Mayor Stands Firm For 'Threat And Risk' Terror Funding Formula
BY JOHN TOSCANO

"I hope that this hearing begins the process of setting things right again...For New York City, this really is the heart of the matter. This bias on the part of DHS penalizes us for our aggressiveness and diligence in protecting our city."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg presented a strong case to the House Committee On Homeland Security, for allocating anti-terror grants to the nation's cities solely on the basis of threat and risk, but the Department of Homeland Security turned this standard upside down, contributing to what Bloomberg termed "the preposterous under-funding" to New York City this year.

The mayor said that New York City appears now to be losing ground in this approach. "I hope that this hearing begins the process of setting things right again," Bloomberg declared.

The mayor also asked the committee, headed by Congressmember Peter King (R-C, Long Island) to focus on DHS's "clearly and frequently stated predisposition against providing grants to support recurring costs-what they choose to call 'supplanting' local effort."

The mayor emphasized, "For New York City, this really is the heart of the matter. This bias on the part of DHS penalizes us for our aggressiveness and diligence in protecting our city."

Bloomberg explained that to better protect New York City, the city will invest close to $1 billion over the next four years in counter terrorism initiatives, projects he said are crucial to protecting all New Yorkers.

He added, "The city already spends more than $250 million per year of our taxpayers' money in annual operating expenses."

In the face of such substantial needs, the refusal by DHS to pay recurring costs puts unnecessary burdens on the city, Bloomberg argued.

"After 9/11, for example, New York City very sensibly increased aerial surveillance of our watershed reservoirs. But DHS has denied requests for funds to support this program on the grounds that, since New York City has been covering the costs ourselves, we can just continue to do so. As I have said repeatedly, we will do everything possible to protect our city and then find a way to pay for it. But having the federal government penalize [us] for doing what's right is hardly a sensible national policy."

Continuing, the mayor said, the DHS bias against supporting recurring local costs punishes New York City for the effectiveness of all locally funded counterterrorism and intelligence activities.

Among these, Bloomberg stated, were the Counter-Terrorism Bureau, which was so highly regarded that it trained federal agencies, including DHS, and Operation Atlas, which deploys specifically trained and specially equipped patrol units to protect critical transportation and financial infrastructures.

This year, the Bloomberg administration asked DHS to fund the two programs, but it refused to help cover day-to-day personnel expenses.

Sounding frustrated and somewhat befuddled, the mayor said he could not understand "such a nonsensical conclusion that would not support funding for the human intelligence that has proved so effective in so many areas."

Earlier in his testimony, the mayor described the city's strong support for allocating anti-terror funds on the basis of threat and risk. Originally, only seven such high-risk cities were so designated in the United States. But in a manner typical of many federally funded efforts, that number subsequently ballooned to 50 and presently stands at 46.

"Is this the spirit of 'high threat' allocation?" Bloomberg asked rhetorically. He answered, "No."

"Instead," he went on, "it makes the program the kind of political pork barrel it was specifically designed to avoid, contributing to the preposterous underfunding of homeland security in New York City for the current fiscal year."