Harriet Hageman

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I think that my colleague on the other side of the aisle just confirmed why this amendment is necessary and why the REINS Act is so important. What I believe I heard him say is that because it is difficult for the administration to determine what the cost of these regulations are, they shouldn't have to make any determination at all and there should be no oversight whatsoever, either from OIRA or OMB, because it is just too doggone difficult to figure out how much these regulations are going to cost. Frankly, I find that argument absolutely and complete absurd. We are talking about tax money. We are talking about a cost and expense that is being imposed against our small businesses, our mom-and-pop businesses, against our industry groups. What the gentleman from the other side is saying is that nobody, including this administration, should ever have to disclose what the cost of those regulations are. That is exactly the reason as to why we need a robust review by OIRA as provided for in this amendment. Mr. Chair, in closing, I do think it is clear that it is important to make this technical change for the REINS Act. It is important that we have an understanding as to what the cost of these regulations will be. The very purpose of the REINS Act is to ensure that Congress is part of the legislative process for any regulation that would have an economic impact of over $100 million. Without a robust review by OIRA, it is not possible to determine which of these regulations, in fact, would fit within that category. It is for that reason that I request the adoption of this amendment. It is a good one for the REINS Act, and it ensures that we close an important loophole to make sure that it is the Congress that is legislating and not the executive branch and unelected bureaucrats. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, this amendment is simply an attempt to delay implementation of a bill that the Democrats do not support. If the Democrats don't like the bill, they can vote against it. Even if implementation was delayed a year, it is unclear what, if any, value a study could provide. However, during that year, agencies would continue issuing more and more major rules at the expense of the American public. It is time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional role as the body that makes policy in this country. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I just have a couple of points. One is that the REINS Act has enjoyed longstanding, bipartisan support. In fact, the House passed prior versions of the REINS Act with bipartisan support in each one of the 115th, 114th, 113th, and 112th Congresses. In other words, this is an act that has been studied and discussed extensively over the years, and there is no reason for a 1- year delay in its implementation once the bill passes. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, this amendment undermines the purpose of the REINS Act. The REINS Act rejects a standard of legislative disapproval concerning major rules. Instead, the REINS Act creates a standard of legislative approval for major rules. The fact is that in listening to my colleagues on the other side, it is very clear that they simply do not want to legislate. They want to turn over that authority to the executive branch in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. We don't believe in doing that. The fact is that the administrative state has enacted unpopular and unwise regulations that could never pass Congress, and that is why President Biden and his predecessors have sought to legislate through regulation versus our constitutional process. If Congress does not approve a major rule, it should not go into effect. This amendment would leave the status quo in place. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close. Again, this is just one more effort to try to undermine the very purpose of the REINS Act and make it so that it would not work as it is intended to work. It is this body's responsibility to legislate, not the executive branch, not unelected bureaucrats, and not administrative agencies. We are the ones who represent the people of this country and are accountable to them through the decisions that we make. Madam Chair, I urge the opposition to this amendment as it would undermine the very purpose of the REINS Act and is unnecessary, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I think this amendment perhaps defines the incredible contrast between this side of the aisle and the folks on the other side of the aisle. I believe that $100 million is an astronomical amount of money, and they don't see that it is all that much. I don't believe that unelected bureaucrats in agencies ought to be making decisions that have impacts on our businesses of over $100 million without any legislative oversight, and they think that $1 billion is pretty low. I think that that really epitomizes the difference in our philosophy, how we view government, and how we view our responsibilities. Under no circumstance should unelected bureaucrats in agencies be imposing hidden taxes against the people of this country without the accountability of the legislative branch being involved in the decision. I believe $100 million is too high and $1 billion is absolutely absurd. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Again, Madam Chair, I am going to say I think that this is clearly an effort to abdicate our responsibilities to legislate. As far as protecting our air and water, I point out that the EPA is responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters in the history of the United States of America when it blew out the Gold King Mine and turned the Animus River yellow several years ago in southwestern Colorado. So while they want to turn over the responsibility of governing in this country to unelected bureaucrats in agencies that cause those kinds of disasters, I am unwilling to do so. I believe that this body ought to be accountable to the people and in making the decisions that have an economic impact of $100 million on their lives. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Energy poverty is this administration's goal. I will repeat that. Their policies are actually designed to increase the cost of food, energy, and housing, and their effort to ban gas stoves is just one more step in that direction. Vote to end this madness. Support passage of the STOVE Act.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, it is the height of insanity that Congress must pass legislation to keep unelected agency bureaucrats from taking away our ability and right to use gas stoves, which would surely be followed by cutting off gas to our homes completely. In fact, that is ultimately the plan. H.R. 1640, however, will protect our right to make dinner for our families without Big Government forcing their subpar cooking mandates on the American public. We are a free people after all--or at least we used to be. This bill will stop the Biden administration from intentionally increasing the cost of cooking and energy and will prevent this absurd government overreach from taking away even more of our rights. Natural gas stoves are the preferred cooktop of almost 40 percent of households in our country used by nearly 187 million people. They are more efficient and three times cheaper than their electric counterparts, so, of course, this administration would want to ban them. Look, energy poverty is not just an esoteric concept. It is this administration's goal.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, the power of the administrative state to impose radical and unpopular policies that could never be passed by Congress violates the separation of powers established by the Constitution and is a failed business model for running this country. Section 1 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants all legislative powers to Congress. Over time, however, Congress has excessively delegated its constitutional charge while failing to conduct appropriate oversight and retain accountability for the content of the laws it passes. The REINS Act is critical to Congress reclaiming its rightful authority and responsibility to legislate. The purpose of this act is to increase accountability for and transparency in the Federal regulatory process. By requiring a vote in Congress, the REINS Act will result in more carefully drafted and detailed legislation, an improved regulatory process, and a legislative branch that is truly accountable to the American people. The REINS Act is drafted to address what is often referred to as the nondelegation doctrine, which is a judicially created concept that has resulted in a dramatic shift in power from the legislative branch to the executive branch and is flatout unconstitutional. It is what has allowed regulatory agencies to adopt regulations and even guidance documents that may impose economic costs of billions of dollars on certain industries and businesses and ultimately on the American people without any congressional oversight or involvement at all. As an example, a few years ago, the USDA issued guidance requiring cattle to have radiofrequency ID ear tags for tracking purposes. This would have imposed a $2 billion cost on the cattle industry, yet the ranchers had no input and Congress never passed such a law. The current state of affairs has empowered unelected bureaucrats to legislate without any accountability whatsoever while allowing Members of Congress, your elected Representatives, to abdicate their most important constitutional responsibility, the responsibility to write the laws. The REINS Act requires Congress to affirmatively approve agency rules with an annual economic effect of $100 million before they become effective. Prior legislative attempts to rein in the administrative state have been insufficient. The result is that the administrative state has continued unabated, imposing unwanted, unwise, unlawful, and unconstitutional policies with impunity. What do I mean? In 2021, Congress passed just 143 laws, while Federal agencies issued 3,257 rules. The REINS Act would require affirmative congressional approval of major agency rules before they take effect. It does nothing more than require Congress to do as our Founding Fathers expected, to legislate, and it promotes electoral accountability. I cannot fathom why anyone would oppose such accountability and course-correcting of this legislative ship. Please put America and your constituents first. Please hold Congress accountable for legislating, and please vote ``yes'' on the REINS Act.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, this week the Endangered Species Act turns 50. It is an act that was initially created to ensure the health of fish, wildlife, and vegetation and to protect species that are either threatened or endangered as defined by the act. The fact is that the Endangered Species Act would and could work if it were implemented as intended--to recover actually threatened or endangered species. It has instead become a business in and of itself, with an entire economy built around endless studies, monitoring, fieldwork, and lawsuits. Bureaucrats spend their entire careers trying to prevent species from being delisted--as to keep them on the list ensures job security. The Endangered Species Act has had profound impacts on my State of Wyoming by limiting economic development and restricting the implementation of reasonable and effective land, water, and resource management and use. It doesn't have to be that way. Under the ESA, once the recovery goals for a species have been met, the species should be delisted. That, however, is not what happens. Instead, and regardless of the actual status of the species, it can take decades to delist a recovered species. The Canadian gray wolves are a classic example. They were introduced into Yellowstone National Park in 1995 with a recovery goal for the greater Yellowstone area being 100 wolves. We met that goal in 2002. It then took multiple lawsuits and 15 years to have them actually delisted, which finally happened in 2017, as ordered by the circuit court of appeals. The environmental groups fought against delisting, despite the fact that Wyoming's wolf management plan was approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service and has since proven successful in maintaining the wolf population well in excess of recovery goals. The Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear is another example. The State of Wyoming has spent over $59 million on recovery and has an excellent management plan in place to ensure a recovered population will continue to be protected. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the grizzly population has exceeded recovery goals for the past 20 years. Yet, again, environmental groups have been able to keep the grizzly bear listed through petitioning activist judges to intervene. The proliferation of bears in Wyoming is so great that they now pose a serious and deadly threat to people, livestock, and other wildlife in my State. I am thankful to my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee for their support on H.R. 1245, my legislation to delist the Greater Yellowstone population of grizzly bears, and I look forward to passing it out of the House soon. By continuing to spend limited resources on recovered populations of species, we are deflecting resources from where they should be focused. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. In short, as implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and as enforced by activist courts, success is not in recovering a legitimately threatened or endangered species but in ensuring that a recovered species, no matter how robust in number, range, and health, is never delisted. A related problem is the fact that critical habitat designations are not designed to protect a particular species but to encompass as much area as possible so that the Federal Government and environmental groups can control ever-expanding swaths of land and water. The incentives under the ESA are the exact opposite of what they would actually be if species recovery rather than control were the actual goal. The ESA has largely become a mechanism by which environmental groups have weaponized the Federal Government and courts to impose restrictions on the use of private property and limit our ability to use our energy and water resources while also receiving massive Federal subsidies through sue and settle actions. This 50th anniversary of the ESA should be a time to reevaluate and refocus efforts on what the act was originally intended to do. We cannot continue to allow activist courts or agency bureaucrats to block sound species management or infringe on property rights any longer. We must do better. We can do better, and I challenge this body to pursue ESA reform to focus on protecting our beautiful fisheries, wildlife, flora, and fauna.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, serving the community can take on many different forms, whether picking up trash in one's neighborhood or assisting individuals in need. However, Rene Suzzette Kemper is someone who decided to dedicate her entire life to the service of others. Rene was born and raised on a ranch just outside Cheyenne. At a young age, Rene enjoyed spending time outdoors with the various animals that frequented her family's ranch, including her lifelong favorites, the family's cats. Growing up, her love for writing and limitless imagination would later inspire her to attend the University of Wyoming and graduate with a teaching degree in English studies. Shortly after graduation, Rene moved to Douglas where she pursued her passion for service by working and later serving as director for Youth Development Services in Douglas, Wyoming. Rene later had the privilege to serve as mayor of the community she so dearly loved. During her tenure, she touched the hearts of everyone around her. Rene tragically passed away after a long, courageous battle with cancer on March 2, 2023. Though she is not physically with us anymore, her work, compassion, humor, and tireless service remain steadfast in both the town of Douglas and the hearts and minds of everyone who knew her. It is my hope that we all look to Rene's story for inspiration and leadership so that we may carry on her legacy by positively impacting all our communities.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis at our southern border. It is a crisis that started in earnest on the day this President was sworn into office. On day one of his Presidency, he began issuing executive orders to end the successful policies implemented by the Trump administration. In total, President Biden issued 94 executive orders related to the border within his first 100 days in office. The results have been disastrous. Over 10 times the population of my home State of Wyoming has illegally crossed the border since Joe Biden has been President. At the same time, over 14,000 pounds of fentanyl have come across the Southwest border--enough to kill over 3.1 billion people. Through the first 6 months of 2023, 80 people who appeared on the terrorist watch list have been caught trying to cross into the United States--more than the last 5 years combined. How many slipped through? We don't know. These numbers show that without a doubt, Joe Biden has enabled the largest drug smuggling and human trafficking operation in U.S. history, and he has made our country less safe in the process. Stopping illegal immigration is the number one issue for my constituents in Wyoming. We must fix the situation, and H.R. 2 does just that. It is time to finish the wall, end catch and release, protect women and children from human traffickers, stop the illegal drugs flowing into the country, fix our broken asylum process, and force this administration to finally address the disaster that they have created.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and legacy of Nathan Leikip, a Wyomingite who bravely defended this country and touched the hearts of all of those around him. Upon graduation from Sheridan High School, Nathan enlisted in the U.S. Navy, serving honorably for 4 years. Following the tragic attacks on 9/11, compelled by his devotion to service and love of his Nation, Nathan returned to Active Duty in the Army, completing multiple deployments in Iraq. During his combat deployments, Nathan was twice wounded from attacks on his convoy and received two Purple Hearts and the Army Commendation Medal with Combat V. Following his military service, Nathan continued to serve others as a sheriff's deputy in Bayfield, Colorado, for many years. Tragically, Nathan took his own life after a long, hard-fought battle with PTSD and other sustained injuries from his service. Nathan was a child of God and a patriot who will not be forgotten. His leadership, compassion, and desire to help others will be forever remembered by his community and should serve as a model for all Americans each and every day. To Nathan's family, I offer my sincere prayers in this difficult time of mourning, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in remembering the life of Nathan Leikip, honoring his service to our Nation, and standing with his family in these difficult times.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will start by stating the obvious fact that it seems astonishing to even have to state: Men and women are biologically different and just by a boy calling himself a girl, it doesn't make it so. It is amazing but telling that the same people who scolded us about following the science during COVID have attempted to do anything but follow actual science when it comes to men and boys in women's sports. Boys shouldn't be dunking on girls during a high school basketball game or hitting home runs in a girls' softball game. No sane person can argue that men and women do not have different physical characteristics, strength, and speed. There is a reason why girls and boys have different sports teams. I played sports in high school, and I am sure glad that we weren't as lost as a society as what we seem to be today. What has gone so horribly wrong in our society where those of us who are not okay with our daughters and granddaughters sharing a locker room or a bathroom with boys are the ones that are considered to be crazy by the liberal elites, sports leagues, and woke corporations.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1. America must have accessible and affordable energy. Coal, oil and gas, and uranium are three of the most important resources we have to meet our demands. These resources are needed now and will be needed for generations to come, with demand only increasing over time. The key question that we must address, then, is who is going to be producing our energy? Our fellow Americans, using our very own resources here? Or foreign and often hostile countries? For the Republicans, the correct answer is obvious. For the Biden administration and Democrats, however, the answer lies not in using our own abundant energy resources and controlling our own destiny but in offshoring energy and mineral production to Third World and dictatorial countries that care nothing about protecting the environment. The Biden administration and our friends across the aisle prefer to rely on coal from China and oil and gas from Russia, Iran, Venezuela-- anywhere but here. Their preferred energy policy is one that empowers and enriches dictators, despots, and tyrants; one that destroys our access to and use of safe, clean, and reliable energy that is found right here in America; and one that is designed to increase the cost and decrease the availability of the very building blocks of a civilized society, including food, housing, concrete, fertilizer, transportation, and manufacturing. Their preferred energy policy is one that establishes energy poverty as the cornerstone of our society, where blackouts, intermittent power, and Third World conditions define our day-to-day existence. In reality, the Democrats are reading from a fairytale, one in which we are allegedly going to be carbon-free by 2030, or perhaps it is 2035, or maybe we should look to 2050. The only thing that the American people need to understand is that whatever the magical year is, it is beyond a point in time when they are no longer in power.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Their promise of outlawing gas stoves, air-conditioners that work, and the internal combustion engine and other technologies that make our lives better is beyond their expiration date as politicians. How so very convenient. The House Republicans are ready to fight for American citizens and ensure that we have clean and abundant energy, and I rise in support of and support H.R. 1.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the House resolution. As a water attorney and a natural resource attorney, I have fought for over 25 years to protect water and property rights and to stop the unlawful rules enacted by our Federal Government. In Congress I am continuing that fight. The Feds have far exceeded their authority under the Clean Water Act and have expanded on the scope and intent of the original law by redefining what is a navigable water of the United States. This rescinds the recent changes made under the Trump administration that actually carried out the intent of the Clean Water Act, and the increasing regulation of both land and waters must be stopped. In many instances, these new and punitive regulations are a de facto taking of private property. Wyoming farmers, ranchers, builders, energy producers, and small business owners, among others across the State, would suffer significantly if these changes to the navigable waters of the United States definition were enacted. This is just one more example of an out-of-control and unelected Washington bureaucracy intruding into our personal lives and seeking to destroy our property rights. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's disapproval vote and protect Americans from the ridiculous government overreach these WOTUS revisions would enable.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about yet another instance of the insanity of wokeism that is permeating our society, ruining our culture, and destroying our ability to govern. This scourge has infiltrated academia, the media, and our corporate boardrooms, and it is now taking over our government functions, all on the backs of our taxpayers, those very taxpayers who recognize this nonsense for what it is and who are being plucked clean by an elitist cabal of eco-warriors who are paid to destroy the very standard of living that allows them to focus on made-up crises rather than to do the job for which they were hired. Of what do I speak? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has now begun offering eco-grief training for its employees. Yes, you heard me correctly. Eco-grief, a made-up condition that provides an opportunity for our oh-so-delicate employees who are allegedly struggling with a sense of trauma as they witness what they claim is a changing environment. It is one thing for a private company to waste its own money, but it is not okay for the Federal Government to misappropriate our money to further a political agenda that is intended to increase the cost of putting food on your table, a roof over your head, and gas in your car. It is our money that is being used for environmental activism instead of paying down some of our nearly $32 trillion in debt. It is our money that is being used to convince people that the United States is evil, despite the fact that we have lifted more people out of poverty, provided a better standard of living, and provided more opportunities for more people than any other country in the history of mankind while at the same time using and managing our natural resources in a way that protects our environment and our sovereignty. Eco-grief is admittedly a smaller budget item than many other woke programs. That, however, is no reason to ignore what it portends, as it is just the latest made-up malady and another part of a larger scale assault on both common sense and American energy. Biden's administration has gone to war on our energy industries by blocking the extraction, development, transport, and use of our abundant and clean fossil fuels--in other words, those energy resources that actually work, such as coal, oil and gas, and uranium. They seek to make us energy paupers, thereby forcing the United States to beg other countries for the resources that we need to power this country and our economy. Permitting is now longer, more complicated, more expensive, and designed to limit new energy development and production throughout every step of the process. Oil and gas leases have declined by 97 percent compared to this point in Donald Trump's Presidency. Despite Biden irresponsibly tapping into our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, gas prices remain stubbornly high, and natural gas, a major source of home heating for half of America, is expected to increase by 25 percent. Coal provides a quarter of America's energy. It is critical to manufacturing and is vital to not only my State of Wyoming but to anyone who wants to ensure access to clean and affordable energy. It is under constant attack by the ever-increasing and more restrictive rules issued from on high by the unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Who suffers? The citizens of this country, with the poorest among us suffering the most. I believe that there truly is a special place in hell for people who adopt policies that are designed to create energy poverty, a situation where families must choose between buying food, heating their homes, or putting gas in their cars. This will be one of Biden's lasting legacies, shared misery for everyone except the liberal elite. Quite simply, we cannot afford the woke energy agenda being pursued by President Biden, and we sure as heck can't indulge in the latest made-up condition of eco-grief. While it may seem that we are in a hopeless situation with a nonstop cycle of bad policies coming out of D.C., we cannot give up. With Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives, we must pass legislation to claw back power from the administrative state, and I am filing multiple bills to do just that. Ultimately, the solution is in producing our affordable and plentiful American energy, but we cannot wait for 2 more years. Our citizens need relief now. I hope that everyone in this Chamber will join me in fighting against Biden's war on energy. We must call out the nonsense and remind these unelected bureaucrats who they actually work for--the American citizens who have no interest in paying for their counseling. For our friends at the Fish and Wildlife Service who may be watching this speech, you may want to take that eco-grief seminar now, before we legislate it out of existence.