[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 23 (Thursday, March 3, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H973-H974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THREAT TO UNITED STATES STILL VERY REAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, the threat to the United States is still 
very real. Just yesterday it became public that one of the terrorists 
responsible for the Madrid train bombings had sketches of New York 
City's Grand Central Station on his computer.

                              {time}  1500

  A few days ago it was reported that Osama bin Laden was caught urging 
some of his associates to take the threat to the United States once 
again. Clearly the threat to our country is real, and it is essential 
that we have a comprehensive strategy for distributing our homeland 
security grant funding to confront it.
  That is why today I am introducing the Responsible Funding For First 
Responders Act of 2005. The bill reforms the current formula used to 
distribute homeland security grant money.
  Yesterday, our newly confirmed Homeland Security Secretary said, ``I 
think we owe the American people a more focused and priorities driven'' 
funding formula. This bill aims to achieve just that.
  Over the past few years, we have gone a long way in fighting 
terrorism. Last year, Congress passed a meaningful intelligence reform 
which implements many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. However 
there was one recommendation that we did not address adequately.
  The 9/11 Commission explicitly stated ``homeland security assistance 
should be based strictly on assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.'' 
This bill would put that recommendation, which I think is common sense 
to most Americans, into effect.
  In introducing the bill, I wish to start the debate anew and begin 
working towards a meaningful first responders funding reform. Since 
September 11 homeland security funds have been distributed under a 
formula that requires a minimum of .75 percent to go to each State, and 
then the remainder is distributed on what we call a per capita basis.
  The block grant formula, where most of the funding has originated, 
does not consider threat at all. This means that almost 40 percent of 
the money is distributed equally to each State as a result of that 
minimum, about $1.5 billion. Congress needs to do better.
  This year the President's budget once again distributes all the funds 
based on threat. His fiscal year 2006 budget request which distributes 
a little over $1 billion in State homeland security grants is based 
upon risks, threats, vulnerabilities, and unmet essential capabilities.
  Let me say what this bill is not. This bill is not designed to pit 
one area of the country against another. It is designed, I think again 
speaking to the common sense and conventional wisdom of the American 
people, to identify where the vulnerabilities are, identify where the 
threats exist, identify where the risks are and send the money to those 
areas accordingly.
  Why New York City in particular, for example, I think is still a 
target, let us look what happened after the first

[[Page H974]]

bombing of the World Trade Center that took place in 1993.
  In between the bombing in 1993 and the tragic day of September 11, 
there was a conspiracy to destroy the Holland and the Lincoln tunnels, 
the George Washington Bridge, the United Nations and the Main Federal 
Building in Lower Manhattan, as well as a plot to bomb the subway 
system. The plot was foiled at the last minute by New York City police 
officers who broke down the door of two individuals who were putting 
finishing touches on the device.
  Since then major media outlets in New York City were the subject of 
anthrax attacks. In February of 2003 a seasoned al Qaeda operative 
named Iyman Faris was in New York City on a mission to destroy the 
Brooklyn Bridge. Faris fought alongside bin Laden, engaged in a battle 
which included the wholesale slaughter of Russian prisoners and helped 
supply al Qaeda fighters more recently with sleeping bags, airline 
tickets, cash and cell phones.
  Nearly 2 years after the destruction of the Trade Center, Faris was 
in New York City conducting surveillance on the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris 
reported back to his handlers that ``the weather is too hot,'' meaning 
that security was too tight for the plot to succeed. He was deterred 
this time.
  New York City nevertheless remains a prime al Qaeda target.
  Most recently, just before the 2004 Republican National Convention in 
New York City, two suspected terrorists were arrested for yet another 
plot to destroy the subway system, this time near Herald Square in 
midtown Manhattan.
  I think it is in our national interest to move this process forward 
to a point that just makes sense. It is one thing for Congress to come 
together and compromise how much of the funding is distributed among 
the States and towns and villages and cities across the country, for 
example, agricultural funding or funding for our national security; but 
when it comes to the lives of the American people and the millions of 
people who come to our shores annually, it is responsible and above all 
it is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is just common sense to 
send the money where it is needed the most. That is what this bill 
seeks to do.

                          ____________________