We do not have any reason to believe there are inaccuracies but we've agreed to make sure our data matches their data.
The department [DHS] and the President have always favored a risk-based approach. It's members of Congress who have thwarted those efforts.
No one is guaranteed to be on the list one year to the next.
What we're really practicing is risk mitigation. You will not be able to say everywhere every city is safe at all times. What you want to say is, are we continually getting safer?
It is hard for us to know right now whether or not the localities have over-invested or under-invested. Once we have this document and a national plan, we can see how they've been spending their money.
This year, we identified 66 ports that we view as the greatest risk, and only those were eligible to apply for the funds. Not all 66 were funded.
There are communities that have not been as proactive as say, San Francisco and Oakland in having a mutual plan in how to respond or how to prevent certain attacks.
There's nothing that would restrict a city from allocating funds to a church or synagogue that faces a grave danger or risk. We have always said we have felt this was redundant and unnecessary.
It's an intentional playing with the numbers [by larger population states], ... to try to lobby for additional funds. Wyoming gets a fraction of what those other states do in total.
Copyright © 2024 Electric Goat Media. All Rights Reserved.