Congressional Budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2005

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. The Senator from Connecticut serves as the ranking member on the Committee on Governmental Affairs, which I am privileged to chair.

We have worked very hard together on the issue of homeland security and have held many hearings during the past year to evaluate the progress that the new Department is making. But I believe the Senator's amendment is ill advised.

I strongly support increased funding to help secure our communities, but we must target those additional resources to programs that address our greatest vulnerabilities, from our ports to our borders to even our farms. We must also make sure each and every State builds and maintains a baseline level of homeland security preparedness and response capability.

The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut would increase funding for many State and local homeland security programs by more than $7 billion over the President's budget request. That is simply not responsible in this fiscal climate.

I also fear if we pour that amount of additional money into the system, it will not be well and carefully spent.

Many of us met this past week with municipal officials from our home States. I heard from my municipal officials in Maine that they are spending the homeland security money that we are giving them very wisely to improve their training, to perform joint exercises, and to purchase new equipment.

Since September 11, according to Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge, Congress has appropriated some $13 billion in
homeland security assistance for first responders, States, localities, and other entities. This year, the President will allocate an additional $3 billion through the Office of Domestic Preparedness for many of these programs.

I do believe we need to provide additional funding in some areas-port security, for example, and the basic homeland security grant program-to continue to build that baseline capacity and also to address one of our biggest vulnerabilities, and that is the vulnerability of our seaports. But I believe Senator Lieberman's amendment does not target resources in the most effective manner.

Let me give a couple of examples. The Lieberman amendment provides $600 million for new biosecurity spending. The administration's budget also includes more than $100 million for a new biosurveillance initiative and makes more than $2.5 billion available in fiscal year 2005 for bioshield. I simply do not believe the additional funding that is contained in Senator Lieberman's amendment is required, given the substantial investment the President's budget already makes in biosecurity.

Again, I hope to be offering either a joint or my own version of a homeland security amendment later in the budget debate. I believe the proposal I will be putting forward better balances the need for fiscal restraint as we work to improve the security of our homeland.

I urge that the Lieberman amendment be rejected.