Congressional Budget for the United States Government for the Fiscal Year 2006

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (Senate - March 16, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

A sound energy policy is critical to our Nation's security. The United States is currently 57.8 percent dependent on foreign oil. By 2025, this number is expected to rise to 68 percent. At that time, more than 66 percent of our imports will come from OPEC nations, a prospect that causes great concern.

In light of these statistics, what course should the United States take? Should we open ANWR, using up what well may be the last major U.S. reserve of oil or should we pursue alternative approaches that will encourage conservation and the development of alternative technologies?

Instead of rushing to deplete our last major oil reserves, I believe we should develop energy efficiency and alternative technologies. Doing so will not only make more of an immediate difference than drilling in the Arctic, but also will ensure we leave our children with ample energy supplies and a broader array of energy options.

President Teddy Roosevelt once stated: ``I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use our natural resources, but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.'' That is sound counsel.

Americans have a right to develop our energy resources, but not to waste them. We could do far more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by increasing the efficiency of our automobiles, which would save one million barrels of oil a day. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today would be akin to wasting resources that should rightfully be there for future generations. We must embrace an ethic of stewardship of our most treasured national resources.

According to one scientist who testified before the Senate Government Affairs Committee several years ago, the United States could cut reliance on foreign oil by more than 50 percent by increasing energy efficiency by 2.2 percent per year. This is a much greater benefit than drilling in ANWR would provide, and the benefits could start almost immediately. The United States has a tremendous record of increasing energy efficiency when we put our minds to it: Following the 1979 OPEC energy shock, the United States increased its energy efficiency by 3.2 percent per year for several years. With today's improvements in technology, 2.2 percent is attainable.

America needs to both increase fuel supplies and decrease demand, but in our effort to meet current energy needs we should not use up our last major reserves. If we increase energy efficiency and further develop alternative energy sources, we will reduce our reliance on foreign oil, save consumers money, increase our economic competitiveness and military effectiveness, and protect the environment.

In his parting words from the Oval Office, President Dwight Eisenhower--who first set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--told the Nation: ``As we peer into society's future, we . . . must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.''

I call upon my colleagues to leave intact the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Let us instead develop a balanced energy policy that protects our environment, improves efficiency, and develops our renewable resources.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague from Connecticut in offering an amendment to restore funding for the Department of Homeland Security's first responder programs to increase security at our country's borders and to better secure our Nation's seaports.

The administration's budget, unfortunately, would impose severe reductions in grant funding for our first responders, those who are on the front lines in the war on terrorism.

Our amendment restores funding by adding a total of $855 million for Homeland Security funding. This includes $565 million for State Homeland Security programs that support our first responders, $150 million for port security grants, and $140 million to hire 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents.

Our amendment does not provide excessive funding. In fact, it is modest in scope. It would simply restore funding to last year's levels for Homeland Security grant programs such as State Homeland Security grants, the Fire Grant Program, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program.

The amendment will ensure at least the same amount of funding for our Nation's ports as last year, and it takes a modest first step toward increasing the number of border patrol agents as authorized by the Collins-Lieberman Intelligence Reform Act. I note that bill authorized the hiring of 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents. Our amendment authorizes the hiring of only 1,000 additional agents. I note that other Senators this evening, including the soon to be Presiding Officer, have also expressed the support for increasing the number of Border Patrol agents.

This amendment is also offset by reductions in the allowances account, so it will not increase the deficit.

It is a responsible amendment. As we set priorities through this budget resolution, we are faced with many worthy and competing needs and programs. But surely along with national defense improving the security of our homeland must be a priority, and that means providing adequate assistance to those who are on the front lines: Our firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel, State and local law enforcement, and emergency managers.

Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge perhaps put it best when he said that Homeland Security starts with hometown security. Improving our preparedness is an investment that we must make to strengthen our ability to prevent, detect, and respond if required to terrorist attacks. After all, if the worst happens and we are subject to another attack from terrorists, our citizens are not going to dial the Washington, DC area code. They are going to pick up their phones and dial 9-1-1.

We should always remember who is first on the scene when disaster strikes. We have an obligation to help our first responders be prepared--as well prepared as we can be--because that strengthens the preparedness of our Nation.

Again, this is a modest amendment. There have been other proposals to increase Homeland Security grant funding by billions of dollars.

I recognize we have to strike a balance, that we are operating in an environment of severe budget constraints. That is why Senator Lieberman and I have joined forces to propose what truly is a modest amendment, to simply restore funding to last year's levels.

I think it is the least we can do. I do expect the Senator from Connecticut to be here shortly. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Thank you, Mr. President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. We are ready to rebut anything that might be said in opposition. But if there were no one speaking in opposition, I would be happy to conclude my remarks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could just make a couple of comments in response to the Senator from New Hampshire. I will be very quick because I know the Senator from Louisiana has been waiting.

It will be up to the Appropriations Committee to decide how to allocate the cuts that we are proposing in the allowances account. It would not necessarily cut across the board equally. In fact, almost certainly it would not, because the Appropriations Committee will set priorities.

The second point that I want to make has to do with the number of border agents proposed in our amendment. I think that it demonstrates how modest the amendment is that the Senator from Connecticut and I have offered. After all, even though our legislation, the intelligence reform bill, authorized 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents, because we recognized the constraints of the budget we have proposed only going halfway toward that goal, and that is why we chose to authorize just 1,000 additional border agents. It is in recognition of the budget constraints under which we are operating.

So I think the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee actually helps make the point of how reasonable our approach is, that we chose to go for a more modest number than the previous amendment that was debated this evening.

Furthermore, I point out that that amendment, to the best of my knowledge, was not accepted this evening. It is still a pending amendment.

So this is about setting priorities, and surely we can provide funding just equal to last year's--we are not even proposing an inflation increase--to ensure that we continue to strengthen the preparedness of this Nation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov