Harriet Hageman

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, in pursuing the policy of requiring our Federal employees to work in our Federal offices, I have always been cognizant of the outlier situations whereby someone will need to work remotely. I am not opposed to such flexibility, although that flexibility has now become the rule. I have left untouched the ad hoc telework programs for these various agencies because we never know when an emergency or unexpected situation will arise. Such an unexpected situation, however, should not become the norm, and our employees should be required to report to work. We still have not yet assessed the damage the Federal Government's remote work policy has had on constituent services, congressional oversight, and Federal waste in terms of the unused office buildings and agency officials unaccounted for because they are not being monitored in their official work sites. Even the GAO admits there is not enough information to assess the long-term impacts of remote work policies, including whether it promotes a productive work environment. Mr. Chairman, the policy of this Republican majority has consistently been that COVID is over and Federal workers must come to work, and this amendment aims to deliver on that promise. Unelected agency officials already believe they are unaccountable to Congress and the American people. Remote work further undermines our ability to oversee their activities and to promote providing the very best services that the Federal Government can provide to our citizens. Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in support of my amendment that cuts funding for the Bureau of Land Management by 50 percent. The mission of the BLM is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Unfortunately, the BLM isn't living up to its stated purpose, and it has lost its way. It is becoming harder and harder for each new generation to use and enjoy our public lands because the BLM is locked in on its goal to lock out land users, including recreationists, livestock grazers, and energy producers. Earlier this year, the BLM proposed the so-called landscape health rule, which seeks to replace productive activities under the BLM's multiple-use framework by creating an additional use, so-called conservation leases, a designation never approved by Congress. The current framework already balances conservation with other uses. Creating an entirely new use under the umbrella of conservation is simply a means to eliminate other uses and bar anyone from even setting foot on these lands. Now, I am grateful that this act also includes a section that prevents funding from going toward the implementation of this proposed rule, but that is not enough. We must also address the BLM's overall agenda to lock us out of our Federal lands. My amendment does just that, and I request my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, The BLM has recently launched an attack on 3.6 million acres in Wyoming through its proposed draft Rock Springs Resource Management Plan, or RMP. Through their preferred alternative, they are trying to lock out land users by designating 1.8 million acres as areas of critical environmental concern, which essentially prevents us from accessing and using these lands, particularly as it relates to recreation, livestock grazing, energy production and mineral extraction. The Rock Springs Draft RMP is entirely biased, unscientific, violates FLPMA and NEPA, and is an abuse of BLM's authority. We can mine, we can drill, we can graze, and we can recreate on Federal lands while also conserving our important natural resources and wildlife, and, in fact, we have been doing so for literally decades. Come to Wyoming and see how we have managed these resources. We have a beautiful State, abundant wildlife, clean water, and clean air. We are also one of the largest energy producers in the United States. Conservation and protection go hand-in-hand with grazing and energy development. The BLM's preferred alternative for the Rock Springs RMP does not strike the proper balance between conservation and development. It would ravage Wyoming's and the Nation's economy and ultimately destroy opportunities to use the land in a productive, profitable, and effective way. The BLM has turned into an arm of the radical environmental organizations running this administration, is aggressively exceeding its authorization, and ignoring its very purpose for existence. I encourage adoption of my amendment so that we can begin to right this ship. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, the BLM is attacking not only the State of Wyoming's economy, but the economic well-being and security of every American. It continues to pursue these failed policies that force us to depend on importing our food and our energy, while also stifling competition for companies that operate on public lands. Examples of these aggressive actions include: Leading out on President Biden's war on oil and gas, as well as his war on coal; Crippling conservation efforts by eliminating uses that improve the environment; Preventing local and State and multigenerational input as to what the most appropriate uses and management of land are, while also pursuing policies that impact the value and quality of our property resources; Holding projects on Federal lands hostage to environmental litigation, and then selling out to the demands of environmental groups that are gaining traction in the fight against local control. The BLM has perfected the sue-and-settle model, and all of us are suffering the consequences. There are so many other examples of the BLM attacking the State of Wyoming, as well as the economic well-being of every citizen in the United States. Mr. Chairman, today, my State faces an onslaught of proposals from the Bureau of Land Management and other Federal agencies as they pursue the terribly destructive Green New Deal. Cutting the BLM's budget as proposed in amendment No. 2 is one step forward in addressing those attacks. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, the system that we have with the BLM is no longer sustainable, and most States across the West are struggling as a result. My colleagues in the House and Senate are wholly opposed to reining in the executive state, so I have no choice but to try to slash this agency's budget to try to rein in what they have been doing. The fact is that the Federal Government's ever-growing presence in the West and its adversarial nature to our way of life is undermining our prosperity. In short, the BLM doesn't work for us anymore, it doesn't work for the people of Wyoming, and it doesn't protect our natural resources. It is time that we do something about it, recognize where the problem lies, and slash the budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, today, I rise in support of my amendment, which prohibits the BLM from finalizing its draft Rock Springs resource management plan, the purpose of which is to severely restrict livestock grazing, mining, energy development, recreation, and other activities on 3.6 million acres of land in southwestern Wyoming. The BLM is required to update its resource management plans approximately every 10 years. The Rock Springs field office began the process of updating its own plan in 2011 in accordance with FLPMA. The proposed RMP contains four alternatives for the planning area, including alternative A, which keeps the current management plan in place; the BLM's preferred plan, alternative B, which would have tremendous negative consequences for Wyoming and the Nation as a whole; alternative C, which severely restricts recreational activities; and alternative D, which provides a better balance between various uses but still substantially impacts the activities of key contributors to Wyoming's economy, such as our trona mining and existing oil and gas operations. Contrary to the very purpose of the BLM, it has chosen the most restrictive, the most draconian, and the least scientifically defensible plan--the one that Wyomingites are the most opposed to--as its preference, that being alternative B. In total, under BLM's preferred alternative B, about 2.5 million acres would not be available for new rights-of-way. This would be an increase of more than 480 percent in acreage off-limits to important things like power lines, pipelines, and maintaining roads. The draft RMP restricts the use of vehicles on millions of acres of land, restricts recreation, cuts livestock grazing, destroys our trona industry, and severely restricts our ability to explore for and produce oil, gas, and coal. BLM's alternative B is a nonstarter and will have severe impacts on the economy of not only Wyoming but the Nation. It will impact our food supply. It is for these reasons that I have introduced my amendment to defund the BLM's efforts to finalize or implement the RMP as a whole. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, none of the responses from my colleague on the other side had anything to do with the amendment before us, so I am going to proceed with the statistics related to this particular RMP. The RMP severely restricts vehicle access, including 4,500 miles of routes to all uses, while removing an additional 10,000 miles of routes from the transportation network. This draft RMP designates 1.8 million acres out of 3.6 million acres as areas of critical environmental concern without any congressional input whatsoever. Perhaps what is most disheartening and disturbing and illegal about this RMP is the fact that it has ignored not only stakeholder input over the past 12 years, but the input and analysis undertaken and completed by the BLM personnel in the Rock Springs district's office. The administration has proven time and again that its primary agenda is to push forward with the radical Green New Deal, as we just heard from my colleague on the other side, and that it views the opinions of unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., over the citizens of this country, and that it does not care whether its actions actually work in the real world or cause severe damage. In addition to the fact that alternative B is just plain bad on its face, it was also adopted in violation of FLPMA and NEPA. According to a former BLM engineer who worked in the Rock Springs field office on this very RMP, most of the research and work went into studying and pursuing alternative D. What does that mean? The most controversial alternative, the alternative that the BLM is now seeking to impose on Wyoming, was never adequately evaluated. Alternative C, which includes heavy recreational restrictions, also had little time and little review. The lack of planning and analysis and input related to alternative B exposes the fact that this is a political decision that is not based on the real-life situation in the Rock Springs district, but more related to the idea of blocking any access to our natural resources for the things that we have historically used them for. Mr. Chair, we have historically balanced our energy development, land use recreation, wildlife management, and grazing, and we have done it well. Come to Wyoming. It is a beautiful State. We have been able to balance all of these interests and, in the process, become the largest producer of trona in the United States, raised hundreds of thousands of head of cattle and sheep, and produced massive amounts of coal and oil and gas to power this country, all the while protecting our habitat, our air quality, our water quality, and our very way of life. I am proud of Wyoming producers, ranchers, and recreationists and what they have created, and we cannot allow BLM to destroy it. It was said the other day by a reporter that this BLM RMP takes the public off public lands. I couldn't have said it better. Mr. Chairman, we have seen this kind of thing happen across the interior West, including with the Bears Ears designation in Utah, and others in Colorado and Arizona. We need to put a stop to this effort to block our access, use, and management of our resources. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would prevent any funds from going towards implementing this monstrosity of a plan. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which prevents any funding from being used to finalize or implement the CEQ's ``National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.'' Earlier this year, the CEQ issued interim guidance for agencies to analyze greenhouse gas and climate change effects of their proposed actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. Madam Chair, for decades, radical environmental groups have weaponized NEPA to attack and block natural resources development. They have done so through a variety of techniques, including by colluding with various Federal agencies in sue-and-settle schemes that have poured massive amounts of money into their coffers while doing very little to actually protect the environment or ensure that we can access and use our Federal lands and projects to produce oil and gas, coal, hydropower, and nuclear energy. These are just some of the reasons as to why Republicans in Congress have prioritized the passage of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Cost Act, which is intended to streamline, improve, and expedite the NEPA process while also ensuring that we are protecting our environment. We can do both, and in fact, we have been doing so for decades. I have had multiple constituents reach out to me over the last year seeking assistance in getting various Federal agencies to move important projects along in the process. In one such case, a constituent described being stuck on his fourth and final solicitors review, a do loop that had been going on for literally years. Although they had completed every single task and done every single thing asked of them multiple times, the agency refused to move forward. My staff has since met with the Office of Surface Mining only to be told that there is a queue, as though that is an adequate answer. To date, there has been no movement on this review. This situation represents a failure of the system, and allowing the CEQ to unilaterally impose radical GHG and global warming requirements on these agencies will not make the situation any better. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, we simply have no accountability, no taking of responsibility, and no consequences for these agencies that fail to carry out their responsibilities. What that means in the long term is that there is ultimately no more gas for our cars, oil to heat our homes, or energy to power our First World economy. What is my point? We do not need to add any more roadblocks under NEPA making it even more uncertain and difficult for these agencies to process applications. We don't need any more steps, reviews, analyses, or guidance documents to make NEPA more burdensome to our producers, small businesses, ranchers, and manufacturers. We don't need to make it any more difficult to properly manage our national forests or to maintain our water infrastructure. We have reclamation projects that need to be constructed and maintained. We have forests in dire need of management. We need these things now, not 10 years from now. My amendment defunds the CEQ's and this administration's efforts to use global warming hysteria to further delay such projects that are subject to NEPA. My amendment is also critically important to block CEQ's illegal attempt to avoid compliance with the APA's rulemaking requirements. CEQ doesn't have the authority to issue guidance documents with the force and effect of law, yet that is exactly how this guidance document will be interpreted--as imposing new requirements on project proponents as part of the NEPA review process. We must, therefore, stop CEQ from implementing a so-called guidance document that is, in reality, no such thing. CEQ should be forced to go through the public rulemaking process to adopt such wide-ranging changes to NEPA procedural requirements. The reality is that NEPA was designed to address reasonably foreseeable impacts of a particular project, not to allow agencies to try to guess what temperature it will be a thousand miles away 75 years from now. I read an article a year ago assessing the global warming hysteria that we are living through. This gentleman who wrote the article made an excellent observation that I believe is worth repeating here: ``The notion that government should impoverish actual human beings as a means of promoting the welfare of humanity is a pagan superstition on par with sacrificing individuals to the sun god.'' I couldn't have said it better. We must block the CEQ from pursuing an agenda of impoverishment and government imposed wretchedness. We must no longer tolerate their bowing to the sun god, and we must return common sense and rational thinking to our permitting and NEPA processes. Please join me in supporting my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment which prohibits the implementation and enforcement of the EPA's final rule entitled: Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule. The U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register its revised Clean Water Act Section 401 certification rule on September 27 of this year. This proposal was made in direct response to the 2021 Biden executive order that directed agencies to tackle the so-called climate crisis. This rule applies to 401 certifications, which are water quality certifications issued by State or Tribal authorities that verify compliance with water quality requirements. The CWA allows States a great deal of discretion in reviewing and conditioning 401 certifications to ensure compliance with the CWA and State surface water quality standards. This final rule returns to the broader scope of review that was in place prior to the 2020 rule and requires States and Tribes to evaluate the water-quality-related impacts from an entire activity as a whole, including construction and operation, rather than doing what it should, which is solely focusing on the aspect of the activity directly authorized by a given Federal license or permit. The final rule also includes a broad definition of the term ``neighboring jurisdiction'' which means that it can include any jurisdiction other than the one in which the discharge originates. The EPA's proposed rule is too broad, is contrary to the clear intent of section 401 of the Clean Water Act and is outside of the EPA's authority and jurisdiction. My amendment would prohibit the implementation of this broad, wrongheaded rule. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, we all want clean water. This rule has nothing to do with that. This has to do with the EPA controlling and dictating matters that they have no business being involved with. This proposal will put many pending projects at risk, including mining projects, and it will force the courts to make the final determinations with regard to such projects by interpreting and applying two extremely vague and ambiguous provisions included in the new rule. This situation will ultimately result in a significant loss of investment in mining projects throughout the country, and it will cause greater regulatory uncertainty and inefficiency. My amendment will block the EPA from implementing this wrongheaded rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. Not only does this rule broaden reviews and jurisdiction for permit requirements, but it substantially expands the jurisdiction of States to regulate even those waters that are not considered navigable waters of the United States as required by the Clean Water Act. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality had this to say about the rule: We are deeply concerned with EPA's blatant claims in the preamble of the rule to use the section 401 certification process as a mechanism to expand Federal jurisdiction in waters that are not waters of the United States. Wyoming DEQ also highlighted the burdens that would be imposed on entities due to broadening the scope of activities measured under this certification to include conditions unrelated or only speculatively related to water quality. I will say it again: We all want clean water. This rule has nothing to do with that. EPA's new interpretation of section 401 and its efforts to broaden States' authority over water bodies and features that are outside of the jurisdiction of Clean Water Act must be stopped. We are fed up with the EPA using the Clean Water Act as part of its effort to implement this administration's radical environmental agenda and land grab. My amendment is designed to stop this nonsense, to block the EPA's misinterpretation and application of section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and to force the EPA to follow the law. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 38 to H.R. 4394, which would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds from going to the Department of Energy's implementation of its proposed Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap. The Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap identifies and targets four different categories of so-called CO2 emitters--residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors. In other words, pretty much every aspect of our lives. What does this portend in the real world? We are already experiencing the consequences of this administration's decision to target residential carbon emissions by attacking those home appliances that actually work, from gas stoves to washers and dryers to water heaters, thereby causing the price of these critically important appliances to skyrocket while also reducing their availability. We are also suffering through this administration's decision to target the transportation sector by imposing tailpipe emission requirements, fuel efficiency standards, and propping up the electric vehicle industry, thereby causing the price of our cars and trucks to skyrocket while also reducing their availability. What is the outcome of these misguided efforts? Government imposed wretchedness, of course, but that is what this administration does best. It is no wonder that automobile repossessions are at an all-time high because of bad policies imposed by bureaucrats who are shielded from both accountability and having to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions, but real Americans suffer every day. This roadmap is bad policy, and I urge the adoption of my amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, the administration's roadmap targets those key industries that significantly contribute to the stability of our Nation's economy and supply chain; namely, the petroleum refining, chemicals, iron and steel, cement, and food and beverage industries. Instead of helping our American businesses, families, and communities, the roadmap requires the use of substantially less efficient, less reliable, and more costly energy resources, including so-called clean energy, hoping to ultimately replace our ability to access our very own domestic, affordable, and reliable energy resources. One of the goals mentioned in the roadmap is to ``prepare the existing 11.4 million American manufacturing workers and future workforce for the clean industry transition.'' When I hear that this administration seeks to prepare the existing 11.4 million American manufacturing workers for the clean energy transition and then watch as they attempt to shut down our mines while exporting manufacturing jobs to countries with dirtier products and less effective environmental policies led by dictators and despots, I admit I am more than skeptical as to what preparing actually means. This administration's roadmap is unworkable and will bankrupt our country. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, another goal highlighted in the roadmap supports a transition to no-carbon fuels. Mr. Chairman, Americans see through these goals. The reality is that no-carbon fuels are not only no such thing--and only a charlatan would argue otherwise--but they receive four times the amount in Federal subsidies while producing less than one-fifth of the energy as compared to our legacy industries. These fuels are not only unreliable, even with the ridiculous amount of taxpayer subsidies, but environmentally destructive and require massive amounts of land per unit of energy produced. They kill birds and other wildlife by the millions. These unreliable projects simply cannot compete with our traditional and reliable energy resources, a fact borne out by their need for massive Federal subsidies to be viable at all. Figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that renewables received $15.6 billion in subsidies during fiscal year 2022 and an estimated $1.2 trillion from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act and are the largest recipient of such subsidies. It is thus entirely foreseeable that the second largest recipient of subsidies, according to the Energy Information Administration, are lower-income families who struggle to pay their utility bills, proving that this administration is hell-bent on imposing energy poverty on every sector of our society. Why are they struggling? They are struggling because of rising energy prices and rising utility fees as a result of this administration's forced energy poverty. We simply cannot afford to pursue this energy transition imposed on us by radical leftists. As the sole Representative of a State whose main industries have been hijacked by the Federal Government in the name of this pie-in-the-sky transition, I voice my strong opposition to this roadmap. I ask my colleagues to join me in defunding the Department of Energy's implementation of this proposed Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 39 to H.R. 4394, which prohibits funding from going toward the SuperTruck 3 program. According to the Department of Energy, this program is unlike previous SuperTruck programs; its primary focus being on electrification and meeting so-called green energy goals rather than improving fuel efficiency. DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy initially launched the SuperTruck initiatives in 2009 with the aim of improving heavy-duty truck efficiency by 50 percent while the follow-up SuperTruck 2 in 2016 sought to double fuel efficiency for 18-wheeler, or class 8, trucks. Since then, the program has taken a drastic turn away from these goals. DOE has repurposed this program towards the research and development of lowering greenhouse gas emissions. SuperTruck 3 was created to fund projects to electrify medium- and heavy-duty freight trucks. Mr. Chairman, Americans are tired of their taxpayer dollars being used to fund programs that ultimately cause more harm than good. We simply cannot afford to support programs that share the same fundamental goals outlined in the Green New Deal. They will destroy our economy and force a change in behavior by reducing the availability of the goods that Americans actually want. Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, some may argue that this program remains aimed at improving fuel efficiency rather than a repurposed agenda aimed at fulfilling radical Green New Deal priorities. I refer those who would make this argument to a quote from Senator Merkley in support of this program. He said: ``Climate chaos is the greatest existential threat of our lifetimes, and it is going to take an all-hands-on-deck approach to slash pollution--much of which comes from the transportation sector--that is fanning the flames of the crisis. . . . we can use new technologies to chart a path forward . . . , and lead the world toward a more sustainable future. . . . as we work to thwart the most catastrophic impact of the climate crisis.'' Now, setting aside for a moment the absurdity of the statement, you can tell it was made by a politician who will never be held accountable for the consequences of such actions or actually be required to live under the rules he seeks to impose. He will always be able to afford whatever vehicle he chooses, but not so much for the rest of us. It is not just left-leaning politicians who spout hyperbole and demand net-zero emissions by 2050. It is also our Federal agencies. Secretary Granholm said: ``Getting to net-zero carbon emission . . . means we must aggressively cut down the largest source of emissions: the transportation sector.'' Then, to highlight this, she referred to the SuperTruck program. She said: DOE's first two SuperTruck initiatives led to a massive leap in fuel efficiency. ``This new funding triples down on . . . a push toward electrifying trucks of all sizes, along with efforts to expand EV charging access and develop low-emission car engines.'' Large scale use of electric vehicles will not happen unless mandated by the Federal Government. This is borne out by the figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The fact is that this wasteful spending is absolutely not sustainable. Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, in Wyoming, we have many instances of EV drivers getting stranded out in the cold soon after charging their vehicles. We had a California driver, just a few months ago in Riverton, who charged his vehicle enough to go 120 miles but ran out of kilovolts halfway over the mountain, about 60 miles. On this particular occasion, it wasn't even very cold, at least not by Wyoming standards. Had he been in the same spot just a week or so earlier, he would have been stuck in minus 20-degree temperature with 60-mile-an-hour winds. The town of Jackson just realized that paying $1 million each for a fleet of electric buses didn't make them any more operational in our harsh winter conditions, having found out the hard way that they are unreliable and simply will not work at higher elevations and in single- digit temperatures. The point I am making is that this transition that is being forced upon us by this administration is not only wrong-handed, it is downright dangerous. Mr. Chair, supporting this program is not supporting fuel efficiency. It is another way to prop up the forced energy transition to unreliable resources. For that reason, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.