D.C.'s Trouble in the House

Tuesday, September 25, 2001; Page A22

DISTRICT officials are in a snit because the House Appropriations Committee, in a bipartisan action, voted last week to withhold half of federal funds for key District programs until the city's emergency response plans are overhauled. Appropriations Committee Chairman C. W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) said it was done to convey a sense of urgency because his panel was "shocked to discover the District had no effective plan in place to deal with" the Sept. 11 attack. The committee's ranking member David Obey (D-Wis.) agreed, saying the city's state of readiness was "unacceptable." We doubt the cities of St. Petersburg, Fla., and Wausau, Wis., in Mr. Young's and Mr. Obey's respective congressional districts would have been any better prepared had they come under terrorist attack. Yet we doubt those cities' budgets would now be under congressional threat. We hope the District's budget escapes a similar fate in the Senate today.

District officials contend the House committee was misinformed about the city's lack of readiness; perhaps so. If so, it would seem that senior office holders have themselves to blame. In a Sept. 17 press release, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton said: "The disarray in the District after last Tuesday's attack was due not only to inadequate internal planning (emphasis added), but because the federal government treats D.C. the same as any other state or city." D.C. Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance Gainer, referring to the existence of a well-crafted, well-practiced plan to cope with an imminent terror assault, said his department had none. "We had to create one," he said. The police department had considered having such a plan with stages and levels of response and guidelines for officer deployment, but Chief Gainer said "it was never in the center of my desk, and it was never finalized." What's more, the police had to learn from the media that federal workers had been sent home for day, he said. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Bruce Baughman, noting the city and the federal response, said, "It's clear these things didn't happen Tuesday because we didn't have a plan." In light of those statements, and reports of miscommunication between the mayor's chief of staff and city administrator and the lack of functioning communications equipment for top city leaders, it's hard to blame the committee -- and public -- for concluding the D.C. government was unprepared.

Yesterday, the city sent Congress an expedited report covering the District's role in the National Capital Regional Terrorism Response Plan (which, according to the mayor's communications director, is an initiative involving the city, Maryland, Virginia and several federal agencies). This is the plan that originally was expected to be completed in 2002. Not having seen it, we are in no position to comment on the adequacy of the District's contribution. But Congress, in fairness, should not penalize other worthwhile budgeted spending items for college tuition, health, and fire and emergency services because the terrorist response plan is under development. The "big stick" approach toward the District is uncalled for. Need we remind the House and Senate that on Tuesday, Sept. 11, the federal government and the U.S. Capitol Police were also far from ready.