Attentive readers of the
daily press will know by now that some Republican senators
Phil Gramm of Texas, Don Nickles of Oklahoma, John McCain of Arizona
resisted the $20 billion aid package to New York that Congress
passed after the World Trade Center tragedy. What they will not know,
however, is just how strenuously Gramm and Nickles objected to the
aid and how hard these wonderful Americans from the heartland worked
to thwart it.
The narrative begins the day after the attack, Wednesday, when
Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton met with Governor Pataki
and Mayor Giuliani, urging them to assess the scope of the damage
and agree to a dollar amount they could then take to Capitol Hill.
The $20 billion fig-ure was agreed upon, and Schumer and Clinton
made their way back to Washington.
The next part of the story has been widely retailed. Thursday
afternoon, Schumer and Clinton met with President Bush in the Oval
Office. They described the scale of the carnage, and Schumer pressed
the case that New York needed a cash infusion of perhaps staggering
proportions. "How much?" Schumer says the president asked. "Twenty
billion," came the reply. "You've got it," Bush said.
What unfolded during the evening hours that Thursday, according
to four sources who followed the events closely, provides for an
eye-popping lesson both in the ways of Capitol Hill and in the reality
behind all the lovely rhetoric about unity.
The $20 billion was to be delivered to New York through an emergency
supplemental-appropriations measure. The Office of Management and
Budget drafted the language, calling for a total appropriation of
$40 billion, half for military preparedness, national security,
and transportation security, and half for "disaster-recovery activities
and assistance" in New York. (Technically, this half was earmarked
for New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the latter two having
also been attacked, though the bulk of the money was meant for to
That's how things stood at eight o'clock. Around this time, an
aide to Hillary Clinton left the office and went to the Senate floor,
where Clinton was checking on the status of the bill. So, the aide
said, I guess everything looks pretty good. "Well, no," Clinton
said. "It's falling apart. We've got to go talk to Daschle right
Said one source, "Gramm just doesn't want
to spend any money. And Nickles... he's just anti-New York. He was
saying that Oklahoma City didn't get anything like this amount after
the bombing there."
What had happened, as Clinton and Schumer both were now learning,
was that a second version of the bill had mysteriously emerged from
OMB. This language called for only $20 billion, not $40 billion.
It also noted that, after the first $20 billion was spent, an additional
$20 billion could be allocated "in a subsequent Act of Congress
attendant to a specific emergency request proposed by the President."
In other words, weeks or months later, when New York's grief had
left the front pages. In other words, maybe some money, but nothing
close to $20 billion.
Where did this mystery language come from? My sources didn't know
for sure, but as we shall see, a meeting that took place in House
Speaker Dennis Hastert's office later that night provides a likely
suspect list of two. "It's clear to me," says Congressman Jerry
Nadler, "that Gramm and Nickles tried to take out the earmark."
Schumer and Clinton charged up to majority
Leader Tom Daschle's office, where they met with Daschle, Majority
Whip Harry Reid of Nevada, and Robert Byrd of West Virginia. They
were trying to figure out how to respond when, one source says,
"somebody came in and said, 'Gramm and Nickles are down in the speaker's
office right now.' Byrd said, 'Let's go.' "
Schumer and Clinton decided their presence in the speaker's office
might be counterproductive. They went instead to the Senate Democratic
cloakroom, where they furiously made calls. Schumer called Andrew
Card, the president's chief of staff a call, as described
by my sources, that Card will not soon forget. Clinton called around
to members of the New York House delegation, Democrat and Republican,
to enroll them in the fight. Nadler and Nita Lowey were particularly
involved, as were upstate Republicans James Walsh and John Sweeney,
who has especially close ties to the White House.
The New Yorkers converged outside Hastert's office. Inside were
the Speaker, Byrd, Daschle, Dick Gephardt, and House Appropriations
Committee leaders Bill Young and David Obey. And Phil Gramm and
Don Nickles, who have nothing to do with appropriations but who
had barged their way in just to argue against the bill. McCain had
raised objections earlier, on the confusing not to say offensive
grounds that the money somehow constituted pork, but "he
made his peace with it and left," one source says. Of the other
two, says the source, "Gramm just doesn't want to spend any money.
And Nickles . . . he's just anti-New York. He was saying that Oklahoma
City didn't get anything like this amount after the bombing there."
As the night pressed on, the good guys circled the wagons. Gramm
and Nickles surrendered, and even voted for the package in the end.
But the story, besides telling us that our senators earned their
paychecks, leaves at least two distinct foul odors hanging in the
air. There is, first, the rank indecency of the two men's objections.
Granted, $20 billion is a lot of money, and New York must spend
it wisely. But to try to block this money under these circumstances,
forcing the city to rattle the cup for some much smaller amount
at some undetermined point in the future, leaves one speechless.
Gramm is retiring, but when Nickles runs again, I hope the police
officers and firefighters of his state ask him why he deemed the
widows and children of more than 350 heroic cops and firefighters
unworthy of federal support.
And second, the senators' shenanigans reveal the hypocrisy of
those who are given to thinking of New York as anti-American
a sentiment not, alas, limited to right-wing senators. Andrew Sullivan,
in an obscene epistolary excretion that appeared in the Times
of London, wrote adoringly of the humble red states that are behind
the president, as opposed to the "decadent" blue states that will,
in the coming months, constitute a veritable "fifth column" against
America. Sullivan provides here the intellectual (so to speak) groundwork
upon which the likes of Gramm and Nickles can justify themselves:
An attack on the blue zone is somehow not really an attack
on America. This may not make them fifth columnists, but it sure
doesn't make them good Americans.
Last Week: Noted:
Freedom's Just Another Word for Plenty Left to Lose