December 22, 2004
Big Cities Will Get More in Antiterrorism Grants
By ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - Responding to repeated calls from big-city mayors, the Department of Homeland Security is shifting a larger share of its annual $3.5 billion in antiterrorism grants to the nation's largest cities, allowing them to accelerate purchases of equipment and training needed to better defend against - or at least rapidly respond to - an attack.
The biggest beneficiary of the shift is New York City, which has been awarded a $208 million grant for the 2005 fiscal year, compared with $47 million in the 2004 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30. That should allow the city to buy more devices that can detect chemical, biological or other hazards, increase training for its police and firefighters and spend more money on an intelligence center where it analyzes possible terrorist threats, one state official said.
Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Boston also are getting larger grants, although the increase is not nearly as substantial as in New York.
"We've been protecting the nation's financial and communications center on our own dime," said Raymond W. Kelly, New York City's police commissioner. "It's a national responsibility."
Proponents of the shift say they hope it is only a first step in a more fundamental revamping of homeland security grants. But the change has evoked protests from cities that have dropped off the list or whose allocations have shrunk, including Orlando, Fla.; Memphis; and New Haven.
"We are at the crossroads of America, for cars, for trains, for river traffic," said Claude Talford, director of emergency management services in the Memphis area, which received a $10 million grant for 2004 but is not slated to get any direct grant in 2005. "We are a prime location, a prime target, any way you look at it."
Lobbying efforts are under way to try to reinstate financing to these communities. But homeland security officials said the grant allocations were final.
Two shifts in homeland security financing are resulting in the reallocation of the grants. First, in the 2005 fiscal year, at the urging of President Bush, a larger share of the grants will be distributed directly to cities, instead of through a state program set up to ensure that both urban and rural areas got a cut.
Second, of the money earmarked for high-risk cities, much more of it is going to the biggest cities: in the 2005 fiscal year, New York, Washington and Los Angeles will get 42 percent of the money, compared with 16 percent for the top three cities in 2004. This shift took place, homeland security officials said, because more possible targets - bridges, signature buildings, government facilities and other importanat structures - have been added to a database they use to calculate threats. Domestic terrorism incidents, whether actual attacks or just false reports, also are now factored into the formula. And instead of taking into account only population density, the department also now factors in a city's overall population.
These changes explain not only why New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are getting larger grants, said Marc Short, a Homeland Security Department spokesman. They are also part of the reason that cities like Fresno, Calif.; Albany; and Richmond, Va., were dropped from the 2005 high-risk grant list, while cities like Jacksonville, Fla.; Arlington, Tex.; and Oklahoma City were added, Mr. Short said.
Mr. Bush and some members of Congress had wanted to give an even greater share of the money directly to cities using a threat-based formula, instead of a state-by-state system, responding in part to criticism that states like Wyoming now get more per capita in terrorism grants than New York. But Congress this year curtailed the extent of the shift to threat-based grants.
"This is a huge, huge step in the right direction, but it absolutely does not answer the need," Washington's city administrator, Robert C. Bobb, said of the $91 million the capital area will get in the two major homeland security grants, compared with $45 million this year. "We are the face of the United States, one of the most visible centers of government power and strength."
For now, cities like New York, Washington and Los Angeles are preparing plans for spending their bigger-than-expected grants. In the Los Angeles area and New York, officials want to invest more in an intelligence clearinghouse to collect raw information on possible terrorist threats and then decide how to respond to them.
"This will allow us to make some investments into some items that were just out of reach before," said Mark Leap, the assistant commanding officer in the Los Angeles Police Department counterterrorism bureau, of the $61 million grant to the Los Angeles area, compared with $28 million in the 2004 fiscal year.
Washington wants to enhance its capacity to communicate with area residents in an emergency and to improve the ability of the capital region's public safety departments to communicate with one another, Mr. Bobb said.
New York City officials also want to build a backup computer system allowing them to maintain operations in the event of an attack, as well as spend more money on training and, when necessary, station officers around possible targets.
The Homeland Security Department still has more grants to give out for the 2005 fiscal year, so it remains impossible to predict how urban states like New York, California and Illinois will end up, on a per capita basis, compared with more rural states. But elected officials from these states say their push to direct money to the highest-risk cities is far from over.
"The system is still flawed," said Representative Christopher Cox, Republican of California, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "It is at the intersection of threat and vulnerability that our money should be directed. But right now we are using a seat-of-the-pants analysis."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
It's about damn time!Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
With due respect to Mr. Talford, can anyone outside of the United States even point to Memphis on a map?"We are at the crossroads of America, for cars, for trains, for river traffic," said Claude Talford, director of emergency management services in the Memphis area, which received a $10 million grant for 2004 but is not slated to get any direct grant in 2005. "We are a prime location, a prime target, any way you look at it."
Last edited by TLOZ Link5; February 20th, 2005 at 03:43 PM.
You folks are so uninformed.
Rock n' Roll is the cultural symbol of America and must be safeguarded at all costs. Graceland is a prime target of Bin Laden.
Thank ya ma'am.
February 20, 2005
Audit Faults U.S. for Its Spending on Port Defense
By ERIC LIPTON
Christiansted harbor on St. Croix in the Virgin Islands was one of the ports that received grants from the Homeland Security Department.
ASHINGTON, Feb. 18 - The Department of Homeland Security has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to protect ports since Sept. 11 without sufficiently focusing on those that are most vulnerable, a policy that could compromise the nation's ability to better defend against terrorist attacks, the department's inspector general has concluded.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars has been invested in redundant lighting systems and unnecessary technical equipment, the audit found, but "the program has not yet achieved its intended results in the form of actual improvement in port security."
In addition, less than a quarter of the $517 million that the department distributed in grants between June 2002 and December 2003 had been spent as of September 2004, the inspector general found. The report also questioned whether grants allocated for small projects in resort areas and some remote locations should have been considered as critical to national security needs as larger projects at ports that are more vital to the national economy.
The findings, released earlier this week, were the latest to criticize the Homeland Security Department's antiterrorism grant program, which has come under attack by people who say it has set poor priorities. For example, Wyoming received four times as much antiterrorism money per capita as New York did last year, according to a Congressional report.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesman, citing the department's defense of the port grants that was included in the audit, declined requests for further comment. In remarks included in the audit, a Homeland Security official said the department had taken the higher risk factor of larger ports into account.
Ninety-five percent of all international commerce enters the United States through its roughly 360 public and private ports. But nearly 80 percent of that trade moves through only 10 ports, with the biggest loads passing through Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland in California and New York. That is why the nation's biggest ports are seen as particularly attractive as terrorist targets. Severely damaging one would not only cause deaths, injuries and property damage, but could also disrupt the flow of many basic goods into and out of the country, port officials say.
Part of the problem, the audit found, is that the annual grants were given out based on applications submitted by individual ports and then awarded even when department staff members found that many of the submissions lacked merit. Instead of withholding money because of a shortage of viable projects, the department disbursed the money to finance dubious security initiatives, many of which are detailed in the 70-page report. The grants are described in some detail, but the names of the winners and losers are not disclosed.
The grant program was intended to limit awards to what were considered strategic ports, meaning terminals that handle a large volume of cargo or a high number of passengers, are next to military facilities, or handle hazardous cargo.
After examining four separate rounds of port grants, the inspector general found that the department appeared to be intentionally distributing the money as widely as possible across the country, instead of focusing it on the biggest ports or on other locations that intelligence reports suggested were most likely to be future targets.
Major ports like New York, Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland received large allocations. But smaller grants went to ports in places like St. Croix in the Virgin Islands, Martha's Vineyard, Mass., Ludington, Mich., and six locations in Arkansas, none of which appeared to meet the grant eligibility requirements, the audit said. The department, as a result, "had no assurance that the program is protecting the nation's most critical and vulnerable port infrastructure and assets," the audit said.
Grants to ports were just a small piece in the more than $2.5 billion given out last year by Homeland Security to local and state governments, as well as to private enterprises. The money is to be used to help prevent attacks and to help equip rescue personnel and other public safety crews in case they need to respond to an attack.
The audit results appear to support criticism voiced last September by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who complained in a letter to President Bush that the methods used to grant the awards did not make sense.
"Your administration awarded port security grants in the states of Oklahoma, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Tennessee," Mr. Lautenberg wrote. "While there may be some form of maritime facilities in these locations, I question whether, of the nation's 361 maritime ports, these locations are truly the front lines on the war on terror."
In California and New York, officials have repeatedly expressed frustration at what they say is insufficient federal financing for their port security projects. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, predicted in 2003 that with nearly half of all port trade going through her state, "there is an almost a one-in-two chance" that any radiological explosive device, known as a "dirty bomb," sent to the United States in a ship container would pass through California.
"Clearly, we need to allocate a considerable portions of seaport security resources to California ports to prevent or respond to such an attack," Ms. Feinstein wrote to the Department of Homeland Security.
In objecting to the findings, an administrator at Homeland Security, Anna F. Dixon, wrote that the grant program "continues to enhance security and address real or potential vulnerabilities in our nation's ports and waterways." Ms. Dixon said the grants were given "where they are needed most to improve security in U.S. ports."
But Ms. Dixon, who works for the department's chief financial officer, also said that Homeland Security intended to adopt several of the auditor's recommendations in order to allocate the money in the future to the highest-risk ports.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, in four rounds of port security grants, received $6.2 million, or 1 percent of the total grants given out through the primary port security financing source, according to federal documents.
When other New York-based government agencies and private corporations are added in, the grants to the New York City area rise to about $35 million, about 7 percent of the total. The port handles 12 percent of the nation's cargo traffic. Much of the grant money directed to New York went to profit-making oil terminal companies, like Sunoco Logistics Partners, to help them pay for security enhancements.
Anthony R. Coscia, chairman of the port authority board, said it had long been obvious to him that the grant-making criteria needed to be changed.
"We have only gotten a fraction of the money we have requested," Mr. Coscia said. "We have to start dealing with security based on what intelligence analysis leads us to conclude are greatest areas of vulnerabilities, and not on geographic distribution or political considerations."
According to the audit, the questionable projects that were financed include:
¶$130,000 for a closed-circuit television system at one port, awarded even after the department ranked the project 27th of 29 applications and stated in its internal review documents that "these initiatives would be redundant to what the port authority has in place."
¶$180,000 to install security lights at a port that the department noted is a "small, remote facility that receives less than 20 ships per year."
¶$10,000 to one port for encrypted radios that the field staff concluded were not needed and perhaps not compatible with federal and state radios.
Grants were also given to private-sector projects that "appeared to be for a purpose other than security against an act of terrorism," the audit said, or simply to replace existing security.
At one port - next to which stood a luxury entertainment pavilion that included restaurants, a hotel and spa - a $25,000 grant was given to install video surveillance equipment and alarms, a project that department staff members had ranked last among the applications. The auditors concluded that it "appears to support the normal course of business" and was unrelated to any potential terrorist threat.
In another case, a $935,000 grant was awarded for general security improvements to a port where an industrial park was being built, leading department staff members to question if the money was in fact an economic development grant, instead of antiterrorism financing.
The Department of Homeland Security requires that the grant money be spent within a year of the award, but few of the recipients met this provision, the report says. The auditors found that few of the projects were ready to start construction at the time of the award, despite the one-year requirement.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Isn't Memphis more of a blues city than a rock one?Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
Not to mention that it's heavily Democratic.
anuary 3, 2006
New Rules Set for Giving Out Antiterror Aid
By ERIC LIPTON
Facing cuts in antiterrorism financing, the Department of Homeland Security plans to announce today that it will evaluate new requests for money from an $800 million aid program for cities based less on politics and more on assessments of where terrorists are likely to strike and potentially cause the greatest damage, department officials say.
The changes to the program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, are being driven in part by a reduction in the overall pool of money for antiterrorism efforts. For 2006, Congress has appropriated $120 million less in these urban grants than for 2005.
Domestic security grants in general, including the urban area ones, have been criticized because they have sent more antiterrorism money per capita to sparsely populated states like Wyoming and Alaska than to states like New York and California.
The shift in policy, to be announced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, could mean less antiterrorism aid for the 50 cities that received money last year under the program. Or, as is more likely, the department could reduce the number of cities on the list or cut grants for cities deemed at lower risk.
Until the application process is under way, it is unclear what the impact may be in cities now receiving money under the program, including New York.
Set up after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the Homeland Security Department's local and state grant programs have drawn repeated criticism from members of Congress and budget watchdog groups because the early emphasis on spreading the money around resulted in tens of millions of dollars going to some communities where, critics said, the terrorist threat was not as urgent as elsewhere.
Examples cited in recent testimony to Congress include $557,400 awarded to North Pole, Alaska, a city of about 1,700 residents, to buy rescue and communications equipment, and $500,000 to Outagamie County, Wis., population 165,000, to buy chemical suits, rescue saws, disaster-response trailers, emergency lighting and a bomb disposal vehicle.
Mr. Chertoff, in a speech last month, said the changes he was considering would require an acknowledgment that the nation could not protect itself against all risks.
"That means tough choices," he said. "And choices mean focusing on the risks which are the greatest. And that means some risks get less focus."
Officials from some smaller American cities that have received grants said they deserved a reasonable share of the antiterrorism aid.
"We certainly are much smaller than a city like New York or Los Angeles," said Don Thorson, administrator for the grant program in Omaha.
But, Mr. Thorson said: "We still are an urban area. And we still have risks. No one can predict where a terrorist might strike. Look where Timothy McVeigh struck. It was Oklahoma City."
Omaha received $5.1 million last year, which it used to buy bomb suits and communications equipment, among other items.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, who is chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the shift properly made risk a more meaningful factor in allocating the money.
"The more risk-based they can make it, the better," Mr. King said. "It sends a message to Congress that homeland security is a serious matter, it is not a public works project, that we are not going down the pork-barrel road. That is vital."
Homeland Security officials would not offer predictions of what the likely outcome would be in terms of how many cities would see their grants eliminated or cut significantly.
The Urban Area Security Initiative represents $765 million of the $2.5 billion budgeted in the 2006 fiscal year for state and local antiterrorism programs. A separate Homeland Security grant program, which gives money directly to states, has been allocated $550 million by Congress this fiscal year. That money will still be distributed, in part, based on a formula that sets a minimum for each state. But for the first time, money not obligated by this formula will be distributed based on risk.
When the Urban Area Security grants were first announced in 2003, only seven cities were given money: New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco and Houston. But the list quickly grew to 30 cities and finally to 50 as more cities were deemed eligible for the grants.
Last year, even though the number of cities remained about the same, a much larger share of the money went to the biggest cities, with New York getting $207.5 million, compared with $49.7 million in 2004.
The system to be unveiled today evaluates applications for aid based on how well cities meet emergency preparedness standards recently established by the Homeland Security Department.
The standards include detailed steps that local and state governments would be required to take in response to potential threats, like the release of the nerve agent Sarin in office buildings or the truck bombing of a sports arena. The applications will also be ranked based on a significantly expanded database that the agency has set up to try to objectively measure the risk level in each city, department officials said. The database includes, for example, an inventory of high-profile government buildings and major structures like bridges, as well as daily ridership on a subway system and how many subway stations a city system has.
Risk is defined as a combination of the perceived threat, the vulnerability of a particular city or asset, and the consequences of an attack.
"The system before was fairly Neanderthalic," one Homeland Security official said, on condition on anonymity because he did not want to pre-empt Mr. Chertoff's announcement. "It was very, very sophomoric."
Mr. Chertoff has made clear that he expects protests when the final grant awards are announced.
"To each individual, the risks that touch him or her personally are the most urgent and of greatest concern," he said in his speech last month. "But I know you also know that as someone who has responsibility for making decisions that touch on all Americans, I have to weigh, with limited resources, the allocation of resources based on the greatest risk, and that means some people are going to be disappointed."
The prospect of increased competition for the money comes as no surprise to officials in some smaller cities.
"We anticipated there would be a point soon where Bush would be concerned about throwing so much money out there," said Samuel Simon, director of public safety in St. Louis.
The city received $7 million last year, money spent - wisely, Mr. Simon said - to prepare for the possibility of a pandemic flu outbreak or small-scale terrorist attack.
* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
Mayor Scores Bush Anti-Terrorism Funding Plan
BY JULIA LEVY - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 4, 2006
The Bush administration's new plan for linking anti-terrorism funding to the threat of natural disasters met with criticism yesterday from Mayor Bloomberg and a Democratic congressman who last year sought to challenge him for mayor, Anthony Weiner.
For the past four years, Mr. Bloomberg has argued that cities that are the most likely terrorist targets should be the largest recipients of Homeland Security aid. Yesterday, the Homeland Security chief, Michael Chertoff, said a "risk based" approach was the department's goal. But at the same time, he said, the $765 million the department will distribute under the urban area security initiative this year will be linked to the threat of natural disasters, not only to the likelihood a city will be attacked by terrorists.
"I think we should keep monies for the risks of terrorism and the risks of natural disaster separate," Mr. Bloomberg told reporters at a morning news conference in Brooklyn, soon after Mr. Chertoff made his announcement in Washington.
The mayor, who entered office less than four months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said he is certainly not opposed to federal money being directed at the threat of natural disasters.
"I don't have a problem if they add extra money and decide how to allocate that, as long as it is done based on threat and not on pork barrel politics," he said. "So they should come up with a standard for how you decide what cities are threatened from natural disasters. Every city potentially could have something. We plan all the time in this city. We have evacuation plans if there's a hurricane that strikes. We certainly have plans for what to do if there is an outbreak of a contagious disease that is life-threatening. We deal with what happens if there is a natural disaster like a blackout or if there were to be a strike that takes away mass transit or something else that's necessary. And we can make the case then as to why we deserve monies in the event of a natural disaster, but I think they are two very separate things and I think they should certainly keep them separate."
But the new Homeland Security plan doesn't include "extra money," as Mr. Bloomberg put it. In fact, this year, the Bush administration will distribute $64 million less under the urban area security initiative than it did last year. The overall budget for the program will be $765 million this year, down from $855 million last year.
Mr. Weiner, who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens, had even harsher words about the new Homeland Security plan.
Calling the plan "one step forward and three steps back," Mr. Weiner said, "Not only will more cities be eligible, but now the money will be used to protect against weather and natural disasters. Homeland Security funding should protect against terrorism, not for any other purpose."
Mr. Weiner, who is a member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, criticized the Bush administration for "slashing" Homeland Security funding and complained that New York City would still have to compete with small cities including Omaha and Milwaukee for the critical money.
The New York Sun reported yesterday that Rep. Vito Fossella, a Republican of Staten Island, also opposes the idea of directing Homeland Security terrorism money to other purposes, such as natural disaster preparedness.
Mr. Fossella said: "It seems that out of left field they are now going to take that limited funding, which is already insignificant for New York, and open it up to other initiatives. I think Homeland Security should put the brakes on this thing until Congress has an opportunity to review what this is all about."
Yesterday, Mr. Chertoff announced that under the new plan, 35 metropolitan areas - cities and the regions that surround them - would be eligible for the urban area security funds this year, but only if they show an "investment justification" that they will use the money wisely. An additional 11 areas that previously received money under the program are still eligible, but were told they may be dropped from the list next year.
"If we're not using the money for critical capabilities, then the money is being wasted," Mr. Chertoff said. "Now, we are being, again, common-sensical and taking a reasonably broad view of what these critical capabilities are."
Mr. Bloomberg said yesterday that cities should be required to fill out "investment justification" applications, like those detailed by Mr. Chertoff.
"I think that's exactly what we have been screaming for all along," he said. "I think, for the last four years, that they should be given out based on risk, and asking cities to make their case is exactly the right direction to go."
In a statement, Senator Schumer said he is optimistic but is reserving judgment until the money is distributed: "Before Michael Chertoff took over as the Secretary of Homeland Security, he assured us that homeland security money would go to places like New York where the need was greatest. This seems to be a good step in that direction and we applaud it. But the proof in the pudding will be when the funds are distributed to New York and other very high threat areas."
There is that song, "Living in Memphis".Originally Posted by TLOZ Link5
And who could forget that Klinger on M*A*S*H was originally from Toledo......
He is deliberately putting all the eggs in one basket so that some delegations can get funding with less battle on its appropriateness of allocation.
It is hard to argue that Huntsville Alabama is not entitled to $80M of Hurricane/Tornado help in the year #### as opposed to getting anti-terrorist closed circuit TV systems at all of its animal shelters....
May 31, 2006
Homeland Security Grants to New York Slashed
By ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, May 31 — After vowing to steer a greater share of anti-terrorism money to the nation's highest-risk cities, Homeland Security officials today announced grants to New York City and Washington that would be slashed by 40 percent, while dollars headed to spots including Omaha and Louisville, Ky., would surge.
The release of the 2006 urban area grant allocations, which total $757 million, drew an immediate condemnation from leaders of Washington and New York, the two targets of the 2001 terrorist attacks, as well as expressions of befuddlement by anti-terrorism experts.
"When you stop a terrorist, they have a map of New York City in their pocket," Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said. "They don't have a map of any of the other 46 or 45 places."
Homeland Security officials said a more sophisticated grant evaluation process—combined with a smaller overall allocation of funds from Congress—were responsible for the unexpected results.
For the first time, they also said, teams of law enforcement officials from around the nation evaluated the effectiveness of the proposed spending plans submitted by the 46 eligible urban areas, cutting grants for cities that had shoddy or poorly articulated plans.
"We want to make sure we are not simply pushing dollars out of Washington," said Tracy Henke, assistant secretary for grants and training. "The reality is you have to understand that there is risk throughout the nation."
The net effect was that the grant to New York City, which was $207.6 million last year, will drop to $124.5 million this year, while Washington will see its grant dollars drop a similar 40 percent, to $46.5 million this year.
Meanwhile, grants for cities like Louisville, Omaha and Charlotte, N.C., each jumped by about 40 percent, to about $8.5 million each. Newark and Jersey City, which received a combined grant, also saw a large increase, rising 44 percent to $34 million.
Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, who is chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the allocation formula is obviously flawed.
"This is indefensible," he said. "It's a knife in the back to New York and I'm going to do everything I can to make them very sorry they made this decision."
Senior department officials, in explaining the cut in funding for New York during a private briefing for Mr. King, made clear that they were unimpressed with the city's spending plan, he said.
Major pieces of the grant to New York, for example, are spent to cover overtime costs for police officers who are guarding high-risk targets, particular during times of elevated alerts.
"The overtime is not spent on guys sitting around doing crossword puzzles," he said. "They are out defending human life in what is the most aggressive counter terrorism force in the country."
The $757 million in so-called Urban Area Security Initiative grants was just one piece of a larger $1.7 billion pool of grant funds awarded to states today, $500 million less than was available last year and $342 million less than what President Bush had requested that Congress approve.
Overall, New York State will get $183.7 million, which is a 20 percent drop from last year. That means New York State's per capita share of grant funds, which totals $2.78 per person, will drop to an even lower level compared to some rural states, like Wyoming, which will get $14.83 per person this year.
Ms. Henke, who recently took over the office that distributed anti-terrorism grants, said the relative changes in the grant dollars are based on just the kind of detailed analysis of threat and vulnerability that officials in Washington have been calling for in criticizing past awards.
But despite repeated questions from reporters at a news conference today, she would not provide any detailed explanation of why cities like New York and Washington saw such large drops, when other seemingly less high-risk targets saw such an increase in funds.
"It does not mean in any way that the risk in New York is any different or changed or any lower," she said, in responding to one of the many questions on this point. "It means that we have additional information, additional clarity. Our risk analysis has been a maturing process. It is the best we currently have."
The competition for the grants this year kicked off in January when Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that in the fourth year of these awards, which were started after the 2001 attacks, the department would put much more emphasis on directing the money to the most likely possible terrorist targets.
"The department is investing federal funding into our communities facing the greatest risk and demonstrating the greatest need in order to receive the highest return in our nation's security," he said.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
I swear, if god forbid anything should happen to this city, the Feds and George W. Bush will have blood on their hands. I will never forgive them. Bastards.
Overall, New York State will get $183.7 million, which is a 20 percent drop from last year. That means New York State's per capita share of grant funds, which totals $2.78 per person, will drop to an even lower level compared to some rural states, like Wyoming, which will get $14.83 per person this year
Better would be to fix it....and I'm going to do everything I can to make them very sorry they made this decision."