what agencies are
involved in this inter-agency task force that meets on a regular basis?
MS. BODINE: (Inaudible) -- coordinating sub-group, and it includes
the NSC, the Director for Global Affairs, Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
FBI, Justice, CIA, JCS, OSD, Special Operations, Low-Intensity Conflict
Office, and on occasion, as needed, FAA, (MARAD?), Department of Energy,
Treasury.
REP. GILMAN: And you meet regularly?
MS. BODINE: We meet at least every two weeks, and more often as
necessary.
REP. GILMAN: And do you chair that?
MS. BODINE: It's chaired by the NSC, but it is very much of an open
meeting.
REP. GILMAN: And have you found it to be effective and beneficial?
MS. BODINE: I've found it to be extraordinarily effective and
beneficial. As Counselor Wirth said, it's a model, I think, for how other
issues could be handled. We know each other. We can deal with each other
very casually on the phone. We can make things happen very quickly when we
have to, because we already know each other and we know the issues.
REP. GILMAN: Well, that's an encouraging aspect of this whole
problem. Mr. Brandon, has the FBI completed its review of the Israeli
arrests earlier this year of several Americans who were involved in
terrorist activities on behalf of Hamas in the Middle East?
MR. BRANDON: We have, to the extent -- yes, we have.
REP. GILMAN: And can you tell us anything about your conclusions at
all?
MR. BRANDON: I don't believe I can in this forum, sir. I'd be glad
to respond separately.
REP. GILMAN: Can you tell us at least whether these people were
definitely involved with Hamas in their activities?
MR. BRANDON: I would rather respond in writing to you, sir.
REP. GILMAN: And would you do that for the committee?
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir; absolutely.
REP. GILMAN: Mr. Chairman, with your consent, I'd like to make a
request. Can you tell us also, has the FBI concluded its work on Pan Am
103, or is that still an ongoing investigation?
MR. BRANDON: Oh, that's an ongoing investigation. Obviously there
have been indictments that have been brought. But there are aspects of the
investigation that are continuing, yes, sir.
REP. GILMAN: Is there some thought that there are more people
involved than you have initially found?
MR. BRANDON: It would not really be appropriate for me to comment on
that.
REP. GILMAN: Can you comment in writing to the committee --
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
REP. GILMAN: -- with regard to the extent of your activity in Pan Am
103?
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir. We'd be glad to do so.
REP. GILMAN: And again, just to reiterate what we discussed earlier,
there is no longer any problem, then, of your providing information in your
files to the State Department's agency on counterterrorism, that there is a
free flow of information now to the State Department. Am I correct?
MR. BRANDON: Yes, sir.
REP. GILMAN: But you are still charging them for it.
MR. BRANDON: In certain categories, I'm going to have to beg that a
little -- beg the question a little bit, because I'm I guess what we call
an operator, and I'm not entirely familiar with the information management
aspect. I'm aware of the issue, but my understanding, very clear
understanding is at this point that the -- I know, from an operational
standpoint, the information flow is complete and thorough. I believe the
other technical aspects have been overcome, although the State Department
still doesn't like to have to pay for certain kinds of information.
REP. GILMAN: Well, I would hope that both your office and Mrs.
Bodine's office could provide us with some recommendations to try to
overcome this glitch, so to speak, in getting information flowing freely
and any cost problem that might be involved. It seems incredulous that we
should have that happening in a very critical problem.
MR. BRANDON: We'll visit that again, but I can state unequivocally in
the area of counterterrorism there is no problem with the flow of
information.
REP. GILMAN: Well, we thank both of you for your input. We thank
both of you for your continued involvement in this very critical problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much. I just have a couple of questions
before I conclude. Ms. Bodine, what is the extent of cooperation between
narcotics and terrorist activities in various parts of the world that you
deal with? For instance, is it true that in the Bekaa Valley, under Syrian
control, the various terrorist groups obtain much of their funding or most
of their funding from narcotics activities?
MS. BODINE: There is an intertwining of narcotics and terrorism.
REP. LANTOS: Could you pull the microphone there?
MS. BODINE: I'm sorry. I said there is an intertwining of narcotics
and terrorism in a number of places. Lebanon is one. Certainly Colombia,
the Andean region, is another. In most cases, the narcotics is used, as
you mentioned with Lebanon, as a source of revenue. The other way that it
will sometimes come up is that the terrorists will, in a sense, become
mercenaries to the narco-traffickers. It's always a mercantile kind of
arrangement.
We are aware of and we do speak with the Syrians on the question of
drug eradication. We are aware of that link, and it is a particularly
bothersome one. One of the reasons that we are putting narcotics,
terrorism and crime together in one bureau is that there is this
intertwining of these three groups of despicable people, and it makes it
much easier to deal with them in a coordinated fashion if we are in one
bureau.
REP. LANTOS: Mr. Brandon, would you care to comment on this issue of
the intertwining of terrorism and narcotics trade?
MR. BRANDON: I think what Ms. Bodine has stated is -- we're in
complete agreement with that. Of course, our role being primarily domestic
is one where we're more on the receiving end, so we're not quite as
involved internationally. But we're very much aware of that.
REP. LANTOS: Let me ask one final question of the two of you. With
the end of the Cold War and with the breakdown of the very peculiar
discipline that the Cold War provided, there are some indications that
ethnically-based terrorist organizations are proliferating. I wonder if
you would care to comment on this issue, Ms. Bodine.
MS. BODINE: We have seen the same trends. Ethnicity has long been a
basis of terrorist groups. You can look at the Irish Republican Army and
ETA, the Corsicans. That is quite of$JL a basis. They're often the
dispossessed, the disenfranchised, within a particular society. And they
seek to redress their grievances through terrorism.
As you said, taking the lid off of a lot of long-standing, sometimes
century-old animosities has erupted in violence all around the rim of the
former Soviet Union. It is quite possible that this will develop into
terrorism. We're watching it very closely. We are working with other very
concerned states. For example, the Austrians, who (sit?) next to
Yugoslavia, are particularly concerned about this.
So far the issue of new ethnic terrorism is a theory looking for
evidence. We have not seen any infrastructure. We have not seen any of
the build-up that would lead to some kind of organized ethnic terrorism.
But certainly all the pieces are there. The grounds are there. And
unfortunately, there are groups who will, in a sense, rent themselves out
as technical advisors. So it's a phenomenon that we are watching very
carefully.
REP. LANTOS: Mr. Brandon?
MR. BRANDON: Well, I would just like to add that while it's something
that we do have to watch and be aware of, is that I think that it's also --
we have to be equally careful with this concept. We have to be extremely
careful that we are now viewing groups of people as being lawbreakers or
terrorists simply because they happen to come from a country or from an
ethnic group. And I think that is very, very important.
What we're seeing, the question -- I will go ahead and say, the
question comes up continually with regard to Islam. The question can be
posed, "Are Muslims terrorists?" The answer is no. It's clearly, clearly
no. There are people who advocate and use violence, very small groups on
the fringes, as there are in many groups around the world. But it is
something that I think we all have to stress and be careful about in the
way we provide information to the public and the way it's characterized,
because we just can't get involved in that. It's not right.
REP. LANTOS: I fully agree with you and I think the whole Congress
shares that view. Is there any final comment that either of you would like
to make? It's been an extremely valuable and useful hearing.
Ms. Bodine?
MS. BODINE: I would just like to thank the committee for the time. I
think the fact that we have all been here for this long dealing with an
issue that doesn't go away, won't go away, but needs quite clearly in the
comments joint cooperation not only in our agency, but between the
executive and the legislative branch. And thank you very much for your
time and interest.
REP. LANTOS: Thank you.
Mr. Brandon?
MR. BRANDON: I would just simply echo that I hope we can continue to
have the interchange that's necessary. The area is of such concern that we
can't afford not to be talking and working with each other.
REP. LANTOS: Well, on behalf of this Subcommittee on International
Security, I want to thank both of you for a very valuable morning. This
hearing is adjourned.
(Gavel.)
END