Newsroom

The Federal Lands subcommittee meets today to review federal land acquisition policies and their impact on communities and the environment. Last month, this subcommittee received testimony from the government’s land management agencies regarding their 2016 budget requests. All expressed a burning desire to vastly increase their holdings, while admitting to large and growing backlogs of deferred maintenance.

3/25/15 - H. Con. Res. 27 – Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2016: YES. Sadly, the final version of the House Budget as amended on the floor declines to pay for $22.5 billion in additional spending for defense and refugee resettlement that was added to the off-budget war account to satisfy “defense hawks.” Although technically this only affects spending for FY 2016, I fear it implicitly repudiates programmed reductions in 2017, without which the budget may not balance within ten years as called for in the version that passed the House Budget Committee. I addressed this issue in greater detail in my speech to the House of March 24...

Even though I disagree heartily with the budgets advanced by the Progressive Caucus, they do an invaluable service to the budget debate by bringing into sharp relief the two very different visions of governance advanced by the two parties. The Progressive budget is a sincere and bold document. Unfortunately it is also wrong. It would hike taxes by $7 trillion over the next ten years...

The Department of the Interior will generate $13.8 billion next year and consume only $13.1 billion, generating a net of $700 million for U.S. taxpayers. The Department should be a net revenue source. After all, the public lands under its jurisdiction – and under the Department of Agriculture with respect to National Forest land – represent vast resources upon which our economic prosperity depends.