Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee - Federal Government Counterterrorism Efforts

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COUNTERTERRORISM EFFORTS

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT)

WITNESS: SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY TOM RIDGE

LOCATION: 226 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): Mr. Chairman?

SEN. HATCH: Sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we begin, what is the schedule? I've heard that we're going to end this by the time the vote occurs, and some of us will not get to ask questions. Is that --

SEN. HATCH: No, I intend to try and follow through --

SEN. SCHUMER: We'll come back after the vote?

SEN. HATCH: -- try to come back. But I know the secretary is busy, and we're going to have to end it --

SEN. LEAHY: Well, if that happens, could we-if we're not able to have all the senators have a chance on both sides to get the questions they want, could he come back, say, on Tuesday and continue?

SEN. HATCH: I think we can finish it today.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. HATCH: We'll do our best to do so.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary. As you know, we go back a long time. I have tremendous respect for you. But I have to tell you the frustration in New York at these funding formulas is just through the roof-bipartisan frustration-mayor, governor, myself, our whole delegation. And so I have to ask you some questions about it.

SEC. RIDGE: Please.

SEN. SCHUMER: When we've talked you've always been very positive, but so far nothing has happened, and that's the problem.

First, on the State Homeland Security Grant Program. This was from the Patriot Act originally. This was DOJ.

SEC. RIDGE: Right.

SEN. SCHUMER: The act mandated a .75 percent state minimum. That means about 40 percent of the money went out by formula, and New York and Wyoming got the same amount of money. But then we granted the federal-the executive branch the ability to give out the money-the rest, the 60 percent-any way they wanted. And DOJ decided to do it on a per capita basis, compounding the problem, because we all know that high-need areas should get this money if it's not going to be just pork.

I know everyone has a problem; that's why we have a set for everybody. You've never said a thing on this. Do you think the formula should be changed? It's now something that you would have a lot of say over because this occurred before your department. We haven't seen any real leadership on that. It results in New York getting $5.47 per capita, Wyoming getting $38.31 per capita.

SEC. RIDGE: First of all, Senator, I have said publicly, time and time again, I do believe that every state, regardless of the size, regardless of the population, regardless of the risk, should receive from the Congress some financial support to build up, over a period of time, the kind of infrastructure that we're trying to build up nationwide.

But I think the president's budget reflects in a very dramatic way when we have shifted, I think, if I recall correctly, about $700 million from the pot that would have been distributed, simply based on the formula, over to the urban area security initiatives, where we think most of those dollars should go --

SEN. SCHUMER: I'll get to that in a minute, but I had-I understand that.

SEC. RIDGE: -- most of that should go. We've tried to work a-recognizing, having-because we do go back such a long time, trying to work out a formula with 535 members of Congress in terms of how you distribute those dollars-we've been up here talking and working on it. We have not been able to find the magic formula yet, Senator. But we do think more money should go to the high urban (sic) areas.

SEN. SCHUMER: Would you support changing, though, these grants away from a per capita basis, to 60 percent, in your discretion? If you could give me a yes or no on that, because I have two more questions and we have limited time.

(Pause.)

SEC. RIDGE: I will support whatever formula with an existing fund puts more dollars into an urban area. But how you go about making sure that everybody gets a certain amount of money --

SEN. SCHUMER: But sir, this is done per capita. You make --

SEC. RIDGE: But that --

SEN. SCHUMER: -- your administration, not Congress, made the decision that 60 percent should be per capita. That sends-a state without any rural areas getting the same exact amount as to-I mean without any urban areas the same amount of money per capita as a highly urbanized state. It contradicts what you're saying here.

SEC. RIDGE: No, but in the aggregate, Senator-and I-in the aggregate, what these smaller states receive, in comparison to what the large urban areas receive, as I said, is-there is a stark contrast, and all I'm saying to you is, I don't --

SEN. SCHUMER: There is not. Not on this formula.

SEC. RIDGE: Not on the per capita. I understand that. I have not been able to come up with a formula that gets 200 --

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay.

SEC. RIDGE: -- gets 218 votes in the House or 51 votes in the Senate, in order to get it done.

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, in all due respect, sir --

SEC. RIDGE: As soon as I do, I'll make the proposal.

SEN. SCHUMER: With all due respect, we have not heard a peep-when we've tried to lobby this last year, we did not hear a peep out of the administration about what they wanted, how to change it, et cetera. It's not you-it's not, frankly, that you failed to persuade Congress. You haven't attempted to persuade Congress. You sort of let it happen.

But I'm going to ask a second one. This is on the high-threat urban area funding --

SEC. RIDGE: Sure.

SEN. SCHUMER: -- which you mentioned. We had set aside some money for high urban (sic) funding. And again, before you were there, Mitch Daniels was sort of the guy in charge, and I negotiated with him that that-and he had promised me that this would go to the high- threat areas. And the first year it did. Of the $800 million, New York City got 160 million (dollars). Okay?

In '04, the next round, you gave it out to 50 cities and 30 transit areas, and New York's share dropped to 9 percent. That was on your watch --

SEC. RIDGE: Right.

SEN. SCHUMER: -- different than the previous year.

SEC. RIDGE: Correct.

SEN. SCHUMER: And do you think that New York's threat percentage went down so much; that New York, relative to the rest of the nation, became so much safer?

For New York City, which has been the focal point-the only two international major terrorist incidents we've had in this country have been aimed at New York City. For New York City to get 9 percent of that is a disgrace. And that was, again, totally-that had nothing to do with Congress, that was totally your discretion.

And so I would ask you to comment on that. And then I'm going to ask you just on two other things because my time is running out.

SEC. RIDGE: Sure.

SEN. SCHUMER: There are two bills in the House. One is by Young and LaTourette. It continues to give Homeland Security funding on a per capita basis, regardless of threat of terrorism. That's the LaTourette bill, okay? And it also-an amendment-that's rather-yeah, that's the bill in the Transportation Committee. It also allows these Homeland Security funds to go to all hazards-tornadoes and fires.

There's an alternative bill that Congressman Cox has put together, which directs them on the real basis of need.

What is the administration's position on, A, the Transportation bill, the per capita bill; B, the Cox bill, which is the Energy and Commerce bill, which is on need; and C, the provision that allows this money now, which is supposed to go to Homeland Security, to go to tornadoes and forest fires?

SEN. HATCH: Senator, your time is up.

But if you would answer the question.

SEC. RIDGE: I'd like to, Senator. And I'm not trying to avoid a public answer; I need to get back to you. I don't believe we have a-we've been working with Congressman Cox on the formula, but we haven't come up with a position on either measure. But I'll get back to you within 24 hours and tell you specifically what we're doing.

SEN. SCHUMER: Great. I would-and with a position, I hope.

SEN. HATCH: That would be great.

Senator Durbin.

SEN. SCHUMER: Because the problem-if I just might, Mr. Chairman-is the administration says they're for good things and never takes a position on any of these things.

Thanks.

SEC. RIDGE: And I just did want to say, Senator, we have on both occasions, whether it was on somebody else's watch or our watch, recognized the importance and the vulnerability and the sensitivity to New York City's needs. I think over the past two years they've received twice as much as any other city --

SEN. SCHUMER: Nine percent --

SEC. RIDGE: Pardon me?

SEN. SCHUMER: Do you think 9 percent is fair --

SEC. RIDGE: (Inaudible.)

SEN. SCHUMER: -- when we received 20 percent the year before?

SEN. HATCH: Let him answer the question.

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah.

SEC. RIDGE: It's in excess of $300 million. And they would be the primary beneficiary-or they would benefit more than any other city if Congress would accept the president's proposal. You can keep the funding formula per capita. The argument is diminished substantially if you reduce that pool and keep the formula, which would probably be the easiest political solution, and just reduce that pool and take the substantial dollars over and put it in the Urban Area Security Initiative Program. And again, the city that's at the top and the city that will get proportionately more than everybody else is New York City because of population density, because of critical infrastructure.

SEN. SCHUMER: I would just say in conclusion, it's not even close to the needs and it's not a fair formula; no one thinks it is. And we need your voice and your activity on the Hill, which we haven't seen thus far.