Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

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.

First, I want to recognize Chairwoman Pingree and Ranking Member Joyce for their work on putting this Interior and Environment bill together.

As a result of their efforts, this bill addresses priorities of Members on both sides of the aisle and does many good things for the conservation of our natural resources.

Even though the bill funds many shared priorities, I have concerns about our path forward.

The bill eliminates several long-standing, common-sense provisions that have had bipartisan support for many years.

Instead, the bill includes controversial provisions that would limit domestic energy, timber, and mineral production.

I am also concerned about the level of spending proposed. Numerous agencies in this bill would receive double-digit percentage increases.

The Environmental Protection Agency is one example, and it is funded at an unprecedented level.

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.