News
March 4, 2020
Statement
"The current state of housing in America should force us to ask tough questions about our national priorities. Unfortunately, this budget proposal would make our affordable housing crisis even worse."
Issues:
March 4, 2020
Statement
"The only way to make the President’s budget work is to get a cap adjustment for the MISSION Act. We have bipartisan, bicameral agreement on the need for a budget cap adjustment for the MISSION Act. Last year, MISSION Act cost $8.9 billion, this year it will cost $11.6 billion, and the costs will continue to rise in future years. Unfortunately, the Administration has adamantly refused to make this vital accommodation, and so I once again urge you, Mr. Secretary, to make this case to the White House and OMB."
Issues:
March 4, 2020
Statement
"To propose investing $2 billion for the wall while cutting $3.3 billion from the National Institutes of Health exposes the Trump Administration priorities for what they are: political rhetoric over public health."
Issues:
March 4, 2020
Statement
"While I’m pleased that the request includes a substantial increase for the IRS, I am disappointed that it also continues to request funds outside of the discretionary budget caps, despite it not being included in the budget agreement reached late last year. In addition to zeroing out CDFI grants, the budget cuts funding for the Special Inspector General for TARP by 20 percent—despite the continued obligation of billions of dollars for TARP programs that will continue into 2023."
Issues:
March 4, 2020
Statement
"I am proud that the Congress has increased NIH funding by $11.6 billion, or 39 percent, over the past five years. Last year alone, the Congress provided an additional $2.6 billion increase over the fiscal year 2019 level for NIH. Unfortunately, the President’s budget would reverse this progress. The budget proposes to cut NIH funding by $3.3 billion, or 7.9 percent below the fiscal year 2020 level. This would result in NIH making nearly 1,800 fewer new grants to researchers, a reduction of 16 percent. This subcommittee will not be pursuing these cuts. I intend to move forward with continued, increased investments in NIH, to build off of the progress made in recent years."
Issues:
March 4, 2020
Statement
"For fiscal year 2021, the president requests $6.66 billion for EPA, a 27% cut below the FY 2020 enacted level of $9.06 billion. This request seeks to undo all the progress we were able to achieve on a broad, bipartisan basis in FY 2020. For example, the request eliminates the $39 million in new funding we provided EPA to address PFAS. The request would gut climate and clean air funding and grants by 47%, a $409 million cut below the FY 2020 level. The request also slashes $870 million from the $3 billion we invested in the FY 2020 bill to rebuild our nation’s crumbling water infrastructure."
Issues:
March 3, 2020
Statement
"This Subcommittee has provided the Reserve Component with significant resources through the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account – an appropriation which is not included in the President’s Budget Request, as well as additional funding for counter-drug operations, Humvee modernization, helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, and more."
Issues:
March 3, 2020
Statement
"Looking toward fiscal year 2021, however, the Trump Administration again proposes to cut DOE’s budget – this time by an astounding 35 percent in non-defense programs. This will limit America’s future opportunities by drastically reducing or eliminating programs critical for meeting our future energy needs and assuring our security."
Issues:
March 3, 2020
Statement
"The fiscal year 2021 budget request for the House of Representatives is $1.5 billion, which is $165 million over the FY 2020 enacted level. This request will allow us, Members, an opportunity to retain and hire the best and brightest. The work we do here is important, and it requires a certain set of skills to negotiate legislation that will move our country forward."
Issues:
March 3, 2020
Statement
"Many of the problems experienced by military families appear to be products of poor management by private partners and insufficient or ineffective oversight by military services. Many military families have complained about the maintenance support they have received from the partners."
Issues: