[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 879-880]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SAFETY REIMBURSEMENT 
                              ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 8, 2000

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia 
Public Safety Reimbursement Act of 2000. The bill provides an annual 
federal contribution to reimburse the District for the considerable 
services the Metropolitan Police Department provides every year to 
cover the many national events and activities that occur here because 
the District is the national seat of government. Examples of these 
services are too numerous to detail. Some of the most familiar are the 
many events and demonstrations, from the Million Man March to the 
federal Millennium event at the Lincoln Memorial last month. Events, 
large and small, of every variety occur with great frequency and cannot 
proceed without the work of our police force. The MPD is at the center, 
from the extensive logistical preparations to the on duty time 
protective services. The bill is strongly supported by D.C. Police 
Chief Charles Ramsey, who joined me at a press conference on the bill 
here in the Capitol earlier today.
  The annual amount provided in the bill would reimburse the District 
for the considerable services the Metropolitan Police Department 
provides every year to cover the many national events and activities 
that occur here because the District is the national seat of 
government. Examples of these services are too numerous to detail. Some 
of the most familiar are the many events and demonstrations, from the 
Million Man March to the federal Millennium event at the Lincoln 
Memorial last month. Events, large and small, of every variety occur 
with great frequency and cannot proceed without the work of our police 
force. The MPD is at the center, from the extensive logistical 
preparations to the on duty time guarding and facilitating the event 
itself.
  Further, residents see our police every time the President moves 
outside the White House complex because all traffic stops while our 
police line the streets to assure the President's safe passage. The 
Congress itself frequently uses our police department--from the annual 
State of the Union address, when officials and citizens converge on the 
Hill, to unusual events, such as the funeral following the tragic 
killing of the two Capitol Police officers almost two years ago. 
Cabinet officials, the President, and Members of the House and Senate, 
not to mention other federal officials and agencies all use the MPD as 
if it were a hometown police force they had bought and paid for. 
Actually they pay nothing. In countless ways on a daily basis, federal 
officials and tourists alike get excellent D.C. police protection free 
of charge.
  A prominent example from last year dramatically points up how the 
cost of federal events has been transferred to the taxpayers of the 
District of Columbia. A ragtag gang of racists and anti-Semites calling 
themselves the American Nationalist Party came to Washington in August 
to petition their federal government for redress of their grievances, 
such as they were. However, it was the District government that picked 
up the tab to the tune of a half million dollars for police protection. 
At the same time, pro-human rights groups held a large, peaceful rally 
at the Lincoln Memorial to counter the Nazis. Whether marginal and 
extreme, like the Nazis, or mainstream and pro-democracy like the 
counter-rally last summer, D.C. police participation is indispensable 
to every demonstration and national event that occurs in this city. The 
right to assemble is a precious constitutional right available to all 
and must be protected for all. However, those who come here seek the 
attention of the national government, not the D.C. government, and the 
cost should be borne by American taxpayers, not D.C. taxpayers.
  The bill I introduced today places financial responsibility where it 
belongs. There are two important grounds for this bill, one statutory 
and the other historical precedent. The statutory basis is the 1997 
Revitalization Act, where we traded the federal payment for a much 
larger federal assumption of state costs. However, we nevertheless 
preserved the right of the District to receive a federal contribution. 
We wrote language into the Act providing: ``The unique status of the 
District of Columbia as the seat of the government . . . imposes 
unusual costs and requirements which are not imposed on other 
jurisdictions and many of which are not reimbursed by the federal 
government.'' The Revitalization Act (Section 11601) therefore allows 
``for each subsequent fiscal year [after FY 1998], such amount as may 
be necessary for such contribution.''
  The second basis for a designated public safety contribution is 
historical precedent. Separate from the annual federal payment, the 
Congress has traditionally appropriated additional funds for public 
safety purposes. Amounts have ranged from five million dollars to 30 
million dollars, depending on the need and public safety issues arising 
in the particular year. Such funds have been appropriated for national 
events in other jurisdictions as well. Just last year, Congress 
included five million dollars to help cover police costs during the WTO 
meeting in Seattle. Here in the District, there has always been a 
consistent congressional understanding that police work in the nation's 
capital necessarily involves the federal and national interest and 
deserves special and unique support. Thus, I am asking the Congress to 
return to its original understanding of its responsibility for a share 
of public safety in this city, specifically for police protection for 
national and federal events.
  I will be conferring with other Members of Congress and with Police 
Chief Ramsey concerning a specific amount for FY 2001. However, I want 
to emphasize that I do not introduce the bill simply to get extra money 
from the federal government, as desirable as that would be. This is the 
first in a series of bills I will be sponsoring to try to get ahead of 
revenue problems beyond the District's control that are on the way. We 
are proud that with a large assist from the $5,000 Homebuyer Credit, 
the District has begun stabilizing its population. However, it will be 
years before the District has a tax base of residents and

[[Page 880]]

businesses adequate to support the city through good, moderate, and bad 
economic times. This important financial issue has been masked by 
today's excellent economy. However, our surplus is not largely a 
product of that economy, but of the state costs the Revitalization Act 
removed from the city. The D.C. Police Safety Reimbursement Act I 
introduced today is among several bills that will be necessary to make 
up for a decline in the economic output expected by next year, 
according to regional analysts, including Professor Stephen Fuller of 
George Mason University. It would be foolish to await another crisis. 
The time to prepare is now. This and other bills designed to ward off 
forecasted trouble is the only way to keep the District's finances on 
an upward trajectory. The D.C. Public Reimbursement Act builds on cost 
justification the Congress itself has long accepted. The annual amounts 
would not be a gift from the federal government. They would be payment 
for services rendered to the President, Congress and the federal 
government by the Metropolitan Police Department.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill vital to the continuing 
recovery of the Nation's Capital.