Susan Collins: “One reason our amendment bridges the small State-big State divide is that unlike the alternative amendment, the…”

“One reason our amendment bridges the small State-big State divide is that unlike the alternative amendment, the underlying bill, or current law, our amendment breaks away from a one-size-fits- all approach by establishing this sliding scale minimum allocation. Does a more populous State require more funds to achieve adequate levels of preparedness and prevention? The answer is yes, which is why the 19 most populous and densely populated States would get a higher baseline allocation than the .55 percent that other States would achieve. That includes the State of New Jersey, I would note, which receives considerably more. Second, the underlying bill is not a middle point between the amendment that Senator Lieberman and I have offered and the Feinstein- Cornyn amendment. In fact, the underlying bill in our amendment includes substantially the same type of baseline allocation for most States. The difference is that under our amendment, the 19 most populous and densely populated States would receive a greater baseline allocation. If you take into account the sliding scale minimum, which neither of my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken into account when they look at our bill, our amendment and the underlying bill allocates substantially the same amount of funds based on risk. When we talk about the significance of preventing the next terrorist attack, it is important to note that terrorists have been proven to use staging areas away from the most obvious targets.…”