One Year Later:
Homeland Security
With Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton
(D-D.C.)
Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2002; 2 p.m. ET

How safe is the nation's capital since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001? Some say it's the safest city in the nation but at the same time residents have complained of intrusive and excessive measures taken in order to assure the safety of its residents and federal workers.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) will be online Wednesday, Sept. 11 at 2 p.m. ET, to discuss homeland security and the integration of the District of Columbia into the planning, coordination and execution of the activities of the federal government against the consequences of terrorist attacks.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Washington, D.C.: Is Washington safer now than it was one year ago?

Eleanor Holmes Norton: Decidedly so. If anything there's been a great deal of overkill in Washington. Official Washington is still trying to figure out how to check the city and it has often do so clumsily and ineffectively. Yet is clear that the District of Columbia is far and away the best protected city on the face of the planet. I feel better protected here than I would in Atlanta or L.A. or Peoria or Boston or any other city in the U.S. The federal government knows what is at stake here and the government has been at pains to protect and secure the city. I only wish that the feds were as smart at keeping the city open as it is keeping the city prottected. We are still learning how to accomplish both of those equally important issues at the same time.

Washington, D.C.: What are your personal feelings today on the one year anniversary of the attacks?

Eleanor Holmes Norton: I've just come from the House floor where I thought I had to say that I do not feel like a target or the representative of a targeted city but like an American. I think it is unAmerican to face today as a day simply of mourning or even of simsply remembering. Americans gain strength and resiliency from tragedy. That's why we are not a tragic people like the Europeans who have written great tragedies. Therefore, I take even the most tragic parts of 9/11, the three D.C. school children and their teachers who went down in the plane that hit the Pentagon, as a force of strength to move forward and not as another occasion for the tears I shed when I learned they had been killed.

Lorton, Va.: When do you think the concrete barriers will come down from around our national monuments? I really miss the old days when these eye sores were not there. Thank you

Eleanor Holmes Norton: Thank you for that question. I gather real optimism from the new design security plan produced by the National Capital Planning Commission, which I am seeking funding for as we speak. Imagine barriers that look like benches and water fountains and the like instead of ugly, concrete things that mar the majestic beauty of the monumental presence. The plan is on paper. We must demand that the first part be implemented at once. I favor beginning with Pennsylvania Ave., from the Capitol to 15th Street to see the barriers go and then taking what we learned there and removing each and every barrier until Washington looks like Washington again.

Capitol Hill: Are they ever going to open C St. SE back up? What do they think they are blocking as long as Independence Ave is open on the other side of the House buildings?

Eleanor Holmes Norton: The streets that are immediately around the Capitol do not accommodate normal traffic anyway except for staff members and of course some residents. I regret the closing of any street but the priority must be on streets commonly used by District and regional residents and tourists. Opening E St. is the great priority today. Otherwise, what we face currently is that the most important crosstown street, Pennsylvania Ave. is closed on the north side of the White House and the most important east-west street, E Street, is closed on the south side of the White House, making life impossible to millions of Americans, locally, regionally and nationally who come to this city. I got E St. opened during the Clinton administration when Pennsylvania was closed. To reopen E St. to two-way traffic, the federal government widened the street and remodeled it to make it impervious to bomb threats following the Oklahoma City bombing. Thus, E St. is the only street in D.C. that has been completely redone so that terrorists cannot penetrate and get to the White House or any other such target. It was closed down only because Sept. 11 occurred. The Secret Service particpated in a recent National Capital Planning Commission task force that recommened the street be open. There is no reason for its closure. Closing E St. is a prime example of the overkill of which I spoke earlier. I have spoken with high level White House officials who have agreed to sit down with D.C. officials to negtotiate this important matter.

Washington, D.C.: How can we get the federal government to pay their fair share of costs associated with protecting DC citizens, property, and businesses? Too often we foot the bill for events that are federal in nature.

Eleanor Holmes Norton: Fortunately we're making some progress. Last year I got $156 million from the federal government for protection of D.C. residents and the federal presence from terrorism. IN addition, the White House has funded now for two years my Public Safety Reimbursement Act which pays for the cost that has been imposed on district residents for the many national demonstrations that come here. The federal appropriation has been held up this year because of differences between the Bush White House and the Congress on a large supplemental bill. However, I have had discussions with the White House concerning the IMF demonstrations that will come near the end of this month and it looks like we will get a special funding to reimburse the district for handling that very important and large demonstration.

San Francisco, Calif.: Tom Ridge's Homeland Security organization has been asking companies to reveal to it exactly where those companies are most vulnerable to terrorism. Considering the fact that people in the CIA and the FBI have betrayed their country in the past, it is far from impossible that someone in Homeland Security will betray his country in the future and pass that information to terrorists to make their attacks more effective. What are your thoughts about this Homeland Security policy?

Eleanor Holmes Norton: If there were some traitor in Homeland Security, I think that they would be more interested in federal than in private facilities. I don't think we can go from being fearful of terrorists to internal mistrust at least without good evidence.

Washington, D.C.: Hello Del. Holmes,

Why doesn't the District have an official back-up plan or evacuation procedures in place if there every is a large-scale disaster? A couple months ago, I read that there was an evacuation plan for 300,000 government employees. Great! But what about the rest of us?

I think DC should put a plan together, put it up on the Internet so people really do know where to go to get out of the city, or if they are stuck here, some advice on what to do or where to go. I am not a generally paranoid person, it's one year later, and nothing has changed or is established.

Eleanor Holmes Norton: I don't know for sure that there is no such plan but I think it is worth considering. Terrorists don't come with missiles generally that take a whole city down, they strike particular locations. I'm not sure that residents would want to anything but to repair to their homes especially since it is more likely that a bombing or a chemical attack would involve a federal facility -- not D.C. residents in their homes. I certainly would not like to see D.C. residents in the streets trying to get out of town unless the city were attacked. I know of no example where terrorists have attacked an entire city. There were missiles guarding the District of Columbia today. In any case, it's an interesting point and one that I will raise with district officials.

Logan Circle, D.C.: Del. Norton,

Do you think that the terrorist attacks, and the concerns about future attacks, will lead to pressure to move federal facilities out of the District? Will it be perceived as too risky to have too much of the federal government in one place?

And, do you think there is a risk that businesses will take the same approach - moving out of cities like DC and into more spread-out suburban areas that aren't perceived as targets for terrorists?

Finally, if so, how do we address those risks (real or imagined)?

Eleanor Holmes Norton: Thus far the answer is certainly no, for federal facilities and for businesses. I don't anticipate the movement of cabinet or other agencies out of the District. I think it would be a total victory for the terrorists of 9/11 if the new Homeland Security Administration, should Congress pass it, were not in the District. Executive orders for decades have required all cabinet agencies to be in the city. I am very pleased that I haven't seen federal officials so afraid of being in their capitol such that they are trying to move out of their own capital city. Let's hope that that day never comes. If it does, we will send a signal to the rest of the country that would be tragic and a sign of retreat that would be un-American.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

   |      |