04 August 1999
(State Dept. Briefing by Sheehan, Kennedy, Bergin August 4) (5940) Washington - State Department officials at a special briefing August 4 described U.S. efforts to improve security at U.S. Embassies around the world since the August 1998 bombings in East Africa. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Patrick Kennedy said that each and every one of the some 265 U.S. Missions overseas have implemented improvements in their security - both in physical improvements to the property and in increased security personnel. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Peter Bergin noted that 4,000 new local guards have been hired to protect U.S. Missions abroad and more than 200 Diplomatic Security special agents have been deployed overseas temporarily to augment security. Another 140 new Diplomatic Security special agent positions overseas have been established, and 337 new Diplomatic Security special agents, security engineers, security technicians, diplomatic couriers, and civil servants have been hired and trained, he said. The improvements were made possible with the Fiscal Year 1999 security supplemental appropriation of $1.489 billion approved by the U.S. Congress. President Clinton has asked Congress for $300 million for embassy security projects in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget supplemental. In addition, the Clinton Administration is planning a 10-year embassy security program that would require nearly $11.4 billion. Ambassador Michael Sheehan, the State Department's acting coordinator for counter-terrorism, who also briefed August 4, said that to undercut terrorist activities, the U.S. government has intensified its cooperation with other governments. These efforts include seizing terrorist finances, shutting down illegal activities, disrupting terrorist training, breaking up support cells, and bringing suspects to justice. More than 220 Americans, Kenyans and Tanzanians were killed and some 5,000 wounded when powerful bombs exploded almost simultaneously at the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi a year ago. The suicide attacks were attributed to Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef who lead the terrorist organization known as "al Qaeda." In the East Africa case, the U.S. Department of Justice has charged bin Laden and 16 associates involved in those bombings. Five suspects are now in U.S. custody and three more are in custody in the United Kingdom, pending extradition to the United States, Sheehan said. "We remain determined to bring all of those responsible to justice," Sheehan said. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will host a special commemorative ceremony for the victims of the East Africa terrorist bombings on Saturday, August 7 at the State Department. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger will be there to deliver a Presidential Message. Following is the State Department transcript: (begin transcript) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman August 4, 1999 ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING AMBASSADOR MIKE SHEEHAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY PETER BERGIN ASSISTANT SECRETARY PAT KENNEDY ON UPDATE OF COUNTER-TERRORISM AND SECURITY ACTIONS Washington, D.C. RUBIN: Good afternoon. Welcome to the third in a row on-time performance here at the State Department, being that it's 12:33 p.m. Let me tell you how we're going to proceed today. As you may know, on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. Secretary Albright will host a commemorative ceremony in honor of the victims of the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The ceremony will be in the Benjamin Franklin Room of the Department of State. It will include a video tribute to the victims; a special poem written and read by US Poet Laureate, Robert Pinsky; remarks by Secretary Albright; and a presidential message to be read by National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. The Youth Foundry Choir and the Ministers of Music will perform at the ceremony and the commemorative portion of the ceremony will be covered by a press pool. We can work with you on some of the arrangements. Before going to the briefing we had scheduled today, I know there were a couple questions on the Middle East; maybe we could start. Q: I'm just trying to get an idea of the outlook for the Secretary's traveling and also, of course, if you can give us any US handle on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. There are various reports and, for lack of time, I won't go through all of them. RUBIN: Yes, I just spoke to Secretary Albright and she still intends to travel to the Middle East this month. The tentative planning has not changed in any way, shape or form; there hasn't been a delay in any way, shape or form. We certainly recognize that after three long years of stalemate and difficulty, that we cannot solve - nor can the Palestinians and Israelis solve - overnight the problems that developed during that three-year period. We are urging the parties to work together. They have been meeting; they have been discussing these matters. That is important. As far as some reports that the Secretary is delaying her trip for some substantive reason, those reports are inaccurate. There hasn't been any shift in the timing. When we have the actual plan for her trip, as we continue to plan it, we will provide that to you. Q: A quick follow-up. That would seem to mean that her traveling would not be keyed to either deadlock or progress. There comes a time when she's going to go. RUBIN: Correct. She is going to go to the Middle East. She spoke with Prime Minister Barak; she's spoken with other leaders in the region, and she said she intended to travel in August. The planning for that travel hasn't adjusted in terms of time or substance in any way, shape or form despite what you might have heard or might have been reported. Now, let's turn to the program for today. We have with us three outstanding officials, who will be in a position to brief you on all the questions that have come up during the course of this year anniversary of the events in Tanzania and Kenya. Let me start with Michael Sheehan - Ambassador Sheehan, we can almost say. He was confirmed last night by the Senate, which is something that Secretary Albright is extremely pleased by. She hand-picked Ambassador Sheehan for this post precisely because he has a unique combination of field experience and Washington policy experience, working both at the NSC, at the State Department and as a Special Forces officer in the Army in Panama, El Salvador, and where else, in Latin America? Did I miss one? SHEEHAN: Korea. RUBIN: Korea -- it wasn't Latin America -- and South Korea. He brings, I think, a unique capability of the policy side in Washington - the White House, the State Department -- with an on-the-ground experience. So she's particularly pleased and thrilled that he was confirmed by the Senate last night to take over as the coordinator for counter-terrorism. He's been acting in that capacity since December. Let me say that Mike is not one of those officials who is shy about dealing with the press, so you should all feel free to call him and work with him so that he can help you understand better what it is that we're doing here. After Mike's presentation, Peter Bergin, who's the principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security will have a presentation. And then Pat Kennedy, whom you all know very well, who's our Assistant Secretary for Administration, will be in a position to answer a lot of the questions about construction, some of which have come up in recent days. With that opening, let me simply say we have a number of fact sheets, and will be in a position to work with you on arrangements for the ceremony on Saturday, and let me turn the floor over to Ambassador Mike Sheehan. SHEEHAN: Thank you, Jamie, for that introduction. Good afternoon. As Jamie mentioned previously, this Saturday the Secretary of State will honor the victims of last year's bombings of our embassies in East Africa. It's also important at this time to review what the Administration has done in the past year to bring those responsible for these bombings to justice and increase the security of American citizens around the world from the threat of terrorism. Since August 7, 1998, the Department of Justice has charged Usama bin Laden and 16 associates involved in the two bombings. Five of these subjects are in US custody and three more are in custody in the United Kingdom, pending extradition to the United States. We remain determined to bring all those responsible to justice. The Administration's fight against terrorism is a strong, sustained and a multifaceted effort. It starts with diplomacy that builds international consensus to discredit terrorist organizations and their message; to criminalize their behavior; isolate states that sponsor their activity or provide safe haven; and to close down the space that these organizations need to operate. It also includes economic pressure, as with the recent executive order signed by the President that imposes financial and other commercial sanctions against the Taliban, who continue to harbor bin Laden and his organization; or the international sanctions that compelled Libya to hand over the two Libyans accused of bombing Pan Am 103. It also includes military force, which we have used and will use again if necessary to defend our people and interests. Our efforts include cooperation with other countries in both law enforcement and intelligence sharing. This entails training, technical assistance and other support to increase the capacity of local police and security forces who provide the outer perimeter of embassy defenses and a secure environment where American diplomats and other citizens work, live and travel. It entails exchanging terrorist information and cooperating with many countries, going beyond their traditional allies and nurturing security relationships with many new countries. This broad and close cooperation is the key to countering international terrorism. It is these offensive measures against terrorism that complement our defense against attacks. We can never know how many attempted acts we may have thwarted as a result of cooperation. But we do know that terrorists have been constrained by our efforts. As a result of our efforts, terrorists often find it harder to operate and to move their resources and people; to get the support and sanctuary they need; and to secure the public support they need for their attacks. Of course, we're being more proactive in protecting our diplomatic personnel as well. Peter Bergin from Diplomatic Security will brief you on what we're doing to increase our security around our embassies. Let me reiterate - are American interests overseas invulnerable to attack? No, they're not. When we represent our people overseas, we will always face risks. But we will not be deterred from doing the business that we're charged to do. That's why we'll continue on our present course, on a long-term, broad-based and sustained effort against the treat of terrorism around the world. While we take one day to officially honor the victims of terrorism this Saturday, we will fight terrorism every day. That is our commitment. Thank you. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY BERGIN: Good afternoon. When the bombs went of at our embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam one year ago, it was evident that the level of terrorist intensity and destruction had reached a new high. Our embassy security personnel immediately organized a rescue and protection effort. Within three hours, disaster teams were being assembled in the United States. Within 12 to 48 hours, response teams arrived from other parts of Africa and from the United States. While the US Government does not divulge the specific security measures we've taken, the State Department has assessed and addressed security vulnerabilities at every post worldwide. More than 200 Diplomatic Security special agents during the past year have been assigned temporarily to supplement security at our missions around the world. We've hired and trained 4,000 new local guards to protect US missions. We've worked closely with host governments to close streets or change traffic patterns in front US missions in a number of cities around the world. We've worked closely with host governments to increase their security presence at our facilities worldwide. We've acquired surrounding properties to increase the area between our embassies and public areas at more than 30 posts. We've enhanced physical security at missions around the world, with anti-ram barriers, blast walls, bomb detection units, walk-through metal detectors, x-ray equipment, closed circuit television systems and video event recording equipment. We've established mandatory security inspections of every vehicle entering US diplomatic facilities. We've strengthened the working relationship with the intelligence community regarding assessment, investigation and dissemination of threat information directed at our personnel and missions abroad. To this end, we've assigned additional Diplomatic Security special agents to intelligence community agencies, including the CIA's counter-terrorism task force as well as the FBI's joint terrorism task forces around the United States. We've established 140 new Diplomatic Security special agent positions overseas. In our view, we've improved security at our posts worldwide. But there's more we can and will do. We are committed to the security and safety of our employees serving abroad. Thank you. ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: The press plays a key role in our efforts to educate the public about the serious threats to the safety of our personnel in facilities overseas. Your assistance is vital in conveying the twin messages that there is much we can and are doing to protect our personnel and facilities, and that there is much we can and are doing to stop those who resort to terrorism. In fact, I'd like to stress the State Department is working with the White House, the Departments of Defense and Justice, the intelligence community, other government agencies and the international community to combat the scourge of terrorism. No ally in this war is more important than the Congress. Last year the Congress approved nearly $1.5 billion in emergency funds after the bombings, and it is currently working with us on a multi-year funding package that will allow us to continue to move ahead on the recommendations that came out of the Accountability Review report, chaired by Admiral Crowe. In addition to trying to make sure that nothing of this kind ever happens again, we are also offering assistance to the survivors, the families and the victims of the East African bombings. They have shown great courage in the face of unthinkable tragedy. The outpouring of sympathy and support for them in the aftermath of the bombing is a strong reminder of how deep and enduring the bonds are among our Foreign Service community. To the extent we help any one of them, we strengthen all of us. Now all my colleagues and I would be happy to take any specific questions that you might have. Q: Members of Congress are saying that the Administration - specifically the State Department - has not responded sufficiently to the emergency and hasn't requested enough money, hasn't moved quickly enough to bolster security. How do you respond to that? SHEEHAN: I think I'd respond to that in two ways. The $1.5 billion that the Congress provided in the supplemental appropriation is the money that we are spending right now. The money, as Pete has outlined, is being used to increase local guards, to increase perimeter, to put in new equipment, to deploy new personnel. That is what we are doing now, and we've done that thanks to the funding the Congress has provided. The President recently amended the budget request for Fiscal Year 2000, which starts this October 1, and increased the funding request for construction of new facilities from some $36 million to $300 million. That will permit us to move farther and faster on that. But to that, we must add the fact that also already included in the President's request is some $300 million of security funding which is to continue the programs that have been started this year. The guards, the equipment that Peter mentioned in his speech need to be paid for and carried forward into the year. The last point I'd like to make is the President's budget also includes a five-year program request for advance appropriations for embassy construction that adds several billion dollars more in advanced appropriations that we had asked the Congress to appropriate this year that we would spend in Fiscal Year 02, 03, 04, 05 as we ramp up to increase the construction that we're doing. Q: Does this come up to the $1.4 billion per year that Crowe recommended? SHEEHAN: If you take the funding Admiral Crowe estimated - and those are his words - that it would take approximately $1.4 billion, or $14 billion over a 10-year period. If you take the funding that has been provided, the advance appropriation request and the Administration's overall 10-year projection, that averages out to about $11.5 billion in constant dollar terms over the same period. So I believe, yes, we're in the ballpark. We take Admiral Crowe's recommendations very, very seriously and we're moving to implement them. Q: For Mr. Bergin or Mr. Sheehan, I believe, can you tell us how many embassies had to be closed or temporarily closed in the last year because of threats and how that might compare to the year before that? BERGIN: Well, I think this was an unprecedented year for us, and the last year, we had to take temporary time-outs, if you will, at approximately 70 embassies and consulates around the world. These were closed for 24 hours or more. We felt that taking this measure was prudent in light of the information that we have out there. I think that any time you can change your profile, any time you can be unpredictable, I think that you're being prudent and being wise. Q: Any remain closed right now? I'm sorry. BERGIN: Well, as you know, Dushanbe has suspended operations. There are no embassies or consulates closed at this time. Q: Mr. Sheehan, could you give us an update about what we know about the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden? There have been reports that he was planning on changing his address. Do you have any information about this? SHEEHAN: There have been rumors and reports that Usama bin Laden is moving from his location. We don't take much stock in those. Right now, we hold Taliban responsible for providing safe haven to him, and he remains in Afghanistan under their area of control. Q: Sort of a related question - the extent that governments are more than just havens, but are involved in the terrorism that you confront. Is this sort of receding and that you're faced more with Taliban as a quasi-government - that you're faced with terrorist organizations that are pretty much on their own? Is that fair enough, or is - SHEEHAN: The issue of state-sponsored terrorism I addressed in my hearings, actually, last week. What I said there was that over the last several Administrations and a long-standing counter-terrorism policy over the last 20 years has borne fruit against state sponsorship. There has been a steady decrease in state-sponsorship over the last 20 years or so, and that's continued over the last several years. We still have a problem with state sponsorship. It has not gone away. There are several - we have seven on our list. We're concerned about other state sponsors. However, I will say that many of the terrorist organizations that we're concerned with now are more self-financed, either with their own resources, through narcotics trafficking or other criminal activity, and they have less direct ties as state sponsorship. But it's not to say that the problem of state sponsorship is not still there. Q: Does this make your job tougher in combating it? I mean, if you're dealing with a state, you at least know your enemy, don't you? SHEEHAN: Yes, and no; and to a certain extent, it's harder to directly call up a government and put pressure on them. But the good news is that we've closed down their space to operate. Most countries now around the world -- almost all countries reject terrorism and reject providing safe haven. So they're finding it more difficult to operate. So in that regard, it's a definite positive. Q: Yes, thank you very much. I believe this will be for Mr. Bergin, but any of you gentlemen who would like to take it on. What is the threat? Have there been actions taken that have been thwarted against the US facilities here in the United States, especially this building, which is now much better protected from truck bombing? What's going on? They've shut down the FBI tours, et cetera. Can you tell us anything at all? BERGIN: Well, if you'd like, I'd address it in two ways -- One overseas, and one domestically. I think that the threat that Americans - certainly embassies face overseas - it is a lethal threat. These are big, big bombs that we're having to counter. It makes our job difficult, but it's something that we are striving to deter. The other thing that I would mention is that it is global. These threats are not limited to the Middle East or the Persian Gulf; every region is of concern to us. That's why it's important for us to ensure that a minimum level of security is provided to every embassy. Every embassy, in our view, is a potential target. So as a consequence, our program which focuses on perimeter security and reinforcing the perimeter, is of principal importance to us. On the issue of the domestic threat, yes, the threat here in the United States is of concern to us. In the last several months, we have taken a number of measures to increase the security and safety of the employees of the State Department. You've mentioned the encircling of the main State Department with jersey barriers. We have increased the number of contract security guards by almost 100. We have closed D Street, which abuts the State Department, to government vehicles only. So we've taken a number of prudent measures, to include having a drill involving a duck and cover, where the alarm goes off and employees are instructed on what to do in the event there is a possibility of an explosion on the perimeter of the State Department and our embassies overseas. Q: Any attacks thwarted that you can tell us about? BERGIN: I'd rather not discuss those. Q: According to The Washington Post, the consulates in Brazil -- specifically in Rio Janeiro and Sao Paulo -- are in your top priorities. I would like you to comment on why - because of the building or because of the terrorist threat or whatever? Also, what's the situation of the embassy in Argentina, where there was a bombing to the Israeli Embassy a couple of years ago? BERGIN: Okay, on the issue of the consulates in Brazil, our concern there is the fact that these buildings are right on major thoroughfares. In establishing a security profile for an embassy, one of the things that we look at very, very closely is the setback. In our view, there is no substitute for setback. There is no substitute for the space that you control and the space that you don't control. It is through our research and development that when there is an explosion, space softens; it tenuates the effects of the blast. So in the case of Sao Paulo and Rio, the concern is location. They are right on the street. So in our view, they are physically vulnerable. That doesn't mean there are things that we can't do to deter attacks. There are things that you will see with the naked eye that we're doing. Then there are things that are not immediately apparent to the casual observer on what efforts we have out there to protect them. Q: And Argentina - the embassy; do you have any type of concern? BERGIN: This was the Israeli Embassy in Argentina? Q: There was a bombing in the facilities in Argentina. Do you have any type of concern? BERGIN: No, no. Q: If I can go back to the question of Usama bin Laden, Mr. Sheehan. You say that he's being - the Taliban is providing him safe haven. I'd like to know what you mean by that. In what part of the country is he being given safe haven, and what sort of cooperation between them? And if you can speculate - you probably won't - as to what their interest is in doing that. And then also, your sort of ambiguous comment earlier that you reserve the right to defend your interests in whatever way - where is that directed? Is that some how connected to the bin Laden situation? SHEEHAN: Let me answer your second question first. It's not directed at anyone or any specific issue; it's just a statement of fact. On the first issue of bin Laden, as I said before, there have been rumors about where his location is. We know that he's in Afghanistan; we know he's within the area of Taliban's control, and we hold them responsible. You're right - I won't speculate about their motives right now at this briefing, but he remains in their area of control and we have told them very clearly we hold them responsible for that. Q: They've claimed to be limiting his activities - taken away cell phone and all this stuff. Do you put any - would you cast the same sort of doubt on those reports? SHEEHAN: They have told us that they have limited his activities in the past; but in fact his activities haven't been fully limited. So we have indicated to them that that's unacceptable. They have a clear message from us that he must be returned to justice. Q: When you say his activities haven't been fully limited, do you mean that he continues to plan terrorist operations and run this network, which he allegedly controls? SHEEHAN: His organization remains actively engaged in planning terrorist activities and we have indicated that to them. That's why we want him turned over to Justice now for his current activities and for his being suspect in the bombing in East Africa. Q: Apart from bin Laden, can you name other groups or individuals that you consider a major threat to US security? SHEEHAN: There are numerous groups. I won't get into a laundry list here; I don't even want to do that either. But you can look in our annual report, the patterns of global terrorism. It gives a very good run-down of 30 terrorist organizations that we've designated. That really gives a good summary of those groups. Q: (Inaudible) -- besides Brazil, the other top embassy priorities on your list? And one other question. On a scale of one to 10 over the course of the last year, as you've tried to bring the embassies up to at least a minimal level security, how successful have you been? SHEEHAN: I think it would be inappropriate for me to list the top 10 targets that we regard. I mean, it just might not do us any good to get into that subject. So suffice to say we have a process in place, posts are surveyed by the Diplomatic Security Service. There have also been special surveys done in conjunction with the Diplomatic Security Service and Department of Defense, and we've borrowed assets from other agencies as well. We take those; we combine that with the regional security officers reports. We run those through various Washington elements -- the State Department's own Bureau of Intelligence Research -- and come up with a package that we present to the Under Secretary for Management and the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, after vetting it through all the regional bureaus; and that comprises our list. So there is a list. We know where we're going; we have a program; we have a plan. But to discuss the specifics - where we're going to go next - I prefer not to get into. And the second part of your question was - Q: Over the course of the last year, as you've tried to bring all the posts up to a minimal level of security, how successful - SHEEHAN: That's Pete. BERGIN: I'd like to take that. In the last year, we have made improvements at every single post around the world; every post. That's why, in response to the previous question, the threat is global. We take it very, very seriously. Every post is being enhanced; every post. Q: If I could just follow up on that. When you say that every post has been enhanced, would you say that US diplomats - their security is adequately provided for at this point? BERGIN: Yes. I would say that what we are doing in the aftermath of the bombings, in understanding the threat that we face, we've performed some triage here -- getting security assets into the field to provide a baseline level of protection for every diplomat assigned overseas. That has been the objective. I would say, yes, we've done that and we're doing it. As I mentioned in my initial remarks, there is much more that we can do, and we will continue to move down that path. Q: In the Crowe report, there was a suggestion that obviously was taken seriously enough by the Secretary and this building to create a task force to look into a regionalization of embassies, closing some down. What's the status of that; has that gone anywhere? KENNEDY: That's called the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, and that is chaired by Lew Kaden, who is a New York attorney. They are in the process of writing their report, and that report has not yet been presented to the Secretary. But it's supposed to be presented in September. Since it's an independent group, I have no comment on it at this time. RUBIN: We have time for two more questions. One over here, and one over here. Go ahead. Q: Can we address the vulnerability of this building? There have been some reports that some of the security officers here that are under a private firm had been not trained well enough to carry some of the fire equipment that they have, and that some of them even were on the plane with Mrs. Albright when she took her trip to Alaska. Could you address, maybe, the training here of some of these security officers and the reports that most of them or a lot of them are not even trained sufficiently or efficiently? BERGIN: Sure. Each of the security guards - these - let me put this out on the table: these are not police officers; they are not law enforcement officers. They are security guards. Their responsibilities in this building and at the Secretary's residence is to control public access. They are armed only for that purpose. So their responsibilities are to protect this building. Jurisdictionally, you have the Metropolitan Police Department, the FBI, GSA's Federal Protective Service that are responsible for the law enforcement missions involving the State Department and the Secretary's residence. Q: What about the reports that they actually carry these arms when they went to Alaska and that they did not have the licenses to do this? BERGIN: Okay, what I can tell you in the case of Alaska - or anywhere they go -- Diplomatic Security Service special agents are responsible for the protection of the Secretary of State. When they determine - if there is going to be a major event which the Secretary will appear -- that they need to augment the access control to that event, they will ask our contract security guards to participate. In the advance preparations of a visit - for example, Alaska - they will visit with the Anchorage Police Department, at which time they will ask the Anchorage Police Department if it is appropriate for these contract security guards to participate, to be armed. In the case of Alaska, we received verbal authorization from them to have the guards participate. If they tell us no, we don't use them. It's that simple. Q: That gives them the go-ahead to take these weapons on planes? BERGIN: These weapons are - and I don't know the facts here; we're still working on it because we take these allegations very seriously. But my sense is that what would happen is they would be locked in a container, unloaded, and transported commercially to Alaska. They would not be loaded. Q: I can understand your unwillingness to list what you think might be the top 10 targets, but could you give us in some detail how many embassies would actually have to be replaced; how many would need increased construction; how many would you just need to buy property around; how many are fine? SHEEHAN: We have about 265 posts. And if you take the Inman standards that came out of the reports in the 1980s, which essentially says that one seeks to have 100-foot setback from a solidly constructed building, only about 40 to 45 of our embassies or consulates at present time meet those full standards. Therefore, what we need to do and what we are engaged in is a robust program of increasing that security. Pete and I, I think, have outlined some of them, but I'll tick them off very quickly. We like to buy property around those embassies. In one location in the Far East, the State Department bought a convenience store and a gas station. Why? Because they were the border of one of our facilities, and by buying that property, we now have Inman standards met and we have saved the US Government and the taxpayer an immense amount of money, because then we don't have to pick up that embassy and move it and entirely rebuild it in another location. As Pete has mentioned, we have worked with local governments. They have let us block off streets; streets have been closed around a number of embassies -- therefore increasing and obtaining the setback we need. We put barriers out. So there is a panoply of security measures that we take, and those have increased the security. But our goals still remain to be to have 100-foot setback around all our properties, and that is the goal we are working within the Administration and with the Congress to achieve. Q: Do you have any idea how many might actually have to be replaced? RUBIN: We're going to make all of these officials available to you at different times during the course of the week. So we'd like to end the briefing now. They have places to go. Let me end with one final point. Since the bombing last year, Secretary Albright has instituted a new practice where she meets every morning - first thing in the morning - with the head of Diplomatic Security. It's the first meeting she has in the morning. She gets an update on what the situation is at various embassies. I think that's contributed to ensuring that from the top down, this department has put embassy security as a top priority, the way it should be. As I said earlier, she also hand-selected her counter-terrorism coordinator: someone she knew very well; someone who has direct access to her, can work directly with her on the myriad issues that we face. Some of these officials will try to make themselves available to you during the course of today and tomorrow, but they do have other places to go now. Thank you. (end transcript)