Feinstein-Cornyn Amendment--Only big cities need to have security

[Skidmore]

against terrorists. That's what I'm hearing. Well, one of these days some enterprising terraist is going to discover our stockpiles of chemicals in rural America and send a cloud over some city downwind. What is wrong with these lawmakers? It doesn't take a metropolitan area for someone to create a sense of no safety in the world. I'm surprised that a small town hasn't been selected yet just to make that point.

Better yet, when are nations in general going to realize that they can't create risk-free societies by the policies they carry out in the third world?

[napi21]

1. I haven't read the ammendment, but I did hear some of the things

small communities have spent their Homeland Security $$ on. It was a very sad indication that the HS funds should be appropriated on a risk basis and not equally to each State, City or Town.

Some spent $600,000 on detection equipment that hasn't even been unpacked yet (after almost 2 years) because no one knows how to use it. There were many examples and very few made any sense.

If this amendment says ONLY big cities should get $$, that's wrong! But if it says the funds should be appropriated based upon potential risk, I'm all for it.

[Mass]

2. This is NOT what the amendment said

It asks that the grants be risk-based, so that the places who have the biggest risks need the most money.

They had examples where money was given to port security in states that do not have ports, while money was missing to big ports on both coasts.

[Skidmore]

3. This is how it is being argued.

Big cities need the funds.

[napi21]

4. I agree, the grants SHOULD be risk based.

I don't have anything against rural areas with low populations, but they really don't need as much security as NYC, LA, etc.