Panel I of a Hearing of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - Disaster Capacity in the National Capital Region: Experiences, Capabilities and Weaknesses

Panel I of a Hearing of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - Disaster Capacity in the National Capital Region: Experiences, Capabilities and Weaknesses

PANEL I OF A HEARING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: DISASTER CAPACITY IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION: EXPERIENCES, CAPABILITIES AND WEAKNESSES

CHAIRMAN: DELEGATE ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-D.C.)

WITNESSES: PETER NICKELS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; DANIEL NICHOLS, ASSISTANT CHIEF, UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND GABRIELLE GALLEGOS, DIRECTOR OF LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

DEL. NORTON: This hearing will come to order, and I'll ask the first panel if you will be seated.

While the Senate hasn't finished its work, the House (laughs) finished its work -- finished the budget, and I think most people are home by now. This hearing is so important, however, that we wanted to proceed in any case.

The ranking member, Mr. Diaz Balart, has a statement for the record. We are pleased to receive it at this time.

I welcome today's witnesses at this hearing concerning an important mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security under the jurisdiction of our subcommittee. But for this hearing, I would be attending the funeral of Mrs. Loree Murray, a gentle soul who became a beacon of resistance of gun violence when crack and the crack wars ripped the District in the 1990s.

An indication of Mrs. Murray's success as a citizen anticrime activist is that, before I arrived at the viewing and wake last night, I'm told that D.C. police chief, Kathy Lanier, was in attendance. Mrs. Murray was also such a statehood and voting rights advocate that her family placed her "Free D.C." cap in her casket. Considering that an important part of what concerns us at today's hearing is a new firearms risk, posed by a dangerous gun amendment, proposed for the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (sic), I told Mrs. Murray's family and friends last night that I wanted to dedicate today's hearing to Loree Murray.

Today we are pleased to welcome federal and district law enforcement officials, emergency managers and first responders to testify concerning steps to prevent, prepare for, and respond, if necessary, to incidents of all types. FEMA is the lead agency charged with preparing for and responding to disasters and emergencies, whether natural or man-made. When Congress established the Department of Homeland Security shortly after 9/11, the statute that created it also established a special Office of National Capital Region Coordination, now placed in FEMA.

Our region faces the same risks as other major areas of our country -- from natural disasters, such as the 2001 floods in the Bloomingdale section of the District of Columbia; or man-made disasters, such as the tragic plane crash into the Pentagon in September -- on September 11th, 2001. The nation's capital occupies a special place in the nation's security network, with the District ranking in the top four at risk for terrorist threats, along with New York, Chicago and San Francisco.

However, the challenges of responding to threats in the seat of the federal government are unique and, as a result, Congress established the NCCR, the only regional office inside the DHS charged specifically with coordinating security for one region alone. The unique nature of the National Capital Region brings distinct challenges for the region and its officials. For example, the metropolitan police department must work with no less than 32 federal police agencies. And MPD, the largest police force in the region, is an indispensable part of the federal security network for the nation's capital and the National Capital Region of our nation.

The recent inauguration -- the largest event ever held in the nation's capital, with an estimated two million people in attendance, including foreign dignitaries, entertainment stars, and virtually every important federal and state official in the United States -- is perhaps the quintessential example of what makes the work of elected officials, police and security officials, and police and security officials in our nation's capital uniquely difficult.

Although hearings have been held concerning some problems at the 2009 inaugurations, such as the citizens who were held in the Third Street tunnel, it is noteworthy that there was not a single arrest at the National Mall, notwithstanding the unprecedented crowds and the disappointments of some concerning admission.

The Third Street tunnel problems are among those that will be studied by Government Accountability Office, with a report and recommendation to come. However, Mayor Adrian Fenty; D.C. police chief, Cathy Lanier; the Metro; the Capitol police; and the DHHS agencies involved, including the lead agency, the Secret Service, deserve credit for the planning and operations that resulted in what most agree was an unusually successful event.

Although the problems that arose require study, we are also interested in how the federal and district agencies, in cooperation with the region, pulled off an event the size of which was like anything we had seen before -- as many as five times the number of people on the Mall as anyone had ever seen, and how they were able to keep it up for four days of the engagement. That's also something that will help us to understand what a unique event can bring, since nobody knew how many people would come and the authorities had to be prepared for, how ever many came, almost all of them without tickets.

Since 9/11, this region has had notable success working together to shore up unique risks to homeland security here. Literally, billions of dollars have been spent not only to repair the Pentagon -- where 184 people were lost, but to fortify (a metro ?) against the unique vulnerabilities of the National Capital Region, with its porous borders, 14 million people, 50,000 -- I'm sorry, 200,000 federal employees, and national and foreign dignitaries that pose security risks as they move, often in motorcades, throughout the National Capital Region.

No risk is more apparent to homeland security, in particular, than the widespread availability of firearms. While the city was in the act of writing new legislation this summer, the National Rifle Association forced a number of Democratic members of the House -- during the primaries, just before the 2008 elections, to demand an up- and-down vote on a bill to eliminate all gun laws in the District of Columbia and to strip the District of all public safety gun enforcement jurisdiction.

This bill is essentially the same as the Ensign amendment, now attached to the District of Columbia House Voting Rights legislation passed by the Senate in February. Despite hearings and testimony from federal and D.C. police chiefs that the gun bill posed a, quote, "grave threat to elected and appointed federal officials and visitors, in addition to D.C. residents," the bill passed the House on the belief that it would be stopped in the Senate, and we were able to do so.

However, despite the hearings, almost no one had ever looked at the gun bill itself. They were focused on not doing harm to members from more conservative districts who were facing election. Now, with the Ensign amendment attached to the Voting Rights bill in the Senate, the time has come to look at the Ensign amendment straight in the eyes. Understand this: We are going to get the D.C. Voting Rights passed this year. Therefore, if the Ensign amendment is on the bill in the House, it will become law right along with the D.C. House Voting Rights Act.

The Congress has largely regarded the gun bill as just another piece of local legislation. However, federal police must operate largely under the District's gun laws and have testified that these gun laws have been critical to homeland security. Today we intend to face, head on, what it would mean for the nation's gun law -- for the nation's capital to have no local gun laws. We must ask whether the gun laws, as The Washington Post recently noted, "protecting the lives of D.C. residents, as well as those of tourists, and foreign dignitaries, national leaders, and the president and his family, should be," in quote, "should be eliminated."

Before us today is whether appointed and elected federal officials, employees, visitors and the federal presence would be more or less secure under the Ensign Amendment, which would allow -- and let us hear it, and face it -- would allow military-style weapons, including 50-caliber armor-piercing guns, to be legally possessed, without limit on the numbers, in the nation's capital.

The nation's capital becomes the only jurisdiction permitting -- indeed, inviting -- people to cross state lines to purchase guns and bring them back from two nearby states, facilitating gun running by criminals, felons or terrorists between the states and the nation's capital.

A gun show loophole would be open, eliminating the assault weapon ban, among other things, without any background checks of any kind, permitting the purchase of weapons of every kind from private individuals at gun shows on a cash-and-carry basis. No gun registration is permitted, and there would therefore be no way for police to trace guns used in crimes.

The District is deprived of all gun safety jurisdiction to revise its laws for the safety of residents and visitors and government officials, even if serious threats arise. Any person could bring guns, concealed or openly, to any workplace in the city. Employees therefore could bring guns to a Wizards game, if they worked at the Verizon Center, to the Nationals baseball park at Nationals Park, to a national convention at the Convention Center, to PEPCO headquarters, to law offices, to other small and large workplaces throughout the city, to churches and other places of worship, to bars, restaurants and nightclubs, to hotels, to power plants, and to all District government offices.

In short, would elected and appointed federal officials and foreign dignitaries, visitors and District residents be safer and more secure with or without the Ensign amendment? Asked another way, what is to be gained from the Ensign amendment?

The time to ask these questions is now, not after there is blowback and recriminations following serious gun carnage affecting residents or federal officials and employees. Our job is to prevent, not only to protect.

Today's hearing, of course, will focus not only on the most recent and most serious threat -- to this most recent and serious threat to homeland security since 9/11, but on all the steps that have been taken by the agencies involved, including the District of Columbia National Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, the U.S. Capitol Police, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority police, the D.C. attorney general, Prince George's County Office of the County Executive, the Washington Hospital Center and the American Red Cross.

Yet the hearing is likely to -- remembered most by whether we in Congress, with a clear threat in plain sight on the voting rights bill, did what was required to protect the nation's capital and the national capital region and all who live and work here. We are deeply grateful to today's witnesses.

May I ask my good friend and colleague Ms. Edwards if she has any opening statement?

REP. DONNA F. EDWARDS (D-MD): Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. And just a brief statement. First I want to say to all of the witness -- who will appear today that you have a unique responsibility in this region. And this region, as you know, is different from just about any other in the country, both in terms of our vulnerability and access, our meaning to this country and around the world.

And so all of the agencies in this very close region, sharing borders, crossing borders, require the kind of coordination and communication that is different than almost any place else. And so I thank you in advance for your testimony today and for helping me as a new legislator to understand your responsibilities, the challenges that you face and what we might do here in the United States Congress to try to mitigate some of those barriers and those challenges.

I will say, as a representative of Prince George's and Montgomery County in Maryland's 4th Congressional District, I can only recall my experiences as a parent and a worker on 9/11 and the challenges of trying to get to a son at -- over here on Capitol Hill while I was over on Dupont Circle, while Dad was over in Virginia, and trying to communicate, and the lack of communication, the difficulty of moving in and getting out of the city.

And I thought just then that while overall, obviously, we handled that disaster and tragedy quite well, we still have a lot to do and especially if there were a more compelling disaster in this region, just the mere movement of people and vehicles and emergency services.

As someone who represents Prince George's and Montgomery County, I have been more recently focused on things like our communication systems for our law enforcement, whether we have the kinds of communication systems that allow us to communicate across agencies and law enforcement operations. And I'm concerned about that.

I'm concerned about our emergency room and hospital capacity to handle a tremendous disaster. We are home, as you know, to Adventist Hospital, to Prince George's County Hospital, to numerous other medical facilities. And yet, in that, we also know that these facilities face tremendous financial and other challenges. And we have to, I think, in this region, pay particular focus to those facilities and make sure that they have the emergency services and capacity to handle any impending disaster. I'm not sure, frankly, that we're quite there yet.

And so I look forward to your testimony today and learning from -- from each of you as you appear. And obviously, thank the chairwoman for the foresight in pulling this discussion together.

And let me just say, on the chairwoman's closing remarks, particularly regarding D.C.'s autonomy and ability to make its own decisions both about emergency services and other decisions for the city, I am, you know, full square behind and with her, because we know in this -- in this jurisdiction that it's important to have people who are capable of making decisions independently for their jurisdictions, but working together. And we want a full partner -- a full voting partner in the District of Columbia.

And Maryland doesn't want the responsibility of registering guns from D.C. residents and moving firearms across borders. That poses a tremendous burden on our -- on our state. It poses an absolute burden on our local law enforcement in Prince George's and Montgomery County. And so I look forward to continuing to work with the chairwoman to address these issues as they impact our ability to respond to disasters and emergencies.

Thank you very much, and I yield.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you, Ms. Edwards.

Mr. Perriello, do you have a comment you'd like to make -- opening comments?

Thank you. Very grateful to today's opening panel. I'm grateful particularly to District of Columbia Attorney General Peter Nickels, who volunteered to come when police chief Cathy Lanier encountered a family emergency. And I'm very pleased and grateful to you, Attorney General Nickels, for coming.

I'm pleased also to hear from assistant chief -- United States Capitol Police Department, who is here for Chief Morse, who had to be away today. We work very closely with you, Assistant Chief Nichols, on homeland security here in the Capitol and in the District.

And I'm particularly grateful to the administration for providing us with a witness from the Department of Homeland Security, Gabrielle Gallegos -- am I pronouncing that right? --

MS. GALLEGOS: Very close.

DEL. NORTON: -- (chuckles) -- who is director of law-enforcement policy at the Department of Homeland Security.

Let us begin with Attorney General Nickels.

MR. NICKELS: (Off mike) -- Norton, members of the committee -- (turns mike on) -- I think I now have it on, here.

I appeared with the chief almost a year ago when we presented testimony with respect to the gun legislation that was being considered by the House. And I'm a poor substitute for Chief Lanier, but I'm very happy to be here to talk about the impact on homeland security in this nation's capital of what has been called the Ensign amendment.

I want to first talk about a very important proposition, and that is that the District of Columbia is in compliance with the Second Amendment ruling of the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

Now, it is a fact that some of the same individuals and lawyers who contested the original district legislation have sued again, but I am confident -- and I would think the Congress would be confident -- that the courts will ultimately resolve any issues that relate to a very long and deliberate process engaged in by the mayor and the city council to satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Court.

We fully respect the decision of the Supreme Court, and we have signed into law and promulgated regulations that, in my view as a lawyer who has practiced some 45 years, fully satisfy the directives of the Supreme Court.

What's important to emphasize is that the laws that the mayor and the council have enacted affirm the District resident's right to register handguns and possess them for self-defense within the home.

I take note of the statement of Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller. And he underscored the District's authority to regulate firearms under the Second Amendment. And he stated, and I think it bears repetition in this discussion, quote, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

And consistent with that opinion, the District, like many states -- and the District is not alone here -- has determined that assault weapons and certain unsafe firearms are not eligible to be registered and possessed.

I want to correct some of the misinformation that I have heard about the District's gun laws. Shotguns, rifles and handguns, including many semi-automatic models, can all be registered in the District. Indeed, rifles and shotguns, including many semi-automatic versions, were never prohibited at all, and residents have been able to register many semi-automatic handguns since September 16, 2008. And since the Heller decision alone, more than 400 handguns and 160 long guns have been registered. There is currently one licensed firearms dealer in the District, and we think more will follow because the market will take care of that.

To state it clearly, it's no more difficult to open a dealership here than opening a restaurant. And the District is certainly not alone in requiring a firearm dealer's license; indeed, 17 states do exactly what the District has enacted.

Now, the Ensign Amendment. In my view, the Ensign Amendment goes far beyond compliance with Heller. Most importantly, this amendment would repeal the District's ban on assault weapons. The city's ban is similar to the federal ban, which was in place until 2004, and that ban was not unconstitutional.

And the federal law had a sunset provision after 10 years, at which time it was allowed to expire. And what's most important is that the authority then reverted to the states.

And then in all 10 states have banned or regulated assault weapons, with five states having provisions that are similar, if not identical, to that of D.C.

Even the ATF has described assault weapons, and I quote, as "large-capacity semi-automatic firearms designed for rapid-fire combat use. Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces."

Certainly, the district's ban of this type of weapon is a reasonable exercise of its regulatory authority and certainly consistent with what Justice Scalia wrote in the Heller case.

Now, critics of the district's ban will argue that while criminals can get assault weapons anyway -- and we all know that the use of assault weapons by criminals is a growing problem in cities across the country. We saw that most recently in the tragic incident in Oakland, California, in which two law enforcement officers were killed by a parolee with an assault rifle.

Fortunately, at this time, assault weapons do not have a strong presence in D.C. Last year, of more than 25,000 illegal firearms recovered by police, only 1 percent were assault weapons. Certainly, a determined criminal could get an assault weapons (sic). And if our assault weapons ban were merely repealed, anyone eligible to purchase a firearm under federal law would be able to.

But the Ensign amendment goes well beyond that by taking the unprecedented step of allowing district residents to purchase firearms in Maryland and Virginia, which would have a significant effect on the ability of this entire region to regulate firearms, including assault weapons. Nowhere in the nation -- nowhere in the nation are residents allowed to purchase a firearm in another state without going through a federally licensed dealer in their own state -- nowhere in the nation.

As the governor of Maryland warned, his state would not be able properly to regulate firearms purchased by district residents. Maryland does not have the necessary expertise to interpret district laws, much less the many possible dispositions under the city's criminal justice system. The result would be that even people who are prohibited under federal law from purchasing a firearm may be able to take advantage of those gaps and buy a weapon, including an assault weapon, in Maryland or Virginia.

Last September, our distinguished chief of police, Cathy Lanier, testified before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about the special concerns in protecting this unique city, the District of Columbia. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, demonstrated something that we have known for some time: Government facilities, dignitaries and public servants are prime targets for terrorists, both foreign and domestic.

Protecting government officials and infrastructure is a challenge for every city in the United States. But in Washington, the likelihood of attack is higher and the challenges to protect the city are greater. As a result, it would seem to me that the District is the last place where U.S. residents across the country would want to allow assault weapons.

The District's high concentration of iconic structures, such as the national monuments, the White House and of course the Capitol, make it a highly attractive target. The high-profile human targets from the nation's top elected leaders to the more than 400 foreign dignitaries that make official visits to D.C. each year are an obvious and attractive target. Moreover, we should not be solely concerned about well-coordinated terrorist attacks. We need also to consider the unsophisticated lone-wolf terrorist, angry at the U.S. government for whatever reason.

The second key vulnerability -- and this -- Madame Chairman, I'll come to an end very shortly, if you'll give me a few more seconds -- is due to the sheer volume of secure motorcades traveling in this city every day. Given the daily movements around the city of the president, the vice president and their families and the fact that almost 3,000 foreign dignitaries spend time in our city each year, the routes for those movements cannot be shut down as they are in other cities.

As you know from your own districts, when the president and vice president travel outside of Washington, roads are cleared of all traffic, parked cars and such, and spectators are often kept behind barricades. We don't do this in this city, because shutting down the routes for every motorcade would make it virtually impossible to navigate much of the city on a continuous basis. And we do not want the nation's capital to take on the character of an armed fortress.

This freedom, however, comes with the cost of high vulnerability, both for the officials and dignitaries and the general population.

As Chief Lanier noted last September, in attempted and successful assassinations around the world, the first step in attacking a motorcade is frequently to take out the security detail with semiautomatic and automatic firearms. This forces the motorcade to stop, at which point the terrorists can use explosives to attack the armored vehicles carrying the targeted individuals.

We all have an immediate concern for any life threatened or lost in a terrorist event. But as my colleague Chief Lanier noted, here in the nation's capital we must recognize that any terrorist incident, no matter how small, would garner worldwide attention and could have significant international implications. The broader repercussions of an incident in the city should be of grave concern to everyone in this room.

Thank you, Madame Chairman.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you, Attorney General Nickels.

Mr. Nichols -- Chief Nichols.

MR. NICHOLS: Good afternoon, ma'am. How are you?

Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the public safety and the consequence management capabilities of the United States Capitol Police. I'd like to make some brief opening remarks and, with your permission, submit the written testimony for the record.

U.S. Capitol Police accomplishes its mission through a variety of functions to provide comprehensive around-the-clock protection for the United States Congress, the legislative process, the Capitol Complex and the millions of visitors from across the globe that come to see democracy at work.

In an effort to maximize our ability to prepare for and respond to incidents affecting public safety, U.S. Capitol Police specifically focuses on key internal capabilities which, when necessary, can be augmented by specialized resources from our partners in the National Capital Region.

Our current internal capabilities show the rewards of several years of investment in training, robust command and control systems, and physical security improvements. Providing security, protection and law enforcement services to the United States Congress and the Capitol Complex in a post-9/11 threat environment is a challenging task. To do this, we rely on the provisions of Title 2 of the U.S. Code, 1961, which states, "Capitol Police shall police the United States Capitol buildings and grounds under the direction of the Capitol Police Board."

We also rely on Title 40 of the U.S. Code, 1504, which states, "Except as authorized by regulations prescribed by the Capitol Police Board, persons may not carry on or have readily accessible to any individual on the Capitol grounds or in any of the Capitol buildings a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosives or an incendiary device."

We have recently made a number of high-profile gun, explosives and dangerous weapons arrests through interdiction and security screening. As those -- law enforcement agency for many events of national significance, we understand that working with our many partners in the National Capital Region and sharing our resources is imperative. In recent years we've worked hard to improve our interoperability with local agencies, such as the D.C. Fire Department and the Metropolitan Police Department, as well as our federal partners in the National Capital Region, including the FBI, the U.S. Secret Service, FEMA, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Defense.

The planning for such events involves an all-hazards approach, an appropriate risk analysis, an event-specific threat assessment, and a comprehensive crisis management plan to ensure we are prepared to implement appropriate protective measures with little or no notice.

As an example, the U.S. Capitol Police successfully implemented a mass notification and evacuation of more than 8,000 people on two consecutive July 4th concerts in 2006 and 2007. We had two air security threat evacuations of the Capitol Complex, one during President Reagan's state funeral, demonstrating our ability to manage -- move large amounts of people to safety while maintaining the security and integrity of all legislative facilities. These evacuations were based on imminent threat of severe weather, creating unsafe conditions for our visitors with regard to the two concerts, and a direct air security threat to the Capitol Complex during other events.

I'd like to also acknowledge the relationship we enjoy between the United States Capitol Police and the Capitol Police Board. The support, guidance and oversight provided by this entity allow the House of Representatives, the Senate and the U.S. Capitol Police planning to maintain a direct path, and ensures consistent messages are provided across Capitol Hill.

Consistent communications with this body ensures it will be able to elicit additional resources if they are required. This process has been utilized effectively in the past, allowing U.S. Capitol Police to supplement its resources and/or extend our abilities of the resources we have on hand every day.

Thank you, Madame Chair. This concludes my opening remarks. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you, Mr. Nichols.

Ms. Gallegos.

MS. GALLEGOS: Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee.

I'm Gabrielle Gallegos, and I'm the director of law enforcement and information-sharing policy at the Department of Homeland Security. I appreciate being asked to appear before you. And on behalf of the department, I very much want to recognize the hard work that Congresswoman Norton has done over the years on a range of important homeland security issues that impact the safety and security of Washington, D.C. and the capital region.

(Background noise.) Am I doing that? Let's see -- (adjusts microphone) -- okay, thank you. Sorry for that interruption.

As we all know, Washington, D.C. is the site of numerous embassies, international organizations and federal offices. The high- profile events that occur in Washington and the many dignitaries and officials that visit, live and work here compose unique challenges. That D.C. is our nation's capital naturally affects the security picture.

DHS's mission is to address the broad range of potential threats that can impact that security, threats that include chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, along with natural disasters of all types; threats that may impact human health or our critical infrastructure; threats that may come from other countries, or originate right here at home.

In developing and executing security policy in the national capital region, DHS is very aware that multiple factors affect the overall level of security. DHS recognizes that the security of the capital may be affected by local conditions and policies. Also, given the prominence of Washington as the seat of government and the proximity to Washington of Maryland and Virginia and the other Mid- Atlantic states, local circumstances in this city inevitably have an impact on the work of the federal government in promoting regional security.

These and other matters remain important as we work on a coordinated plan to advance crucial goals in this area. The Department of Homeland Security works closely with local law enforcement and with all our state and local partners to bolster federal, state and local capacity to respond to the many security issues we face.

One of the primary missions of the department is to support and coordinate with state and local partners. And I want to recognize the crucial relationships the department is fortunate to have with all of the local and regional police departments in the capital region, the emergency managers and first responders, the state and local homeland security officers and the National Guard.

And I feel particularly honored to be here with my fellow witnesses today. They clearly represent the best of modern policing and the important partnerships that we have in this area.

These working relationships and the mutunal (sic) -- mutual support they provide are the cornerstone of our ability as a nation to achieve important security functions. We will continue to foster these relationships as we work to address both existing threats and emerging challenges.

Thank you, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you again, Ms. Gallegos.

Let me begin with Attorney General Nickels. Attorney General Nickels, you are one of the District's most distinguished attorneys. We're -- or the District was fortunate enough to attract you, and you're now the highest law-enforcement officer in the District, until we get you the full authority to be the district attorney. So I'm asking you some questions in light of your legal background and your role in the District.

Now, after the Heller decision, the city changed its gun laws. Now, the Heller decision speaks -- and uses the word throughout, "handgun." Does the new law in the District of Columbia allow semiautomatic handguns?

MR. NICKELS: Well, certain -- the new law authorizes certain type (sic) of semiautomatics to be registered in the District. And I think it needs to be, well, counted that rifles and shotguns, including some semiautomatic versions, were never prohibited at all. So we haven't. And I think the careful balance that the council and the mayor have tried to achieve, consistent with the Heller case, been very receptive to the views of the gun proponents. This is a balance: protection of the safety of our citizens with the Second Amendment rights of those same citizens. I think we've struck the right balance, Madame Chairwoman, and I think we have developed a scheme of legislation and regulation that is fully constitutional.

DEL. NORTON: Now, the Heller decision indicated that a person must be able to have firearms, including handguns, in the home, and that these handguns must be kept operable. Is that the case with District laws today?

MR. NICKELS: I think, effectively, yes -- that we have protected the Second Amendment right of a citizen to have a gun in the home for purposes of self-defense.

DEL. NORTON: Now, the Heller decision did not allow guns outside the home -- is that correct? -- spoke only of guns in the home.

MR. NICKELS: Only in special cases where there are permits for security-type individuals -- your statement is correct. The handgun or the registered gun, in our case, would be in the home.

DEL. NORTON: Let me ask Mr. Nichols, the Ensign amendment uses the words that a person may have a home in his place of business. Well, the place of business for most people is where they work. Could I ask you whether -- what you think -- well, first let me ask you about the Capitol. How strict are the gun laws in the Capitol of the United States?

MR. NICHOLS: The gun laws within our jurisdiction, the U.S. Capitol complex, are very strict. As I mentioned in our -- my opening statement, we rely on Title 40 of the U.S. code to prohibit all handguns, weapons and incendiary devices within our jurisdiction. Nobody can --

DEL. NORTON: So no handguns, no guns of any kind can come into this Capitol. And everybody in this Capitol is fully protected from guns in this Capitol, even though it is a place of business.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, ma'am. They are protected by us through the application of statute --

DEL. NORTON: Is this -- is this the case with the federal courts as well?

MR. NICHOLS: I'm sorry?

DEL. NORTON: Is this the case with the federal courts as well, that you can't take a handgun into the federal courts of this city?

MR. NICHOLS: That's correct. I believe that there are also restrictions -- even though it's not our jurisdiction -- there are restrictions that deal with federal properties elsewhere in the city, also.

DEL. NORTON: Mr. Nickels, could -- under this bill, could you take a gun into the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia?

MR. NICKELS: I would hate to think that's the case. At the September 2008 hearing, we pointed out the problems in the legislation then being considered about carrying firearms in public or concealed. And that was eliminated.

But the dangerous language in the Ensign amendment is that while it would allow the district to prohibit the carrying of firearms concealed or openly but except at the person's dwelling place, place of business or on other land possessed by the person, as your opening statement pointed out, that language "place of business or on other land possessed by the person" is, in my view, very dangerous.

I am not personally familiar with the rules of the Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals. I know there's significant screening there. I would doubt you could take guns into that venue.

DEL. NORTON: Well, just -- (inaudible) --

MR. NICKELS: But in the other areas --

DEL. NORTON: Do you think the court -- the court -- you think the courts could, in the District of Columbia, although the -- first of all, are these rules pursuant to the laws of the District of Columbia, any laws that the courts would have in the District of Columbia pursuant to the laws of the District of Columbia? Or would they, because they're Article I courts, be protected under federal legislation?

MR. NICKELS: I think because they're Article I courts, they could adopt rules that would protect entrance into the courts. But all these other places of, quote, "business" that you discussed in your opening are potentially open. And that causes me great concern.

DEL. NORTON: Including the councils of -- the D.C. council, the offices of the District government and the like, all of those would be places of business where employees could have guns.

MR. NICKELS: Potentially. This language is very unclear, but it's a loophole through which you could drive a truck.

DEL. NORTON: You patrol off campus, Mr. Nichols. When I was in my, I guess, second term and the District was experiencing great gun carnage, like every large city in the United States, the Congress decided it wasn't enough simply to allow the Capitol police, if invaded, to do what it could, but extended your jurisdiction. Would you describe your extended jurisdiction and how the changes in the D.C. law would affect your ability to protect the Capitol in light of your extended jurisdiction, and what jurisdiction you think you need now and what jurisdiction you think you should have in any case?

MR. NICHOLS: The jurisdiction of the United States Capitol Police is rather unique. We have a primary jurisdiction that encompasses the United States Capitol, all the congressional buildings, about 19 congressional buildings, and all the adjoining streets and parks. It's about 40 city blocks that are in the core of the city.

We have an extended jurisdiction that extends out several blocks in any direction from the United States Capitol, where our officers enjoy the same law enforcement authority as that of the Metropolitan Police Department. And we do have an active presence within that area to enforce the laws of the district.

Also, elsewhere throughout the city, we have authority when we're on official business to enforce the laws when it pertains to crimes of violence that are committed in our presence so we can protect the citizenry when we're in any given area of the city at any given time.

Layered on top of that is a federal protective authority that's provided the United States Capitol Police to protect members of Congress anywhere within the United States, its territories and possessions.

The way that we currently operate is that policing our primary jurisdiction, we apply both D.C. code or federal code to ensure that we keep the complex safe. That is, if we identify people who are unlawfully in possession of firearms, incendiary devices, explosives, then obviously we can identify them readily and make that arrest.

Elsewhere in the District of Columbia, just as we have all the time that I've been a police officer for 25 years, when you run into somebody on the street with a firearm, you can assume that they're either a law enforcement officer or a criminal, because there really is no gray area in between right now with how the gun laws on the street are applied. And that's how our officers are trained. Anyone in possession of a firearm that we come --

DEL. NORTON: And if someone were to say, "But officer, I'm on my way to work and I'm just taking it there," would that be presumed to be legal under the Ensign amendment?

MR. NICHOLS: Well, as you know, ma'am, since we're a legislative branch agency, we don't comment on pending legislation. I'd have to study the implications of that. But speaking in general, because of the environment in which we work, any time we come into contact with an individual who has a firearm, it is our position we have to treat them as if they're a threat until we can prove that they are not, because we have to understand the context in which they're possessing that firearm and what their potential intent is.

So anything that changes the current conditions that we're in is going to complicate our enforcement efforts.

DEL. NORTON: I'm going to ask Ms. Gallegos a question, and then I'll go on to the other members and come back with remaining questions.

Mr. -- Ms. Gallegos, you have testified that you work closely in the Department of Homeland Security with local jurisdictions. Would that include the District of Columbia Police Department? And, if so, would changes such that -- so -- would abolition of -- elimination of gun laws in the District of Columbia hurt or enhance homeland security in the District of Columbia, in your view?

MS. GALLEGOS: We do work closely with the metropolitan police department at the Department of Homeland Security, of course, through the Secret Service and through the Federal Protective Service and other law-enforcement agencies. There are a number of threats, of course, that the capital faces, as you know. And we do the type of risk analysis and threat assessment that Chief Nichols was talking about.

And we rely very closely on our state and local partners to provide the on-the-ground information about the threats in their jurisdictions and about the issues that are going to be most important to them and about the types of support that they're going to need from the Department of Homeland Security. As we --

DEL. NORTON: So if guns could be brought in -- military-style weapons, for example -- from other jurisdictions here, you would rely on who in order to help preserve homeland security in the District of Columbia?

MS. GALLEGOS: We would be relying on a coordinated approach. Just this morning, we -- I -- when -- I was coming here, listening on the radio, hearing about a new partnership between the District of Columbia and Maryland and Virginia. And those are the types of partnerships that the Department of Homeland Security wants to foster and applaud. It's those types of --

DEL. NORTON: So are you prepared -- are you prepared for a situation where you would -- you would be called upon to help the jurisdictions detect military-style weapons that could be used in the District of Columbia against home-rule security -- in light of home- rule security risks? How would you handle that?

MS. GALLEGOS: We work with a variety of scenarios. We are constantly planning and preparing to adapt to changing circumstances.

DEL. NORTON: How would you adapt to individuals being able to go without background checks and buy .50-caliber military-style armor- piercing weapons at gun shows in another jurisdiction? How would you prepare for that?

MS. GALLEGOS: We're going to approach that with the same kind of threat assessment, planning, coordination -- working with state and local partners to address exactly that kind of emerging threat, which can come from that kind of quarter or from, you know, any number of quarters.

When we look at threats and do threat assessment and we work with state and local partners, we're not just looking at particular types of weapons or particular types of incidences. We're planning across the spectrum of scenarios for the range that could include the types of weapons you're describing or, you know, incendiary devices or shoulder-mounted --

DEL. NORTON: Well, this is a particular threat that no one has had to prepare for, Ms. Gallegos.

MS. GALLEGOS: Well, that's -- sorry --

DEL. NORTON: This is one -- we -- of the threats we've had to prepare for, legal permission from the federal government to buy guns in another jurisdiction that could be military-style weapons that could be used against federal officials is, so far as I know, not a contingency you've had to prepare for.

You have a risk assessment involving that yet?

MS. GALLEGOS: Well, I want to be careful when I answer about a specific risk assessment, because my day-to-day responsibilities don't involve working with specific risk assessments. I've -- you noticed that my title is "law enforcement and information sharing policy" and my focus is on the types of day-to-day coordination, partnerships and strategic planning that I've been talking about. But I would be happy to, of course, go back to the department and see if we could provide some additional information to you on the types of --

DEL. NORTON: Well, I appreciate that. And I realize you're a policy expert, Ms. Gallegos. I'm a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

MS. GALLEGOS: (Inaudible) -- yes.

DEL. NORTON: And I've -- and I have been kept very busy with the department on threat assessments. And I must say, the threat assessments that we're most concerned about in this jurisdiction today -- cyberthreats, carry-on nuclear devices and the rest lead me to think that neither the department nor anybody else is prepared for a new threat from, of all places, military weapons coming into the nation's capital. We hope you won't have to include this threat assessment in your arsenal of assessments, which I am aware that the department has taken on and taken on so well.

I'm going to ask Ms. Edwards if she has questions at this time.

REP. EDWARDS: Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I do have a couple of questions.

First, in terms of the line of questioning that you've been directing regarding the challenges to D.C.'s gun laws and autonomy, I would like to have entered into the record a response from Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland to an inquiry by our Maryland delegation regarding the impact on Maryland of a change in -- the impact of this Ensign amendment and the effect on Maryland.

As I had described earlier, of course, one of the challenges is that we face a tremendous fiscal and budget crisis, just like a lot of states and jurisdictions. We hardly have the resources to apply to registering guns for D.C. residents. It's just not what we are in the business of doing. We are challenged by registering firearms in our own state and our local jurisdictions. And it would be a huge burden on Maryland to take on this responsibility.

That aside, for those who believe in not imposing unfunded mandates on states, this is clearly -- would be an unfunded mandate on the state of Maryland, proposing a tremendous burden on our state troopers and our budget.

For those people who are concerned about silly little things like state sovereignty, while I understand that there are those who share the view that they can impose at will anything on the District of Columbia because they don't view it as a sovereign, Maryland is a state, Maryland is a sovereign, and we can't have the United States Congress imposing on us the requirement to register guns from another jurisdiction.

And so I would like to have entered into the record a letter from the governor of the state of Maryland, Martin O'Malley, expressing our state's serious concerns. And I will quote from the letter. "We have serious concerns with the language of Senate Amendment 575 and request that you reject this proposal if introduced for consideration in House Bill H.R. 157 and defeat during a likely conference of the two measures."

And it does go to state all of the implications for Maryland that would really impose on our state's sovereignty and on our budget, and I'd like to have that entered into the record.

DEL. NORTON: (Strikes gavel.) So ordered. And Ms. Edwards, might I say that I've spoken with your governor, Governor O'Malley, and with Governor Tim Kaine, and I'm pleased to report here that both governors are strongly opposed to the entire Ensign amendment and that as I understand it, they're writing a joint letter, in addition to the letter, the very well documented letter, that the governor of Maryland on his own has already written. And I would like to have that letter in the record as well and any information we have from these two sovereign states who have been drafted into this matter without any consultation with anyone in the state or with any member of the Virginia or Maryland delegation. I would like to have any information to that -- in that regard put in the record, so that that infringement, as the member says, we are accustomed to in the District does not begin to infect the two sovereign states that are our neighbors and that work so closely with us. So ordered.

REP. EDWARDS: Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.

And I just have a couple of questions. One, to Assistant Chief Nichols, a couple of concerns: One, we have a number of your police officers who are constituents of mine in the 4th Congressional District in Maryland and have been greatly concerned about the Blackmon-Malloy case, the discrimination case of 300 black law enforcement officers of the Capitol Police. And I wonder, just in terms of your ability to coordinate with other jurisdictions, how that impacts the morale of the law enforcement officers under your jurisdiction and, you know, where we see this going, so that it could be resolved.

MR. NICHOLS: That is currently before the U.S. Capitol Police Board. I know that our attorneys are talking to the representatives of the Black Police Officers Association to try to find some path forward on that. I know that -- I think it's the District Court was making a ruling about who was actually included in the set of that lawsuit.

But I appreciate your question, because it drives to the heart of the professionalism of the United States Capitol Police.

Regardless of some of the internal issues that we deal with on a day- to-day basis with personnel policies and procedures and even some of the concerns that unions or the Black Police Officers Association may have, our officers separate out those issues from their professional responsibilities. And I think it's evidenced that during the inauguration, the extraordinary lengths that U.S. Capitol Police officers go to to ensure that the Capitol complex and all those who work and visit here are safe.

We're able to build upon that level of dedication and integrity to coordinate with our partner agencies throughout the region also. And we share a very good reputation, as do the other agencies that we work with.

We all have a mutual responsibility here. And I think -- I can't remember if it was your opening statement or Madame Chair's, but there is no one agency that is an island in this city. We all have to jointly work together to ensure the safety and security of not only people who live and work here, but the millions of visitors who come through here every year. And the laws that affect us and allow us to do our jobs are important in our efforts in that regard.

So we monitor these types of developments very closely, we look at the impact, and then we move forward in a unified fashion to ensure that we can meet the constitutional requirements that are provided and also the public safety entities and responsibilities that we carry every day.

REP. EDWARDS: Well, I thank you for that. And of course, I greatly appreciate, even as a new member, the professionalism of the Capitol Police. But you should know, at least, that this member remains really concerned about that outstanding litigation, precisely because so many of those officers do live in the 4th Congressional District.

And I would like to say to you as well, you know, and just again to continue to salute the Capitol Police, and especially the memory of John Michael Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut, who was a resident of Prince George's County in Maryland. And it speaks to the high quality and caliber of service of the Capitol Police.

And I would just want to ensure that as we go forward, that we not only have the highest quality and caliber of performance, but that we recruit in the most diverse way possible and reward those officers for their service.

And then finally -- and I know I'm going over my time, Madame Chairwoman -- just one question for Ms. Gallegos. And the only reason that I know to say "Gallegos" is because I grew up in New Mexico. (Laughs.) But I have one question for you regarding homeland security and your coordination efforts, because in this region, this region poses a different kind of homeland security concern.

And we have so many different law enforcement agencies that have responsibility in the region. And so I want to know kind of more directly your relationship with the Prince George's County Police, Montgomery County Police in terms of our local law enforcement, and the District of Columbia, and how often those agencies are pulled together for the purposes of coordination and the role that homeland security particularly plays in that coordination.

MS. GALLEGOS: Ms. Edwards -- Representative Edwards, I would be happy to provide some additional information for you on that. I don't have that level of detail with me today, but I would be happy to provide a response after the hearing.

REP. EDWARDS: Thank you very much. I yield.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you, Ms. Edwards.

Mr. Perriello?

REP. THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO (D-VA): Thank you very much, Madame Chair.

Let me start just by echoing Congressman Edwards's comments. As a new member, I've just been incredibly impressed by the Capitol Police, the professionalism, the handling, particularly under some very, very difficult circumstances, like the inauguration. And so I just want to say, for me and my staff, my family that's come to visit, we have been incredibly impressed by the job that you do.

And let me also preface this by saying that I think you've made a compelling case that there are many aspects of the District that are unique in terms of security threats. And I think what we're probably interested in doing here is making sure that we -- that you have the ability and the leeway you need to protect us, to protect the city, to protect these national treasures. At the same time, for better or for worse, this -- the unique aspects of the District also mean these have significant precedential (sic) values for our constitutional rights for other parts of the country.

I certainly come from a part of the commonwealth of Virginia that has very different issues when it comes to gun rights and people's use of guns. And I just, for now, want to ask two clarifying questions, and then we may -- I may want to pick things up offline.

First, for you, Assistant Chief: You were saying that when you stop one -- someone with -- who possesses a weapon, there's a presumption that that person is a threat. Can you say a little bit more about that and about whether that matters whether that's an authorized weapon or not, and what you mean by that?

MR. NICHOLS: Well, the way that the gun laws work right now within our complex is the only person who can lawfully possess a weapon is a law-enforcement officer. So anyone other than a law- enforcement officer that we find to be in possession of a weapon, we automatically determine them to be a threat.

Now, it's a sliding scale. There are -- there are people who come to the city who have a registered firearm and a licensed security firearm in their home districts, and they come to the city thinking that's legal here. It, in fact, is not. So once we do the field interview, we'll determine that they are not a threat. They're just somebody who is misinformed but nonetheless in violation of the law.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have people who do come here with the very intent of carrying a weapon in order to cause harm or violate the law. And as Congresswoman Edwards talked about, we've suffered the outcome of that when we have the lone wolf come up here trying to force their way into the United States Capitol Building. In 1998 two of our police officers were killed. Just recently, within the past few months, we've had many gun cases where people with -- that cause us concern about what their intent really was showed up within our jurisdiction with long guns, shotguns, homemade hand grenades, things of that nature.

Because of our experience and the fact that we know that this is a target, not only for terrorists but for people who want to come here to seek retribution against the United States government, our officers are trained to be very wary of people they run across in the field, whether it's within our primary jurisdiction, our extended jurisdiction, who are possessing firearms. Because we have to run that investigation rather quickly to determine, one, if they're a threat, and two, if it's part of a larger threat that's going to be a multi-pronged attack on the Capitol complex.

So it's a difficult position for our officers. And for our own protection and the protection of people like you and your family that you talked about, we have to be very wary and very on guard of people we come into contact with up here.

The way the laws are right now, either, if you're in possession of a gun, you're a law enforcement officer, or you're violating the law. And it's pretty clear for us to move forward in that respect. If there are efforts to introduce gray areas, then of course it's going to be more and more difficult for officers to determine rather quickly the means by which somebody's in possession of a gun. And it's going to take a lot of retraining and a lot more coordinated effort to ensure that we don't make an assumption on one end of the spectrum that's wrong, or assume that there isn't a threat when there is one; that there is when there isn't. It just complicates the matter for us.

REP. PERRIELLO: Maybe that's a segue to the attorney general. If you could give some sense, you've talked some about the things that you -- some of the District laws that you believe are permissible under the Heller decision. Can you give some sense of what you think would not be permissible, other than what's already been explicitly ruled out, in your mind, based on Heller?

MR. NICKELS: I'm not quite sure what the congressman has in mind. We've looked at every element of the gun laws that we've enacted. We have some lawsuits that have been filed that challenge various elements of our gun laws; for example, the requirement of training, certain of the pre-registration requirements. But I think by and large the lawsuits that have been filed accept the fact that the District has a basis in the Heller decision reasonably to regulate handguns, and who gets the handguns, and who gets the semi-automatics that are permissible.

The concern I have, congressman, is with Section 210 of the Ensign Amendment. That's the one that creates the exception to federal anti-trafficking laws only for the nation's capital, which seems to me to be a sort of a contradiction in terms. You've got the most unique jurisdiction in the world, in terms of the monuments and the government officials and the dignitaries and the IMF conferences and the World Bank conferences and the conferences of the G-7 and G- 20. So everybody agrees this is the most unique place in the world. And then we're talking about making this most unique place in the world the only place in the nation where residents are allowed to purchase a firearm in another state without going through some kind of licensed dealer.

To me, Section 210 -- which also opens up the issue that Madame Chairman talked about, the gun show problem; and also, as Congresswoman Edwards talked about, foists upon Virginia and Maryland the issue of registration or what to do about the District residents -- it doesn't make sense. And if the Congress thought it didn't make sense, the Congress has plenary power over the District.

So our laws come in front of the Congress.

And it was interesting to me that the date by which Congress could have acted to change the laws we enacted was April 1, April Fool's Day. And we had no comment by Congress that any of the laws that we had enacted over a long, arduous period of negotiation with the community, with the advocates on both sides of the issue -- we put together what I considered to be a very comprehensive statute and regulatory picture which I believe will sustain any attack. And Congress lets it go into effect for this unique jurisdiction.

So that's perhaps a long answer to a simple question, but it poses to me the ultimate irony in the Ensign legislation and in Section 210. Why would you take the most unique place in the world and make it a unique place from the standpoint of regulation of firearms? I don't understand it.

REP. PERRIELLO: Well, and I appreciate the passage you read from Scalia -- Justice Scalia's decision on that. I'm just trying to understand in your mind what it is that you believe we could do in terms of limiting firearms in D.C. that would be unconstitutional, that would be out of bounds for the district, that would be inconsistent with the other holdings of Heller.

MR. NICKELS: Well, I think that if we were to take steps that effectively impede, prevent, stand in the way unnecessarily of the right of a citizen to have and provide self defense in his home, that would be very worrisome to me. And so when we had advocates on the one side of gun regulation propose that we really not respond at all to the Heller, I was very adamant -- as was the council and the mayor -- in saying, "Now, look, we accept what the Supreme Court has done. We are not going to fly in the face of what the Supreme Court has said about the 2nd Amendment right."

But at the same time, Justice Scalia said, "We don't intend in any way to take away the right of your jurisdiction, as every state in this country, the right of a jurisdiction reasonably to regulate the use of firearms." That is what we've done.

REP. PERRIELLO: Well, again, I appreciate all that you all have done to try to protect the capital and protect us and for being part of this hearing.

And I yield back.

DEL. NORTON: I have a number of questions raised in part by the questions of my colleagues -- very good questions of my colleagues.

Let me ask Ms. -- (struggles with pronunciation) -- see, I'm not from New Mexico.

MS. GALLEGOS: Please call me Gabrielle or Gabby.

DEL. NORTON: (Laughs.) I'm not from -- you can tell I'm third generation Washingtonian. Ms. -- I'm going to make myself -- Gallegos, I'm going to ask a question, because she speaks the language of homeland security.

In hearing after hearing in the Committee on Homeland Security, we have been told that the approach we should be looking to protect our nation -- including, of course, the nation's capital -- is a layered security approach where one would wish, at every level, layer after level until you were sure, as opposed to some great approach that would, in fact, accomplish what we are after.

In your view, is a layered approach to homeland security most effective in preventing a terrorist attack? And if so, how would the elimination of all local gun laws affect a layered approach, if that layer was eliminated?

MS. GALLEGOS: Well, that is -- it's a complicated question. And again, I'm afraid that my expertise doesn't extend to all of the potential types of security planning and policy that goes into answering that. And if you would permit, I would like to respond -- get back to you with a more detailed response at a later time.

DEL. NORTON: I would request, within 10 days, a response from the department on whether or not in the layered approach, which they have virtually invented since 9/11, that approach would be facilitated, hurt, helped, enhanced by the elimination of an entire layer, local gun laws. There would be left whatever is the federal law that affects everybody, but even the most permissive jurisdictions have their own set of gun laws. Here you would have none.

And I understand your role and I very much appreciate your testimony, but we're trying to document -- and you must understand that the leaderships of the House and the Senate are trying earnestly to discover at this point whether there is an effect on homeland security; that for the first time, the leaders in both houses are looking very seriously at this gun law.

And they are aware that the gun law is going to become law, because we're going to pass the D.C. House Voting Rights Act. We're not letting anything stand in the way of that. And they have strongly supported it. It's already through the Senate. The House was the first to get it through last time on a clean rule and a clean bill. There's no question in my mind that these leaders are going to get this done.

And there's also no question on my mind that if you have this attached to both bills, it's law. And that's why I said in my testimony, don't want the recriminations; want to know up front whether or not there is any effect of having no layer of local law here.

Now, Mr. Nickels, this law would deprive the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia of all authority over gun laws in the District of Columbia.

Where would public -- in the public-safety hierarchy, where does having some say over guns rank in the public-safety hierarchy of every large city? How important is it?

MR. NICKELS: Well --

DEL. NORTON: What is the biggest threat -- what is the biggest threat to public safety in every city?

MR. NICKELS: I think the chief has spoken eloquently to the fact that guns are at the heart of public safety and the need to regulate guns. The chief has said many times, "guns, drugs and gangs."

And we have been working, and we had a meeting yesterday with the governor of Maryland to talk about how to improve coordination with respect to matters of violence, because there are cross-border issues.

But if the principal problems facing any municipality -- any particular -- particularly the urban areas -- is guns, gangs and drugs, you take away the ability of the major police force in the city to deal effectively with guns, as the elected leaders of the city have determined.

And I'm no expert on the layered approach, but I am a firsthand viewer of what the chief and her terrific police department do in this community. And I sat with the chief of police in September last year when she sought to explain the problems in the House bill at that time. And Section --

DEL. NORTON: Which is the same bill as this bill.

MR. NICKELS: Except for minor differences, it's the same bill we're talking about. And it causes the chief and myself -- particularly Section 210 -- significant heartburn.

DEL. NORTON: Could I ask -- Chief Morse -- sorry, Chief Nichols -- Chief Morse raised an issue that had not been raised before, last time, and I'd ask your view on it. It had to do with officer safety. He spoke of the changes that I enumerated in my testimony and the effect on the safety of officers of the force here. Would you speak to that, please?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, ma'am. It's pretty much in line with what I responded to earlier. It's -- as we police the city now, on the streets, you know, whenever you come in contact with an individual who is in possession of a firearm, whether it's through an arrest situation or through just merely seeing them on the street in a patrol operation, you can safely assume that they are either a law- enforcement officer or a criminal who is unlawfully in possession of that firearm.

And that allows the officer -- the officer who's making the contact with the individual -- to approach in a very cautious manner and protect themselves in that regard, because there really is no gray area right now. The officer can perceive anybody that they respond -- they see on the street carrying a firearm, whether it's a handgun or a long gun, as a threat, not only to public safety but to themselves. And they take the appropriate precautions to handle that situation. It's the way that we've been policing in this city for as long as I've been a cop.

When you have people on the street who are lawfully in possession of weapons, it starts to gray the area a little bit more, because the officer will then know that it's not as clear-cut. And it is a concern. It's going to take a lot of retraining for our officers to ensure that they are approaching it in the right way and that they understand that there are -- there may be another added layer when they come in contact with somebody.

DEL. NORTON: So would you have to retrain every officer?

MR. NICHOLS: Oh, yes, ma'am. We -- the way that we've been training now is that it is illegal to possess a firearm on the street. So -- and no matter in how we come in contact with that weapon, whether it's search incident to arrest, search of a vehicle or merely somebody that we see in possession of a handgun, if other aspects of lawful possession are introduced with regard to street operations, then, yes, that's going to take a lot of retraining.

DEL. NORTON: So you'd have to come to the Congress and ask for funds to retrain every officer of the Capitol Police force.

I do want to clarify for -- with respect to Mr. Nickels, when I was talking about depriving the local jurisdiction, leaving no layer whatsoever there for federal police, because there's no gun laws here, would you describe how gun -- how gun laws and every other law becomes effective?

Suppose the District of Columbia -- let me give you a law professor's hypothetical. Suppose the District of Columbia passed a gun law that the Congress disagreed with. Let us forget the question of constitutionality for the moment, because as I understand it, Attorney General Nickels, there have been 80 court suits brought since Heller and not a single gun law has been overturned. So let's just assume that the District passes a gun safety law with which the Congress disagrees.

Is the Congress, under present law, powerless to do anything to correct its disagreement with the District of Columbia, or must it now do as this gun amendment does, deprive it of all jurisdiction, no matter what the circumstances, over gun safety laws?

MR. NICKELS: No, absolutely not. The Congress has plenary power over the District. And the District cannot enact any law until that law lays over in the Congress for 30 legislative days when you have a civil law or 60 legislative days for criminal laws, which sometimes, as the chairwoman knows, could mean months.

So that the time frame and the ability of Congress to say ultimately whether it agrees or disagrees with the gun laws is an ultimate weapon by the Congress. If there's some part of our gun laws that Congress does not like, putting aside the constitutional issue, Congress has plenary power, because no laws can become effective until those laws lay over here.

I might add, Madame Chairwoman, we are in the process of submitting, and having had hearings on, an omnibus crime bill. With the U.S. attorney and the police department and the attorney general's office, we have spent literally months developing an omnibus crime bill that deals with guns, with gangs, with drugs, with stalking, with victim protection and many other features.

And so to have in the middle of that very comprehensive effort in the District to deal with crime, and then in the middle of our effort to work with the governor of Maryland and all of his key people, who were with us yesterday in the Wilson Building -- to have the Ensign Amendment come in right sort of in the middle of this, when the Congress does have the power ultimately, with respect to our gun laws or any other laws, to say, no, we don't like that -- I'm not really clear why the Ensign amendment is being pressed at this time.

DEL. NORTON: So in other words, at best, it's redundant, because Congress can do whatever it wants to do with the District. It could wipe out all the laws of the District of Columbia right now, could it not?

MR. NICKELS: I'm afraid to say, yes.

DEL. NORTON: (Laughs.)

MR. NICKELS: It makes me feel pretty powerless. But the fact is, the Congress has plenary power over the District. And it is really upon that basis that -- at least in my view, that Congress has the power to grant voting rights to the District, because it does have this plenary power and in the past, in many situations, the Congress has treated the District as a state.

DEL. NORTON: Could I ask Ms. Edwards, who has another question? Then I'll come back.

REP. EDWARDS: Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.

I just have one question. It was raised in the message that we received from our governor. And it has to do with the data systems integration and communications.

So Assistant Chief Nichols, do you have the capacity now that, say, if Maryland had to register a gun of a resident from the District of Columbia and that person somehow ended up here on Capitol grounds, to be able to communicate with Maryland? And does Maryland then have the ability to go into the data systems in the District to know whether somebody has a mental health prohibition or a previous conviction that would prohibit the purchase or possession of a firearm? Do you have that capacity now? Is it fully integrated?

MR. NICHOLS: We do have a number of data systems that we interact with local law enforcement and also federal law enforcement on. Whether those specific issues that you raise can be obtained through those systems, I'd have to go back and then give the answer for the record.

REP. EDWARDS: I'd be curious to know that. And then, Mr. Nichols -- and you don't have to answer this now, and it may require checking and getting back to us -- that my understanding is that if somebody in the District of Columbia has a mental health prohibition, or they had already registered the firearm as would be required under Ensign in Maryland and then got a conviction, that Maryland wouldn't necessarily know that it had to revoke that license, because the systems are not transparent in that kind of way.

And so it would be really complicated for Maryland or Virginia to do the kind of follow-up that it has to do with guns that are registered by its own residents in the state, because we have a state system that allows us, if a conviction -- a subsequent conviction comes along or a mental health prohibition comes along, we would know and then be able to revoke that firearm. We would not necessarily have that capacity registering folks in the District of Columbia, nor would we have the capacity, I don't believe, to communicate that from one law enforcement agency to another law enforcement agency.

And so it seems to me that in terms of homeland security, this problem really poses a great danger in terms of the District even knowing whether someone who had a prohibition didn't also still have a gun.

MR. NICKELS: Let me get back to you on that. I do know that one of the nice features of the gun laws that we've enacted -- it has very clear standards as to who can register a gun. And it's also a very -- very important to us that if we find guns later, we're able to trace those guns back.

As to the question of the data systems, I've got people behind me that probably know the answer, but why don't we confer and get back to you on that?

REP. EDWARDS: Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you.

Perhaps Mr. Nickels -- Chief Nichols or Attorney General Nickels -- and Nichols -- (laughter) -- can answer this question. I think it is the attorney general who has mentioned the federal anti-trafficking laws. I believe those were passed in the 1930s. Why is it that federal law requires that you purchase a gun in your own state and only in your own state, and not go out of state in order to purchase a gun, when we usually allow free commerce across states?

MR. NICKELS: Well, I don't want to speculate, but it seems to me commonsensical that if each individual state is doing the registration of firearms, it can, A, ensure that people that shouldn't have firearms don't get them; and then if those individuals go into Virginia or Maryland, for example, in order for that individual to retrieve the gun, he has to go to a federally licensed place in the District, so that once again the District and the federal authorities can keep track of those guns. We're not dealing with chewing gum here. I mean, there seems to me to be some basic public interest in knowing where firearms are and whether the individual who is receiving a firearm is mentally competent, has been convicted of a felony, and the variety of different pre-registration requirements.

This is not unique to the District. All other states in this country have similar regimes and regulation.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you.

Now, you're aware, perhaps, Ms. Gallegos, that this subcommittee is also in the process of building a large new compound out in Ward 8 for the department, where its headquarters and several of its agencies will be located. Are you aware that under this amendment, a person who was voluntarily committed to St. Elizabeth's mental hospital -- and most people today are voluntarily committed -- would be able to, immediately upon release from a mental hospital, for whatever period of time, without any waiting period, be able to buy and keep a gun? And St. Elizabeth's Hospital is right next to the planned Department of Homeland Security. Does that give you any pause?

MS. GALLEGOS: I was aware that that provision is in this amendment. And as we build our facilities at St. Elizabeth's Hospital -- or St. Elizabeth's facility, we are, of course, going to be concerned about the security of that facility, as we are about the number of -- I think the Federal Protective Service, through the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, protects somewhere in the neighborhood of 9,000 federal buildings. And of course, at all of those buildings we do -- you know, we do prohibit guns from coming in, and we do that through screening, metal detection, of course visual inspection. And we are concerned about creating that level of security in all of the federal buildings that we are protecting.

DEL. NORTON: It's a particularly high security agency, is it not?

MS. GALLEGOS: Yes, but of course we take the protection of all the federal workers in all of our federal buildings very --

DEL. NORTON: Well, we're very glad to have your -- (laughs) -- we're very glad to have your concern. I was asking a question about the department itself and its near location to the mental hospital.

MS. GALLEGOS: I presume that we will continue our security procedures when we are in that facility.

DEL. NORTON: So you don't have any concern that people could get out of St. Elizabeth's and buy a gun immediately.

MS. GALLEGOS: I'm certainly concerned about protecting federal buildings, which is our charge, and about protecting our facilities.

DEL. NORTON: Let me ask you, Chief, is it of any concern that assault weapons could be legally stored in houses or office buildings surrounding the Capitol complex under the gun amendment? Is it of any concern to the Capitol Police?

MR. NICHOLS: Well, again, as you know, we don't comment on specifically -- with pending legislation. But speaking in general, you were talking earlier about layers of security; the layers of security that we use with the Capitol complex is concentric rings, where we try to identify threats the furthest distance away from the Capitol complex so that we can intercept and mitigate that threat. The availability of standoff weapons starts to skew that ability to identify a threat further away, because the longer-range weapons extend out their actual threat parameters.

So any time that there's a long gun that's in our proximity, yes, it is a concern -- just as, as you get closer in, a handgun becomes more of a threat because it's a closer-threat-type weapon.

As you know, the Capitol complex is completely open and inviting, and there are times where we don't know that we have a threat coming toward us with regard to an armed individual until they're actually at our doors. So despite our best efforts, any time that there is a standoff weapon nearby, it is a legitimate concern to the United States Capitol Police.

DEL. NORTON: Attorney General Nickels, in page two of your testimony you say the District is certainly not alone in requiring a firearm dealer's license and that 17 states do it as well. We note that the gun amendment repeals the requirement that licensed dealers keep records of ammunition received into the inventory and ammunition sold or transferred. Were you referring to that?

MR. NICKELS: I believe we were.

The other provision that I would just raise with you, Madame Chairwoman, that really causes me also concern is this language where, under the Ensign amendment, the District would be barred from enacting any law that would -- and let me give you the words, because these are far reaching -- "prohibit, constructively prohibit or unduly burden the firearm possession by anyone not otherwise prohibited by federal law."

And then it goes on to bar the District from enacting any laws or regulations that may discourage -- may discourage -- private ownership or use of firearms in a person's dwelling place or place of business, including regulations that would prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers or domestic-violence perpetrators from obtaining and possessing firearms.

So this bill is a many-splendored thing.

DEL. NORTON: Yes. I just wanted to get your view on that on the record, Attorney General Nickels.

May I ask, in -- I want to ask Mr. Nichols a question about something that's in Attorney General Nickels's -- Chief Nichols something about -- that's in Attorney General Nickels's testimony.

He talked about the assault-weapons ban. And of course it's now up to the states, and that's -- that has been his testimony. The ATF has described the assault weapons that we're talking about as large- capacity, semiautomatic firearms designed for rapid-fire combat use.

Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces. Those are guns which could be possessed and stockpiled in the District of Columbia.

Would you describe any concern you have that such stockpiles of guns used, as the ATF says, for military forces -- by military forces, usually -- what effect would that have on protecting the jurisdiction under your control?

MR. NICHOLS: Well, the concern is, as it's always been, it's that those types of weapons or any weapon falls into the wrong hands and then is used to further a criminal act or an assault or an attack. So it's the availability of those types of weapons, by whatever means they're obtained, by people who want to come up to the Capitol complex within our jurisdiction and do harm. That is a significant concern.

And as I said earlier, we have had instances within the past 18 months where we've had people come up here with assault-type weapons and we've been able to intercept them and arrest them.

DEL. NORTON: One final question -- and this really flows from the testimony of Chief Lanier in I guess it was September. And I'd like the view of all three of you on this testimony from the chief.

"If the bill" -- the gun bill, the very one before us now -- "were passed, it would be far more difficult for the Metropolitan Police Department and federal law enforcement agencies in the District of Columbia to ensure the safety and security of the nation's capital." Do any or all of you share those concerns?

MR. NICKELS: I would never disagree with the chief on a matter of security and safety in -- (off mike).

DEL. NORTON: Attorney General Nickels, would you speak into that microphone, please?

MR. NICKELS: I said that I would never disagree with the chief of police, who I think is the city's foremost expert on what affects the public safety and security of this city. She's been in the police department for some 20 years, I think. She's a woman that has seen every facet of public safety matters in this city. She is a leader. And she's doing a great job. And so when she says that, she means it. I support it.

DEL. NORTON: Attorney General Nickels, as I understand it, Chief Lanier established the city's own department of homeland security, was its first officer and is the primary contact with the federal law enforcement and security network for the nation's capital. Is that correct?

MR. NICKELS: That's correct. It's one of her many distinctions.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you, Attorney General Nickels.

Mr. Nichols -- Chief Nichols.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. I've known Chief Lanier for a number of years and I've watched her as the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department. And I would agree with the comment she made. I think that any professional law enforcement officer would concur with her views on that matter.

DEL. NORTON: Thank you, Chief Nichols.

Ms. Gallegos?

MS. GALLEGOS: At DHS we respect Chief Lanier enormously, of course. And as I mentioned earlier before, we regard the views of the state and local partners that we work with as extremely important, and they have enormous input into how we formulate our policy and how we go forward.

DEL. NORTON: Well, I want to thank you, all three of you, Attorney General Nickels, Chief Nichols and Miss -- Ms. Gallegos, for really very, very important testimony for this subcommittee. And it's important to hear from those who are on the front line in every respect. And I don't think we could have had a panel that was more informative or more indispensable to our understanding of how we should go forward. Thank you again, all three of you.

Source