Town Hall Meeting: Security and Other Issues Relevant to the Foreign Diplomatic Corps Resident in the District of Columbia

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Thank you very much, Janet. Next invite Secretary Hobbs-Newman to speak on behalf of Mayor Williams.

MS. HOBBS-NEWMAN: Good afternoon. On behalf of Mayor Williams and the citizens of the District of Columbia, I'd like to welcome you to the District of Columbia. I'm sure that many of you have probably been here for quite a while. It is unfortunate if we have not been able to formally welcome you.

I wanted to spend a few minutes talking to you about some of the things that are done through my office and to highlight some of those that are most important to you. I would like to apologize that Mr. Peter LaPorte is unable to be here. He is our director of Emergency Management. Unfortunately, at this moment he is working on an emergency. I'm sure you all have seen the situation that we had at Ballou High School with the mercury. That has become a little more challenging than we had hoped, and so he is dealing with that at this point. I will try to give you some highlights of what the D.C. Emergency Management Agency does. We also are hoping that the Deputy Mayor will be here if she's not accompanying the mayor at this point in time.

My office, the Office of the Secretary of the District of Columbia, is very much in tune with the Secretary of State's office and the other states within the United States. We are responsible for international and diplomatic relations, international protocol, and we deal with the embassies here in the District of Columbia.

We have over 178 embassies in the District, so that keeps us very busy working with courtesy visits that your delegates and dignitaries pay on the mayor. We try to address each and every ambassador as they are credentialed.

We also work on various programs with the diplomatic community. One has to do with our school system—getting you involved and part of the District of Columbia.

For whatever period of time you are here, not only are you here working with the State Department, but you become temporary residents of the District. As such, it is our hope that you will get involved both in your neighborhood and in the District itself.

Some of you have children. The members of your embassy have children, and those children will be attending our schools. We're hoping that you'll get involved in the school system and that you'll get involved in the various programs and services we have in the District that are also essential to you.

My office in particular is responsible for ensuring that we are the liaison to the diplomatic community. As such, I will give you my phone number as well. It is (202) 727-6306. That is my office. What I extend to all of you is an opportunity to either come and visit with me, to have your ambassadors or your heads of state visit with the mayor, and to call us if you have any questions or any concerns that are related to the District of Columbia. We will connect you with the right services, resolve issues—as we've done in the past with many of your embassies, help you through the bureaucratic tape, partner with you on events and activities, and try to give you general assistance in anything you would like to know about the District.

By all means, when you have delegates and dignitaries coming from your countries, we encourage you to let us know. We can help you plan an agenda that will give them a very good view of our city as well as, hopefully, provide an opportunity to meet and talk with the mayor.

From the emergency management perspective, we have an emergency management agency here in the District of Columbia that is one of the best in the country. Following 9/11, it was very important for us to ensure that our emergency management plan, as was the case in all the cities and states around the country, was at its very best. Naturally, we have an even more difficult mission because we have the federal government here as well. That puts us at a greater risk than many other cities around the country.

We embarked on a very ambitious plan in the emergency management area that took us through drills, meetings, cooperatives with the State Department and various other law enforcement agencies. We created regional partnerships and, in essence, created one of the best, if not the best, emergency response service plans in the country.

I believe you all will receive an information packet before you leave which contains our emergency preparedness plan. It is a guide we have given to all our residents and to any one interested. We put it into the newspaper as an insert so that everyone had an opportunity to see it. The guide explains what the codes mean, how to be prepared, what you need to do, the responses you should expect, and tries to answer questions people may have.

It relates not only to a disaster from a terrorist perspective but also to natural disasters. For example, when we had the hurricane a couple of weeks ago, we put our emergency management plan into action. That plan, which includes creating our communications office—a massive office located at the Reeves Center on U Street here in DC—allowing us to communicate globally and by satellite. If we have interruptions in telecommunications, we are still able to communicate.

Our coordination with the Secret Service, and with various entities of the federal and local governments, has enabled us to create a network of emergency response that is unparalleled anywhere in the country.

I assure you in Washington, DC, you can feel safe and secure. We have put in place the mechanisms that we need make sure you all are safe.

In addition, many of you may have concerns individually about your property, about your embassies, and about your own personal security. The emergency management agency also is there to respond to those concerns, as is the Metropolitan Police Department. Those issues can be channeled through my office.

For example, many of you have requested permission to increase the amount of physical security you have, not manned security but gates and partitions around your embassies. Those are issues that my office can work through, because there are permits required.

Emergency management can give you help you with assessments about what you need to do as far as increasing your security from the city's perspective. I know that the State Department offers the same service.

Most importantly, if you have an emergency in most situations you would dial 911. If you have a police matter but it's a nonemergency, you can dial 311; 311 is for nonemergency situations.

In addition, 911 will get you fire and EMS. We have just unveiled a new wireless communication system in the District to improve our response and dispatch times for both fire and police.

Those are some of the things we are doing. I will be here for a little while after we're done with the presentations. Again, that number that I've given you is a number you should consider a resource for your office, not only for security matters, but quite frankly for anything international and diplomatic you have concerns, questions, or issues you would like to raise. Please feel free to contact my office, and we'll be more than happy to assist you.

Thank you very much.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Director Basham?

MR. BASHAM: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank Ambassador Taylor for hosting this meeting today. I think Janet made a comment earlier about one of the key elements in any service organization being communication. I think this forum will certainly provide us an opportunity to communicate with you and to hopefully answer some of your questions with respect to some of these issues. So, Ambassador Taylor, I thank you for hosting this meeting.

I would like to very briefly introduce some of my colleagues with me today. First, I'd like to introduce Mark Sullivan who is our Assistant Director for Protective Operations. Next to him is Gene Sistack who is the Deputy Chief of our Foreign Missions Division, which I'm sure most of you are very familiar with. We also have Curtis Eldridge who is the Assistant Chief in the Uniform Division.

I'd also like to introduce Don Coyer, the special agent in charge of our Dignitary Protective Division, and Barbara Riggs who is the Chief of Staff for the Secret Service.

I would like to give you a brief history of the Service and its role in providing security for our nation's leaders and some of our nation's icons.

To understand the Secret Service and its methodology, perhaps a little history lesson may be in order. The Service had its origins following the Civil War. At that time, approximately one-third to one-half of all the currency in circulation in the United States was believed to be counterfeit.

The Secretary of the Treasury at the time, Hugh McCullough, went to President Abraham Lincoln and explained that this situation was putting the United States on the brink of economic collapse. He requested the president authorize the establishment of a new law enforcement component within the Department of Treasury. That day, President Lincoln authorized the creation of the United States Secret Service, which was put in the Department of Treasury.

Ironically, that was on April 14, 1865. That evening, of course, the president went to Ford's Theater and was assassinated. Today, we're much better known for our protection of the president than we are for the suppression of counterfeiting.

When the Secret Service was created, its purpose was to suppress counterfeiting rather than allowing counterfeit currency to be passed on to the public in order to reestablish the credibility of American currency.

The methodology of the Secret Service was really established at that time—a methodology and a philosophy of prevention and protection versus the traditional approach in law enforcement—investigation.

Whether it applies to our investigative mission or our protective mission, our approach to dealing with our responsibilities really is based on the two pillars of prevention and protection. Everything that we do in our business today is intended to accomplish that.

One of cornerstones of that approach is to identify the threat. We then take a look at the threat and determine what the vulnerability of that threat is to our respective mission, whether it be investigation or protection. The third leg of that stool is to develop countermeasures to deal with that vulnerability. Whether it is in the protection of the president or in the protection of our financial infrastructure in this country, that is our approach.

We also recognized early on that the way to accomplish our mission, because we are a very small agency, is to develop partnerships. We develop partnerships in the law enforcement community, in the academic community, in the private sector, and in federal, state, and local governments.

We are constantly calling upon others to support us in our mission responsibilities. Since approximately the early 1970s, when the Secret Service was called upon to protect foreign heads of state as well as embassies and the missions here in Washington, DC, we fell back upon our old philosophy of partnering.

We turned to the Department of State, who had for many years been involved in this particular responsibility. We worked with them throughout the past 30 years developing strategies and methodologies to provide you with the services that the United States has a responsibility for and a commitment to follow through on.

Whether it is protecting your mission or protecting the president or prime ministers of your country, the Secret Service is committed to this idea of prevention. That is why you see us taking a great deal of time in the preparation of these visits to the United States. I can tell you Ambassador Taylor's approach is the same. To take a look at the threat, assess the vulnerability, and then come up with mitigating countermeasures to that vulnerability. Sometimes that's in the way of people, sometimes that's in the way of technology. But that is the basic philosophy. That's the basic methodology that we use to accomplish our mission.

Since September 11, we've all seen that we have to look at that responsibility in a different light. The challenge today is somewhat different than what we were faced with prior to 9/11. It's a different enemy that we are dealing with. Therefore, we are now looking at the way we go about our mission responsibilities.

We recognize that we can't necessarily continue to provide the types of services that we have provided in the past. We are looking at how are we vulnerable and how can we put in place countermeasures to face those vulnerabilities.

So working with Ambassador Taylor and our other partners, whether it be the Metropolitan Police or the Park Police, we recognize that we have to do this together. We are working very hard to come up with solutions and to come up with methodologies that will do that.

Call the foreign missions branch of the United States Secret Service, because we are committed to assisting you. We know that a timely response is the key in resolving many of these issues. I would encourage you to let us know. One of the ways we are trying to deal with this new threat is to make a determination as to how these adversaries are approaching us. What are they doing to measure our readiness to deal with this new threat?

You may not see a marked cruiser in your neighborhood. That does not, however, mean that we're not there. We are trying to determine if they are watching us to develop opportunities to somehow attack you or to attack us. It is a different approach than we have used in the past.

I want to assure you that we are here to support you. We are here to provide protection to your embassies. We are here to provide protection to your people. I know that whether it is the Department of State or the District of Columbia, our sole purpose in this meeting today is to find out how we can do a better job for you.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. Ambassador Taylor, again I thank you for putting this together, because I think it can be extremely helpful to us all.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: I would like to echo the comments of my colleagues on the dais. Some of you may know that on 9/11, I was privileged to serve the Secretary and the President as the Ambassador at Large for Counterterrorism. We were quite busy after 9/11 seeking to build the international coalition against terror, in which most of are proud members, to take on the scourge of terrorism.

But like that job on that day transformed my position, 9/11 transformed forever, or at least forever in my life, the landscape of security in our country. The balancing act that our government is engaged in is protecting the democratic freedoms that have been a beacon to the world through the United States Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and the absolute obligation of government to protect its people from those that would threaten them with violence.

As our guests here in Washington, that level of protection and commitment to you and your people is the same. It doesn't change. You are our guests. We are as committed to you and your protection as we are to the protection of our own citizens. You fall within the protective umbrella we provide to all citizens of the District of Columbia and to the United States of America.

It is quite confusing, I know, as it is for our people. One of the six principles I talked about as the Ambassador for Counterterrorism was very simple, and I used this every place I went: communicate, communicate, communicate, coordinate, coordinate, coordinate. Those six principles will help us get through the threat array we face both here in Washington and across our nation and, indeed, across the world.

The folks that are here today are the people who are responsible for working with you to communicate the threat, our approach, and the issues you need to accomplish based on that threat.

I'd like to introduce two people who, on a day-to-day basis, work that issue for me. First is Lynwood Dent. Lynn is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Office of Foreign Missions. He manages the Office of Foreign Missions and its interaction with all embassies and posts accredited here in Washington.

Second is Mr. Johnny Guy. Johnny is the head of our Protective Liaison Division and, as such, is my right-hand man when it comes to working with our colleagues in the Secret Service on very specific protective issues involving your embassies and your people in Washington.

We are working to improve how we provide information to you, just as we have with our country, so that you understand how we assess the threat. In our country, that is a new five-level, color-coded threat advisory system. I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the press and others haven't pilloried the administration over the five-color codes. But it's our way of communicating a changed situation. You need to understand so you can react to it.

We're now at Code Yellow, which means an elevated threat of a terrorist attack. Each level has certain security precautions that change when the level is changed. That information will be available to you and to anyone in your embassy on the OFM web site. Secretary Dent is working to improve the information available to you.

Whenever there is an alert change, we will put a broadcast on our web site that tells you what it means and what precautions you should take so you can get information to your folks.

The other area of support most frequently requested is for additional protection at your embassies. As Director Basham mentioned, just because we don't have a uniformed officer or a patrol car or a jersey barrier in front of your embassy does not mean that we aren't concerned about the security of your people and your property. It may mean that in assessing the threat—the specific threat to your embassy or to a particular event—the security provided may not be as visible as you want. Be assured it is adequate to take care of the threat as we assess it.

We do this individually, based upon requests we get from you. I know that probably one of the questions you'll want to ask Director Basham in the question-and-answer session is how we do that. Because you need to understand where your requests go, what do we do with them, and how we respond.

The point being, we will respond to the threat, regardless of the seriousness of it. We will respond to it in a way that will neutralize and defend whatever entity we're protecting from that particular threat. But there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. It's based upon the individual circumstances and the resources that are available from all of the departments and entities in the area which share and coordinate the protection of facilities and people within Washington, DC.

I had a long script that I was supposed to read, but I think I've talked enough. We've had discussions from my distinguished colleagues on the dais. We want to hear from you. We want to hear the questions you have about the current circumstance we find ourselves in, the information you would like to have on the threat, and services you think would be beneficial in helping us fulfill our primary responsibility—one that we take very seriously—to assure every diplomatic establishment we host is safe and secure to perform your diplomatic mission.

I will stop there and open the floor for questions or comments. Yes sir?

QUESTION: In the era of cyber technology, many of the threats can come from information technology. In the case of my embassy and probably some others, our information technology service is based on parts suppliers. Have you been thinking about something in information technology to be offered to embassies?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: We haven't specifically thought about that issue, but it's an excellent point, and part of how we have organized Homeland Security. Perhaps Director Basham would like to comment further on this. One of our concerns in protecting our nation is protecting the infrastructure.

We saw in New York what can happen when there’s an overload of an electrical grid and the cascading effect. Those are major concerns within Homeland Security. I will take that as an issue to add to the array of information we have available to our embassies in terms of approaches that can be used to protect systems, particularly systems dependent on third-party commercial customers.

Director Basham?

MR. BASHAM: Actually, that's a very good question. As you know, the Secret Service was incorporated into the new Department of Homeland Security. The Department’s mission is not unlike that of the Secret Service in that the Department of Homeland Security wants to prevent catastrophic events in the future. They don't want to investigate them; they want to prevent them.

As part of the Department of Homeland Security, the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Unit is responsible for issues that involve technology, information technology, and science and technology.

One of our problems is vulnerability to intrusion into our information infrastructure. We are working very closely with industry, the private sector, and with academia. In fact, the Secret Service is working in partnership with Carnegie Mellon of Pittsburgh to assess the vulnerabilities within those systems—how we can identify and anticipate those vulnerabilities and then build safeguards to deal with them.

We don't want to be in a situation where we're dealing after the fact. We want to be on the front end. We want to be proactive. We want to be preventive. So the Department of Homeland Security is very, very conscious of that vulnerability, that threat, and we are working very hard with all of our partners to come up with ways to protect against that sort of intrusion.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Yes sir?

QUESTION: Thank you, Ambassador Taylor. I'm from the Embassy of St. Lucia. I have observed during my year here that the level of access to embassies is very open. People can virtually just walk into embassies. Does the State Department have any requirements in terms of level of access to embassies, or is the onus on embassies to determine the level of access?
Thank you, Ambassador.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: We have standards, and anyone who has been to any of our embassies overseas understands you can't walk right into an American embassy anywhere in the world any longer. We believe that is an appropriate standard of security given the threat to our embassies around the world.

Certainly it is your government and your embassy which makes the determination as to the level of security and access controls you will have. For my own part, given the threat that we face around the world, free public access to government or public facilities is probably not the best way to approach security.

Senator Judd's wife came home yesterday and found two intruders in her home who robbed her. Those are realities across our country and across the world. I think prevention dictates stronger access control, but that is a decision that's not dictated by us but is a decision of the embassy here.

Is there another question? Yes sir?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I'm from The Netherlands. I had a practical question regarding all the diplomatic missions. We've got a couple of consuls general in the United States. If it’s a security issue that involves them, should they directly contact one of your field offices, or would you rather have that dealt with through the embassy in Washington and with you directly?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Either way. We have offices of the Office of Foreign Missions in major cities around the country. We also have diplomatic security organizations in major cities around the country. The Secret Service is represented in major cities around the country. They should talk to whomever they feel most comfortable in getting that liaison point across so we can address the issue, If not in the field, then certainly through Washington.

MR. BASHAM: I would agree. As you can imagine, we are somewhat limited in understanding what your issues may be. Once that issue is communicated, we can determine the best way of dealing with it. It could very well be notifying the local police department. It could be that the Secret Service or the Department of State get involved.
One of the unfortunate things about this country, its strength and its Achilles heel, is our open society and free access, as the ambassador said. Our citizens have that expectation.

So many times we don't know what your threat may be. We need to have better communication in order to determine the threat. We have field offices in the major cities in the country. We are very interested in communicating with you so that we can have a better understanding of what your issues may be. I would very much encourage you to make that contact, to be in communication. Today we're dealing in global security issues. It's not local. It's not even national. It is global. The more information we have about what threat is, the better we are going to be able to build ways in our system to protect you, protect you as a guest or our own citizens.

Communication and coordination are the two elements, the two key elements, to success in this preventive approach.

QUESTION: I have a question that I think has been raised before, but I don't think it has been addressed properly. You talked about the threat level. We have a lot of guests that are not heads of state nor are they foreign ministers. But I don't think the threat assessment covers them very well. It always comes that there isn't any threat to them, but you never know. Plus they require some type of accommodation as far as providing security, as far as helping with their movement. I think I can speak for a lot of us. We need help in this area. You have to provide an alternative. Thank you.

MR. BASHAM: First I would say if you're talking about the District of Columbia, it's a shared responsibility. I know that the District of Columbia is very committed and very concerned about the safety of all visitors to Washington, DC.

On those occasions where there is someone you have an interest in making sure we are aware of, we would ask you to let us know. If it's a visitor with a particularly high threat profile, we need to know. We need to communicate it to the District of Columbia, to the Department of State and, where it involves us, certainly to the Secret Service.
Again, we don't always know who that person may be, or the threat profile on that person, without your input. Have you seen occasions where you have, in fact, requested additional attention to someone that you haven't gotten? Is that part of the problem?

ANSWER: Yes.

MR. BASHAM: Then that's something we need to work on. It’s a collective responsibility, and hopefully we can approach it with a collective effort. There are certainly limited resources, but where we can apply those resources appropriately, we want to work together to make sure you are provided the appropriate level of safety and security as you visit this city or this country.

MS. EISSENSTAT: I just wanted to comment on it briefly. Just so you understand, the Secret Service is mandated by federal law to protect chiefs of state and heads of government. Diplomatic Security is mandated to protect anyone else of a dignitary status based upon a threat assessment. One of the first things you communicate to us is a request for either Secret Service protection or Diplomatic Security protection.
One of the challenges we have is that the District of Columbia, with all of its millions of visitors, does a great deal to ensure everyone's safety, but we don't have anything that I would call a courtesy detail. We really don't have a provision that allows for something like expedited traffic movements. It’s really a yes or no question. Is there a credible threat, or is there not? We need your help in communicating the information needed to assess whether or not it’s a credible threat. If there is no credible threat, then they become a distinguished visitor, and we want to do everything in our power to make sure that they receive all the hospitality possible.

One way to do that is to make sure we are aware of the movements and that we can work with issues. For example, we can get your delegation to Capitol Hill in a dignified manner even if they don't have a police escort, but we need to know so that we can begin to work with the proper authorities at the Capitol about what kind of vehicle will be coming and what can they expect.

We also need your help, of course, to communicate to your dignitaries that magnetometers and screenings are the norm in this country now. Despite how high ranking they might be, this is not intended to be a slight to them. It's a reality of what we're dealing with.

We are here to help you. If there's anything you're concerned about a particular meeting or a particular movement, please let us know, and we'll do what we can to make sure that everyone is informed. We'll try to make it work for you.

Generally, we don't have a provision for what I would call a courtesy detail. It's a frustration for all of us, but it's a reality of living in such a busy city. We would have motorcades crossing traffic all day long, every day. It's very similar in New York, as you know, where the standard is extraordinarily high in order to get traffic control.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: I know the circumstances. I've probably been on the wrong side of several of those decisions for many of you as you tried to communicate back to your capital that Diplomatic Security ain't playing.

We take, first and foremost, the safety and security of your people as our top priority, but it is a resource issue. What helps me most in making a decision is credible threat information, not ‘he's going to be upset if he doesn't have this because he gets it at home.’ It's credible threat information.

I will assure you that if there is a credible threat requiring protection, you will get it. But that's where we ask you to communicate openly and honestly with our protective liaison people, with the Secret Service, the District government, and Protocol.

Resources are extremely limited, as you can imagine. I have 1,400 agents around the world. I don't know how many you've got, Ralph, but 30-person details can eat up 1,400 agents pretty damn quickly. I've got 265 embassies to protect along with doing dignitary protection here. I'm not crying I don't have resources; it's just a prioritization issue for us.

What drives our decision is threat. If there is a credible threat, we will be there. I guarantee you that. If you ever get to the point where you don't feel you're getting it, you call me, and I will take your call, and we will examine it. Fair enough? Did you have a follow-on?

QUESTION: It's a different question, but it has to do with the District of Columbia authority and the Office of Foreign Missions. We have been trying to do something specific with our embassy or the ambassador’s residence. We've contacted the State Department. They forwarded us to the District officials. The District officials send us back to the State Department, and what we want to do is not done. Maybe it has to do with the way we communicate, but it's a problem. I don't know if other people have it.

MS. HOBBS-NEWMAN: Let me just say that I'm familiar with some of the issues you have, and this is one of the things I was talking about before. You tend to have requests that you make on the government to do things around your embassy, whether it's the residence or the embassy.

The only thing I can say to you is: if you're having a problem with a District agency or with some entity or official within the District government, call the number I gave you. That is my office number. We will go over with you again what the issue is and map out for you how we can get to a resolution. It may not always be the answer that you want to hear, but at least you'll get an answer. You'll know it's been addressed and it's been taken care of.

I would encourage you to do that. But in the meantime, also know that, between the District government and the Office of Foreign Missions, we are working on a relationship that will prevent the back-and-forth and allow us to let you get you the type of information and assistance that you need in one place.

I know that they have frustrations as well with getting assistance from the District. One of the things my office is focusing on is to try to cut through all that red tape.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Let me assure you that our great democracy works very well to the grassroots level in neighborhoods where you live or where you work. Washington is an extremely complicated city. If anyone in this government thinks they control the citizens of Washington, DC, in the decisions they make on places that they live or will allow people to live, it's tough.

We are committed to answering your questions and to not give you the ping-pong back and forth between Washington and the State Department; to tell you exactly what the issues are and how we can or can't help.
Yes sir?

QUESTION: Thank you. I have a concern you maybe can help me with. I'm from the Embassy of Chile. Our embassy is located on Massachusetts Avenue, as are most embassies, between 16th and 17th Street.

Our embassy has a big hallway, so it's great for cars to make u-turns. Every day we have about 30 cars, trucks, and sometimes buses, making u-turns through our embassy. On the other hand, we have a lot of cars from citizens parking on our premises.

Sometimes we call the police and the cars are removed, but we can't do that every time. So some time ago, we requested the possibility of putting up a chain to avoid people making the u-turns. We were told that that part does not belong to the embassy. The embassy begins from the door in, and the rest belongs to the District of Columbia. So we have to have a special permission or that permission would not be granted.

I would like to know now, with all these security measures and embassy securities, how can we manage that? Maybe putting a sign there that people are not allowed to make u-turns. Are we supposed to do that, or is DC to put up that sign? That's my concern.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Thank you.

MS. HOBBS-NEWMAN: There are a couple of things. First, the issue that you're speaking of has to do with public domain. The reason you were told that putting that chain there, I don't know exactly what your residence looks like, is that a certain portion of your property would be the domain of the city. It's considered public space.

Anything that happens within that public space, any requests that you make, do have to go through a committee (and I happen to sit on that committee) that reviews all requests for changes to public space. When those changes are submitted, as many embassies have done, we will review it. We'll look at it from a public safety perspective. We will look at it from the perspective of the neighbors in the area, the reason you're doing it, and then we'll make a decision as to whether or not you can do that.

There is a process you can follow. If you want to get information about that process, you can contact my office, and we can tell you what that process is. That's going before this board and presenting your case.

That's the first thing. It's not that it cannot be done. It does have to be reviewed, and we'll make a final determination to say yes or no.

In the meantime, here is what do we do about people making u-turns and such. It is possible that, based on where you're located, the Department of Transportation can make an assessment as to whether or not a sign can be put up to prohibit turns, whether it's a "no turn" sign or a "no u-turn" sign.

Once that's done, the only caveat is that people will do it anyway. Then it becomes an enforcement issue. It's easier for the police to enforce it when there are violations of a regulation; more so than when you're saying you just don't like the fact that people are making u-turns in your driveway.

Again, that is something that we can walk you through with our Department of Transportation; they can do an assessment as to whether there is something that they can do about it.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Either that or go to Home Depot and get a "no u-turn" sign.