Text size:

Plot is salt in the cut

Alleged PATH plan renews criticism of slash in anti-terror funding; King again in center of debate

BY J. JIONI PALMER | Newsday Staff Writer

July 10, 2006

WASHINGTON - The alleged plot to bomb PATH tunnels in lower Manhattan has renewed criticism of the Department of Homeland Security's decision to cut the Big Apple's federal anti-terror dollars.

"This continues to point out the obvious, that New York is a key target for terrorist plots and that diminishing the amount of money New York gets is not a wise policy," said Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland.

Rep. Peter King, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has called the cuts a declaration of "war" on New York, and said yesterday that what is known now about the alleged plot highlights the folly of the funding allocations.

"The decision was totally absurd - I said it at the time," said King (R-Seaford). "The most objective assessment is they were incompetent. The more sinister motive is they wanted to take a shot at NYPD [out of jealousy]. Either way, there is no good answer for what the Homeland Security Department did."

King said he was particularly enraged when the 40 percent cut was announced in May, because he had known of the alleged plot since September when he was briefed after assuming the helm of the House homeland panel.

Since the announcement, King has faced harsh criticism.

Nassau Legis. David Mejias, a Democrat who will challenge King in November, lambasted the lawmaker as a hypocrite for voting to cut anti-terror program funds by 15 percent only to turn around and blame the Department of Homeland Security.

"He can point fingers at anybody he wants, but he's got to look in the mirror at himself," said Mejias, of Farmingdale.

Ray Garafola, a New York Democratic political consultant, said King's apparent inability to deliver for New York could mean he's not the power player he'd like voters to think he is.

"He pays more attention to stuff like The New York Times and writing his books than his committee," Garafola said of King's push to have The Times prosecuted for its report on a secret government program that monitors banking transactions and of his penchant for penning thrillers.

King responded that New York fell victim to bureaucratic decision-making shrouded in secrecy. He said that by law the Department of Homeland Security is barred from disclosing how money is going to be allocated until the decision has already been made. "Who is chairman or not doesn't matter to these bureaucrats," King said.

Before the cuts, King helped lead the charge to get federal anti-terror dollars distributed on the basis of threat, and he said the law should be flexible enough to give homeland security officials discretion to spend money where it is needed most.

"We're trying to find a way to find legislation that defines threat," he said. "You shouldn't have to do that, you should have a secretary who understands what threat is."

Greenberger said that to the extent that King was at fault it was "for not ensuring that" there was enough grant money allocated to begin with. However, he added, "The fact that New York got a smaller share of the smaller pie I believe was solely the cause of the ineptitude of the Department of Homeland Security."

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer also weighed in on the debate yesterday, warning that revelations of the plot should be the last wakeup call. He was joined by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) outside the World Trade Center train station in Manhattan, and blasted Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for not increasing New York's funds.

Schumer and Menendez said they will try this week to introduce amendments to an appropriations bill to push for funds to be allocated based on threats.

Reacting to a Newsday story that said the Brooklyn Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge and forest fires in California were considered as targets before the PATH system, Schumer said it shows that all areas need to be protected because terrorists can easily learn which are insecure.

"They always go after our weakest link, and it means that we shouldn't just say we will do air but not train or we will do train but not port," he said. "We have to do all of them."

Staff writer Bryan Virasami contributed to this story.