January 9, 2006: NORTON SAYS HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSURE SECURITY OF SENSITIVE FEDERAL FACILITIES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 9, 2006

NORTON SAYS HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSURE
SECURITY OF SENSITIVE FEDERAL FACILITIES IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL

Washington, DC—The Office of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) released a letter she sent today to Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) requesting a hearing to examine the adequacy of the federal police units that protect sensitive facilities from terrorism in the nation’s capital, beginning with the Naval District police whose reported lack of basic equipment and training were cited in recent news reports. Norton said that a congressional hearing is imperative to ensure that facilities, such as the vice president’s home and other sensitive sites that “might be of considerable interest to terrorists,” are secure.

Among other reported inadequacies, Navy police officers are said to be carrying old police radios that do not work and inappropriate armor piercing ammunition. Norton said that 9/11 converted all police here into vital security officers. “Yet,” she said, “we do not know how 9/11 has changed how these federal police operate today or how or whether they coordinate sufficiently with security intelligence in the nation’s capital.”

The full text of Norton’s letter follows.

January 9, 2006

The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Chairman Davis:

I am writing to ask that you schedule a hearing to help learn more about recent reports of lack of basic equipment and the training for the Naval District of Washington Police force that I believe raise questions about the adequacy of the federal police units that protect facilities in the nation’s capital.

The Naval District police are civilian police whose jurisdiction includes protecting the vice president’s residence; the Navy Yard, location of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Naval Sea Systems Command, both sensitive federal agencies as well as some of the navy’s highest ranking officials’ residences; and the Patuxent River Naval Air Station where weapons research is conducted. Navy police officers report carrying old police radios that do not work and armor piercing ammunition used in service weapons perhaps designed for military combat that pose a serious risk to officers and the public in the urban D.C. environment. More than four years after 9/11, issues such as interoperability and ammunition should have been resolved for these police charged with very serious duties in the event of a terrorist attack at the vice president’s home and other federal facilities that might be of considerable interest to terrorists.

My interest in greater efficiency among federal police dates well before 9/11. My bill, the Police Coordination Act of 1997, enabled many of these federal police units to improve their crime prevention and coordination. Yet, questions of the differences among civilian police and their duties at federal facilities that have been raised for many years continue. However, 9/11 converted all police here into vital security officers. Yet, we do not know how 9/11 has changed how these federal police operate today or how or whether they coordinate sufficiently with security intelligence in the nation’s capital.

The obvious targets here such as the Capitol and the White House, are well guarded, but there are many other high level and sensitive targets that could result in great harm to our country, if attacked. I believe that the reports concerning the Navy police should not be ignored. I understand that the office of the U.S. Navy inspector general is conducting an investigation of the issues in this program and plans to release the results this month. Considering the importance of the facilities guarded by the Navy police and other civilian federal police forces, I hope that you will place a hearing on the federal police in the nation’s capital on the committee’s hearing agenda.

I look forward to working with you on this issue.

Sincerely,

Eleanor Holmes Norton