[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7054-S7055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SECURITY AT THE WHITE HOUSE

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yesterday's Washington Post contained a 
very interesting op-ed piece written by William T. Coleman, Jr., former 
Secretary of Transportation in the Ford administration, who is chairman 
of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. I have known, through 
the years, this distinguished public servant very, very well. He enjoys 
the confidence and respect of the broadest possible spectrum here in 
the Nation's Capital, certainly of this Senator.
  Mr. President, he was addressing the serious problem with respect to 
security at the White House, and I point out that he is a Republican. 
He goes into considerable detail on the issue recently voted on in the 
Senate, the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue. I voted against that Sense 
of the Senate Resolution. I feel that matters relating to security, 
such as the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue, no matter the considerable 
inconvenience to many citizens and in particular citizens from my State 
of Virginia, contiguous to the Nation's capital, should best be left to 
those who are responsible for decisions relating to security.
  Quite frankly, in my State, my vote was not popular because of the 
inconvenience to those utilizing Pennsylvania Avenue for transportation 
to and from their places of employment and the like. I cast a vote to 
table that resolution.
  Today, in our newspapers and on television, we have seen the 
absolutely tragic news about the bombing in Saudi Arabia. Mr. 
President, the first thought in my mind is a great sense of compassion, 
of course, for the families, for the victims, those who have lost their 
lives, those who are injured. How many times I and others, including 
the presiding officer and the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, have reminded the American public of the risk taken 
every day by men and women of the Armed Forces. They volunteer to go 
beyond our shores to provide that framework of security, together with 
our allies, such that we can enjoy what we are doing here today--
freedom of speech and every other type of freedom guaranteed by our 
Constitution. We honor the great sense of obligation that these men and 
women have and the generations that have preceded them and worn the 
uniforms, knowing they take risks of varying levels once they depart 
the shores of our United States.
  I think we should take a lesson from that tragedy as it relates to 
security and the type of weapon employed by those terrorists; namely, a 
truck, from outward appearances being a fuel truck. I consulted today 
with the intelligence staff of the Department of Defense. I think it 
can be said that a fuel truck was carefully reconfigured and the 
contents carefully put in by expert individuals. It was not some back-
garage type of manufacturing job by persons in that region.
  The article by Mr. Coleman is relevant to the tragedy within the last 
24 hours in Saudi Arabia. Terrorism against our men and women of the 
Armed Forces abroad, in my judgment, is directly related to the issue 
regarding Pennsylvania Avenue and the house of the President of the 
United States, which is the public property of every citizen in this 
country. I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. EXON. I would like to say a few things complimenting my friend 
from Virginia on the remarks he made.
  Mr. WARNER. Take such time as the Senator desires.
  Mr. EXON. While the Senator from Virginia and I have not always 
agreed on all subjects, we have agreed on more than we have disagreed 
on. I could not help but ask for a moment, if I might, to congratulate 
the Senator from Virginia for his very thoughtful remarks with regard 
to the security of the White House. I voted against the resolution when 
it came up because I thought it was ill-advised.
  I believe it is safe to say that what happened, the tragedy that 
happened to our people serving the United States

[[Page S7055]]

overseas with the terrorist attack yesterday, if it can happen in 
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, it can happen even more easily at an open 
Pennsylvania Avenue, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  I thank the Senator for his thoughtful comments and remarks.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
  Also, I feel the President of the United States, President Clinton, 
has addressed thus far this tragedy in Dhahran in an exemplary manner. 
He has dispatched all known resources in this country to analyze how 
this could have happened, and I was told by the Department of Defense a 
short time ago, every possible means of medical care and logistics are 
en route by air to the scene to help those many, many who are still 
suffering in the hospital.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, June 25, 1996]

                         Keep the Avenue Closed

                      (By William T. Coleman, Jr.)

       When the Secret Service first described to us its proposal 
     to eliminate vehicular traffic from two busy blocks of 
     Pennsylvania Avenue, I and the five other persons serving as 
     outside advisers to the Treasury Department's White House 
     Security Review were dead set against it. We were all well 
     aware that the presidency carries with it inevitable risks: 
     Certainly, this president has been far more vulnerable on his 
     two trips to the Middle East than he would ever be in the 
     White House.
       Moreover, as longtime Washington area residents and 
     commuters, we were concerned about the effects on the city. 
     We were also mindful of the public's possible reaction to 
     restricting access to the people's house, and with this in 
     mind, we consulted three of the four living former 
     presidents.
       But in the final analysis--and unfortunately much of that 
     analysis cannot be made public because it concerns sensitive 
     security matters--it became clear to us: The evidence 
     unequivocally established that the No. 1 threat to the 
     president in the White House, and to all those who work and 
     visit there, would be an explosive-laden truck driven right 
     up to the White House gates. A limousine, a large car, a 
     station wagon, a bus would also have the capacity to carry 
     such dangerous devices. And in fact all of these vehicles 
     have been used to deliver explosives in one place or another 
     in the world.
       Surely those clamoring for the reopening of Pennsylvania 
     Avenue to vehicular traffic cannot believe that the risks are 
     imaginary [editorial, May 22; op-ed, June 8]. The increase in 
     fanatical terrorism, foreign and domestic, the availability 
     of powerful explosives and the proliferation of information 
     explaining how to build explosive devices yield a potent mix 
     that can no longer be ignored.
       The recommendation we finally made to the Treasury 
     Department was based on the realization that failure to adopt 
     the Secret Service's proposal would undercut the service's 
     responsibility to protect the first family and the 
     government's responsibility to protect the people who visit 
     or work in or near the White House.
       Eliminating vehicular traffic from those two blocks of 
     Pennsylvania Avenue was not a response to any of the specific 
     events that precipitated the review. That is to say it was 
     not intended simply to prevent another plane crash or an 
     assault by a gunman. Our mandate from the beginning was to 
     review all aspects of White House security. In fact our 
     recommendation and Secretary Robert Rubin's decision were 
     made prior to the tragic incident in Oklahoma City. But that 
     tragedy, as well as the earlier bombing of the World Trade 
     Center, painfully underscored the reality we must face.
       Having served as secretary of transportation in the Ford 
     administration, I was especially concerned about the transit 
     implications of this act. So were the other advisers. All six 
     of us racked our brains, our imaginations and our experience 
     to come up with a solution that would keep some vehicular 
     traffic on that segment of Pennsylvania Avenue. In the end, 
     however, we determined that there was no feasible way to do 
     it.
       Nevertheless, the White House remains one of the most 
     accessible executive residences and offices in the Western 
     World. While the avenue is closed to motor vehicles, it is 
     more open than ever to pedestrians. (And I do sense a 
     weakness in the critics' argument that barring vehicles 
     limits or thwarts the chances of out-of-town visitors to see 
     the White House. I doubt that many who visit Washington to 
     see the president's home content themselves with merely 
     passing by in a car, tax or bus.)
       The security situation changes, and not always for the 
     worse. American schoolchildren, for example, no longer have 
     to go through drills to prepare for nuclear attack. On the 
     other hand, we all now take for granted metal detectors at 
     airports, and are becoming accustomed, reluctantly, to 
     presenting photographic identification before boarding a 
     plane. In the 1980s, access to the Capitol, the home of the 
     people's Congress, was restricted to pedestrians in response 
     to threats of Libyan-sponsored terrorism. Then as now, many 
     Washingtonians grumbled about the traffic disruption, and 
     complained that the deployment of Jersey barriers created a 
     concrete perimeter around the Capitol grounds. We now take 
     that change for granted.
       The Jersey barriers currently blocking Pennsylvania Avenue 
     are indeed unsightly. But they are temporary measures, to be 
     employed only until a permanent redesign can be accomplished. 
     The Park Service's proposed design shows that protecting the 
     White House will not require unsightly barricades. The 
     federal government should move quickly to implement a 
     permanent plan.
       Although only a handful of individuals will know the 
     specific facts underlying our recommendation, anyone who 
     reads the newspapers or watches television news will 
     recognize that Secretary Rubin made the right decision.

                          ____________________