Simpson Remarks at FY25 Budget Request For The Environmental Protection Agency (As Prepared)

The hearing will come to order. We are here to discuss the President’s budget proposal for the EPA for FY 25.

As a lifelong Idahoan, I care about protecting and preserving our land and water resources to guarantee their long-term sustainability.

But there also needs to be an appropriate balance between protecting our environment and promoting economic growth.

Unfortunately, I fear that this EPA – with its rush to regulate – is making it harder for industry to thrive here at home and threatening the reliability of the electric grid. Just last week, EPA finalized four power plant rules that severely threaten affordable, reliable power in this country.

When I am home in Idaho, I often hear from farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and many others who are concerned about their very existence given the growing cost to comply with EPA regulations.

Of particular interest and relevance to my district is the Waters of the U.S. Rule, which the Supreme Court ruled was too broad. I will cover this and other EPA regulations during my questions, but I will just point out the clear over-reach of the Administration on some of these regulations.

The President’s FY 25 budget request totals just under $11 billion. The Fiscal Responsibility Act forced the Agency to reduce its budget request by $1 billion compared to last year’s request, but I am still astounded by the proposed increase of over 2,000 FTE, which is more FTE than what was proposed in last year’s budget request.

This is a glaring sign of the Agency’s priorities. Compared to last year’s request, when the Agency is forced to request less, it chooses to take hits to programs that go directly to our States and Tribes.

But even still, the FY 25 request of $10.99 billion is $1.8 billion, or 20 percent, above the enacted level. If enacted, this would be the highest level of funding for EPA in history.

And not included in this request is the more than $100 billion EPA received from several large spending packages outside of the annual appropriations process. Already, the agency has hired an additional 1,200 FTE using this supplemental funding. But this money is temporary, not permanent. I am concerned that the agency is going to be pinning Congress with a hiring cliff down the road.

Lastly, it’s concerning that the budget proposes to reduce or eliminate many bipartisan and popular programs, and grants that go directly to States, Tribes, and local governments.

I know many of my colleagues have questions for you today. We are ready to have tough conversations about how best to spend our limited federal resources to ensure our natural resources are protected and preserved while still promoting economic development and job creation.

Thank you, Administrator Regan, for being here today to have this discussion with us. Now, I’d like to yield to Ranking Member Pingree for her opening statement.