Financial Services and General Government

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4502, a package of seven fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills that will be considered by the House this week.

I wish the circumstances were different and I could support this important piece of legislation that funds critical programs.

Unfortunately, after months of committee hearings and markups, this year's bills have too many fatal flaws.

First, there is no agreement between Republicans and Democrats on the topline spending level for appropriations.

Second, there is no bipartisan agreement on the funding level for each individual bill. To put it simply, non-defense spending is too high and defense spending is too low.

Third, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have included the most alarming policy changes I have ever seen.

Thank you, Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole, for allowing me to testify on H.R. 4502, a package of seven fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills.

I wish the circumstances were different and I were here speaking in favor of this important piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, there is not bipartisan support, so I am here to ask the Rules Committee to allow amendments to H.R. 4502, so that it can be improved.

I want to begin by acknowledging the tireless efforts of our full committee chair, Ms. DeLauro, and the subcommittee chairs and ranking members who will be testifying today.

In addition to having a rigorous hearing schedule, in just ten days we held twenty-four markups. It is quite an accomplishment to be sitting before you with all of our bills reported out of committee.

Madam Chair, thank you for yielding.

The revised spending allocations presented today contain only technical corrections to the initial allocations, which were adopted on a party-line vote two weeks ago.

Because there are no substantive changes from the initial allocations, I must once again oppose them.

They do not change the topline spending levels for any of the subcommittee bills – even though Members on my side of the aisle have consistently asked for bipartisan cooperation on funding levels.

These spending levels continue to short-change our national defense, while providing huge increases to domestic programs. Non-defense spending would increase by nearly 17% overall, and some agencies would receive unprecedented 30-40% increases above fiscal year 2021.

Underfunding our national defense while giving such extreme increases to domestic programs is unacceptable to Members on my side of the aisle.

Madam Chair, thank you for yielding.

These spending allocations will increase discretionary spending by hundreds of billions of dollars to an all-time high of $1.5 trillion.

This nearly 9% increase above fiscal year 2021 comes at a time of record-high deficits and debt:

• This month, the national debt reached an astonishing $28.3 trillion.
• In the first 8 months of this fiscal year, we have already borrowed $2.1 trillion.

We must exercise fiscal responsibility and return to reasonable levels of federal spending, now that the pandemic hopefully is nearing an end.

Although these allocations do not show the exact split between defense and non-defense programs, we know the topline is based on the president's budget. Those numbers included an enormous, 17% increase to non-defense programs. At the same time, the president's budget cut defense spending to below inflation.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for yielding.

First, I want to recognize Chairman Quigley and Ranking Member Womack for their work on putting this Financial Services bill together.

In many cases, the bill before us reflects priorities of Members on both sides of the aisle, such as support for small businesses, drug control programs, and counterterrorism and financial intelligence efforts.

However, I am concerned that there are several controversial items included in the bill related to immigration policy, union activities, and school choice for low-income students in the District of Columbia.

It is also disappointing that the bill does not include long-standing pro-life provisions regarding the use of D.C. local funds and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.