[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7158-7159]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SAFETY REIMBURSEMENT 
                              ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 3, 2001

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I reintroduce the District of Columbia 
Public Safety Reimbursement Act of 2001 with some urgency. The city has 
become the focal point not only of the large number of standard 
national events that come annually, but of an ever-increasing number of 
volatile, even violent and disruptive events. The District, which has 
recently revived from a serious fiscal crisis, will be seriously 
disadvantaged by the federal government itself if the city must 
continue to take on the financial burden of the national demonstrations 
of people who come to this city because of the federal presence. The 
bill is strongly supported by the District, especially by D.C. Police 
Chief Charles Ramsey, whose officers are deflected from fighting 
serious crime, and by Mayor Tony Williams, who must also commit the 
resources of many other agencies when national events occur here.
  The annual contribution authorized by this bill would reimburse the 
District for the considerable services the Metropolitan Police 
Department (MDP) and other D.C. agencies provide every year to cover 
the many national events and activities that occur here because the 
District is the national seat of government. One need only consider 
some of the events and demonstrations held in recent years to 
understand what offloading similar federal costs would do to any large 
city. Examples are too numerous to detail, but here are some examples. 
Of the cities where the International Monetary Fund (IMF) 
demonstrations were held, the District was the only one where 
significant violence and disruptions did not occur. Last year, Congress 
was so impressed and relieved about the city's handling of the IMF 
demonstrations that it passed a version of the bill I am introducing 
today on a one-time basis and awarded the District $4.4 million that 
partially reimbursed the city. Another prominent example 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 (ANP) came to Washington in 
August 1999. The District government was left to pick up the tab of

[[Page 7159]]

$500,000 for police protection for the demonstrators and for the pro-
human rights groups who rallied against the ANP on the Mall as well as 
at another location to counter the Nazis. The enormous expense had to 
be incurred because of the huge reaction to the announcement of the 
NAZI demonstration, even though only a half-dozen actually showed up. 
City police and agencies had to spend local taxpayer dollars in any 
case.
  From the Million Man March to the federal Millennium event at the 
Lincoln Memorial, similar events, large and small, of every variety 
occur with great frequency and cannot proceed without the work of our 
police force and city agencies. The MPD is at the center, from the 
extensive logistical preparations to the on-duty time guarding and 
facilitating the event itself.
  The right to assemble is a precious constitutional right. It is 
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.
  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 three 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. The District cannot continue to plan for ever larger numbers 
of demonstrations on an ad hoc basis with insufficient funds. The 
Congress needs to award the funds in advance to assure that the 
District budgets sufficient funds in advance to manage these events 
safely and professionally.
  The bill I introduce 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 the District of Columbia traded the federal 
payment for a much larger federal assumption of stat costs. However, 
the Congress nevertheless preserved the right of the District to 
receive a federal contribution. The Act provides: ``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 to the District 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. Two 
years ago, 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 by reimbursing 
the city for the cost of police protection. The bill requires the 
District's Chief Financial Officer to submit receipts for the cost of 
such protection to the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee at the end of 
each fiscal year.
  I want to emphasize that I do not introduce this bill simply to get 
extra money from the federal government, as desirable as that would be. 
I introduce this bill because these cost are beyond the control of the 
District and therefore create mounting pressures on the city's budget. 
It will be years before the District has a tax base of residents and 
businesses adequate to support the city through good, moderate, and bad 
economic times. The D.C. Public Safety Reimbursement Act builds on cost 
justification the Congress itself has long accepted. The annual amounts 
would be small and 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 and 
the agencies of the D.C. government.
  The matter has now become urgent. The District must be able to plan 
its budget as the Congress expects. This planning cannot be done if the 
Congress itself does not include an annual mechanism for reimbursement 
to the city for services rendered to protect the federal presence.

                          ____________________