Bob Menendez: “I would have hoped we could come together on this amendment. I do not consider it an effort to pit States against…”

“I would have hoped we could come together on this amendment. I do not consider it an effort to pit States against States. I heard the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Homeland Security refer many times to the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission's unanimous bipartisan recommendation said all Homeland Security funding should be driven by risk, allocation should be driven by risk and strictly by risk. Our amendment, however, does not take their conclusion, in recognition that States have responsibility and needs, to the ultimate conclusion of all money should be focused strictly by risk. It recognized that all States have some degree of responsibility within the context of a Federal mandate. It says, as the administration has said, that it should at least receive .25 percent of all of those funds. We are in line with what the 9/11 Commission said. If we are going to quote the 9/11 Commission, then we should quote it in its entirety. Also, we are in line with where the administration's own recognition is. In my mind, this is not small States versus big States, small cities versus large cities, rural versus urban. It is about risk. Very small States can have very big risk. Ultimately, they would be--if their risks are established as they believe them to be--beneficiaries at the end of the day with our amendment.…”