Homeland Security: It There Where You Need it Least

I don't doubt this figure, but does it take into account the population densities of rural Wyoming versus the metropolitan New York area?

And like most of the rest of the Federal Government, DHS is basically a butcher's shop for distributing pork on behalf of the most savvy members of Congress.

Department of Homeland Security & War on Terror in huge clusterfuck shocquer!
"Come for the Orgy. Stay for the Clusterfuck."

it does seem that the allocation for securtiy funding is a bit out of whack. however, it may be due to a lack of infrastructure in place currently in more rural states (fewer cops, etc.) or perhaps based on the location of probable targets which could be located in more rural areas (chemical warehouses, etc.)perhaps they are basing this on the idea that the terrorists will not attack in the same exact way next time. i may be naive, but i just don't think that anyone involved wants to leave urban areas vulnerable to attack.

September 17, 2004
More Money for the Cities Most at Risk
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 - In a significant shift, leading Republicans in Congress are seeking to overhaul the way the federal government distributes antiterrorism aid, with an eye toward establishing a system that gives more money to New York City and other localities considered at higher risk of terrorist attack.

The changes being contemplated seek to address mounting criticism that members of Congress have been so intent on grabbing shares of security money for their own districts that not enough is left for New York City and other municipalities where the threat is believed to be greatest.

The most recent - and potentially embarrassing - round of criticism came from members of the 9/11 commission, who issued a report in July that, among other things, pointedly called on Congress to begin distributing antiterrorism money on the basis of threat and risk, not pork-barrel politics.

It remains unclear how New York City and other localities will ultimately fare as Congress prepares to enact yet another round of spending for homeland security in the coming weeks. In fact, a series of proposed changes to the current financing formula have already begun to meet with some resistance from lawmakers from other regions of the country who insist on money for their districts, regardless of known threats or vulnerabilities, according to Congressional officials monitoring the debate.

But the concerns being raised about the current financing system are getting the attention of some of the most powerful Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, where Democrats, mainly those from New York and other big cities, have led the effort to change the way homeland security money is doled out.

Speaking to reporters this week, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican majority leader in the House, indicated that he was open to changing the current financing formula to address the needs of high-risk cities. "I tend toward designing a system that is based on threat rather than grants," he said.

Even Democrats who have been sharply critical of the Republican leadership on this issue are cautiously optimistic. "We believe we can get something done that is fair," said Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a Democrat from New York City. "The 9/11 commission has changed the entire debate. The Republicans were not even listening to us before."

The debate centers on two major pots of money that the federal government has set aside for antiterrorism programs across the nation. The first pot, totaling about $2.2 billion this year, guarantees a minimum amount of money to all states, regardless of their vulnerabilities.

The minimum amount set aside accounts for 38.5 percent of the total pot of money, thereby leaving less money for places with urgent security needs, according to critics of the financing approach.

In the most recent round of security money that Washington allocated from that pot, for example, New York was given nearly $104 million, a figure that works out to $5.47 per resident. That is far less than the national state average of $7.77 per person and even less than Wyoming, which received $38.31 per person. New York is, in fact, behind every state except California, according to New York officials.

The other pot of money at the center of the debate is one that was specifically created to help defend New York City and other densely populated urban areas that are considered vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

But officials from New York and other major cities have been complaining for months that the Bush administration is funneling more and more of this money to a growing list of cities that do not have urgent security needs.

In April 2003, for example, the first installment of money from this high-risk fund was distributed among seven cities, including New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Chicago.

But in recent months, the number of eligible local government entities has grown - first to 30 then to 80 - thereby reducing the share of money available for New York and other major cities.

The concern that the current financing approach may contribute to the nation's vulnerability has led some leading Republicans in Congress to produce legislation that seeks to funnel federal security money where it is most needed.

"Momentum has moved our way," said Representative John E. Sweeney, a Republican from upstate New York who has been advocating a threat-based approach to distributing security money. "Just about all the top leadership in the House has acknowledged that the current system doesn't work."

Representative Christopher Cox, a California Republican, who is chairman of the homeland security committee, has been among those leading the effort to change the formula.

While Mr. Cox's bill guarantees a minimum amount of money for all states, it is a much smaller minimum than the current system calls for - 0.25 percent of total federal security funds to each state, compared with the current 0.75 percent.

But more important, his bill calls for distributing the bulk of federal security aid to states and cities with, among other things, dense populations, known vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks and infrastructure that is critical to the nation's ability to function, from Wall Street in New York to oil refineries in Texas.

In a recent interview, Mr. Cox said members of the 9/11 commission had lent a powerful voice to his efforts when they recommended that the money be distributed on the basis of threat. "It would be a crime if this work were not completed before Congress adjourns" in a few weeks, he said.

Mr. Cox said Senator Susan M. Collins, a Maine Republican, was pursuing similar efforts in the Senate. A bill she is sponsoring also guarantees every state a minimum amount of money. But it allocates the bulk of federal security dollars using a formula that takes into account a given locality's vulnerability to terrorist attack, according to the senator's aides.

The proposals being considered in Congress do not completely satisfy New York officials, who are troubled that every state would be guaranteed a minimum amount of money, no matter the threat they actually face.

"What we need is for Congress to recognize this and allocate all funds based on risk and threat," said Edward Skyler, a spokesman for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a Republican. "State minimums are what get American Samoa $101 a person while New York gets less than $6."

In the meantime, Democrats are trying to keep the issue front and center with the fall elections approaching. At almost every turn, Democrats accuse Republicans of jeopardizing the nation's security by distributing security aid in the same way that, for example, highway aid is doled out.

On Tuesday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democrat from New York, sought to put Republicans on the spot, offering two amendments on the floor that would have pumped more money into New York City and other urban areas considered at high risk of attack. But in the end, both measures were defeated.

"We are once again fighting for the obvious, the common-sense, prudent approach to security funding, which is once again running into pork barrel politics," Mrs. Clinton told reporters. "It's outrageous."

"Too Hunred fiddy dorras!! YOO BYE NOW"

Posted on Sun, May. 23, 2004

Homeland security efforts focus on farms

Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - The campaign for homeland security has reached farms, ranches and veterinary clinics across Kentucky.

The state has given away 40,000 signs to farmers with tips for securing their operations and numbers for agencies to call in an emergency.

"We still have a lot to do, but we've made significant strides, I think," said veterinarian Ed Hall, acting director of animal health and homeland security administrator for the Kentucky Department of Agriculture.

The focus is on how the most productive agricultural nation on Earth can shield its livestock, crops and food-processing plants from a terror attack that could cripple the nation's economy.

Among those attending a session in Frankfort last month was Dr. Debbie Seymour, a Jackson County veterinarian who said agro-terrorism is on her checklist now whenever she visits farms on her rounds.

"The threat is real," Seymour told The Courier-Journal of Louisville. "I think the veterinary community in general is on the front lines."

Terrorists have used diseases and poisons in this country before, most recently 20 years ago in Oregon when a cult group sickened about 750 people by tainting a salad bar with salmonella. Beyond the efforts of individual states, the country's readiness to respond is a matter of dispute. Congress is divided over how much money to commit to protecting against terrorism in rural America.

U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's homeland security subcommittee, said he is fighting an effort to allow the secretary of homeland security to distribute money to states with the greatest perceived threats. Such a change would hit rural areas hard, Rogers said.

"They don't grow many beef cattle in New York City, and they don't grow much corn in downtown Houston," Rogers said. "The rural areas are where the food supply comes from. That's ... a big reason to be sure so-called rural areas keep getting some (homeland security) funds."

Al Pedigo, who runs a farm and raises beef cattle in Allen and Monroe counties in southern Kentucky, has told his employees to watch for strange vehicles or people on the property, and to keep facilities and gates locked.

But all the vigilance and measures federal and state governments are putting in place to improve the security of the nation's food supply and agriculture will only go so far, said Pedigo, who also is a member of the Kentucky Farm Bureau and the Kentucky Cattlemen's Association.

"It would be really hard to stop a terrorist attack," he said.

The Rand Corp., the federal General Accounting Office and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, among other groups, point to numerous shortcomings in efforts to keep the nation's food production and supply network safe. Too few inspectors, inconsistent inspection standards and a flood of imports are putting stresses on the safety system, experts say.

Veterinarians and government agents don't have enough training to spot and diagnose suspicious disease outbreaks, and the way diseases are reported is confusing and inefficient, critics say. Security at government labs holding deadly diseases is lax, while there is little information about how well food-processing plants are protecting themselves, according to some studies.

An advisory committee to the Department of Agriculture last fall concluded that the United States "is not adequately prepared at this time to respond effectively to the potential introduction of a highly infectious foreign animal disease or any other type of biological agent that might disrupt the food supply chain."

Federal officials insist protecting food "from farm to fork" is a top national security priority and numerous steps are being taken to tighten safety. They note:

_More food inspectors have been hired in the past couple of years, bringing the number to 7,500 in the Department of Agriculture and 1,500 in the Food and Drug Administration.

_For the first time, food shippers and processing facilities serving the U.S. market, whether domestic or foreign, have been registered with the government so, in the event of contamination, inspectors will be able to quickly trace the origin of suspect products.

_Food importers must notify the government of shipments and their contents, or the products will not be permitted into the country.

_A program to track cattle, from birth to slaughterhouse, is under way. This summer, farms are being given identification numbers, and by next year individual animals will be tagged.

_An improved federal network of laboratories has been set up to quickly diagnose suspicious outbreaks of animal and plant diseases.

_Farmers and veterinarians are being given pamphlets and CD-ROMs and going to workshops aimed at increasing knowledge about unusual diseases that might signal intentional introduction of biological agents into animals.

---

Information from: The Courier-Journal, http://www.courier-journal.com

...Terrorists have used diseases and poisons in this country before, most recently 20 years ago in Oregon when a cult group sickened about 750 people by tainting a salad bar with salmonella.

Well why are you paying for... supply side v. ... ... nevermind.

How's your subway system, Louisville?

still wondering what this:

Terrorists have used diseases and poisons in this country before, most recently 20 years ago in Oregon when a cult group sickened about 750 people by tainting a salad bar with salmonella.

is in reference to?

i.e. Mitch McConnell R-Ky aka The Majority Whip and Senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

I am 99% sure I have been on a Homeland Security watch list for 10+ years. I am not on the no-fly list but can't check in for flights over US airspace without the desk staff calling Homeland Security for special clearance and I imagine I will have a fun interview to look forward to at JFK in about ten hours.

Has anyone gone through the process to get themselves removed from one of these? Someone mentioned a "five hour interview at the US Embassy" but that might have been hyperbole.

Four hour interview at US embassy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKvpCTVWkAEg0sn.jpg
The D160 form is very subtle and sophisticated.

holy shit

Lol

"look, we gotta ask"

IF (Terrorist) Yes

a second career track for comedy writers

I applied for global entry a couple months ago, been taking forever to find an interview time that actually works (as the only open dated are all 2+ months in advance). I went to check in on it again yesterday and learned that the website has been revamped, and a bonus is that my old account information/reference info is gone and doesnt work on the new site, ie, I have to completely reapply again.

tl;dr: fuck dhs

Homeland Security is going to use machine learning so foreign govs can flag people as terrorists. When I asked what the algorithm will hunt for, their reply was: "I would imagine they don’t want to tell the bad guys what they are looking for anyway. ;-)"https://t.co/MK2IGk4jH0

— Sam Biddle (@samfbiddle) December 3, 2018

what could possibly go wrong