Harriet Hageman

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of my amendment No. 71 to H.R. 4368, which prevents American tax dollars from being used to fund the World Health Organization. In the bill currently before us, the FDA is seeking to provide funding to the WHO to advance and expand tobacco product regulation under the Building Research Capacity in Global Tobacco Product Regulation grant program. The United States has consistently been the largest contributor in the world to the WHO, topping the charts in 2020 at over $116 million, nearly twice as much as China, which contributed about 12 percent of the organization's total that same year. This is the same WHO that refused to act on or publicize warnings from Taiwan that the new respiratory infection now known as COVID-19 was a threat to humans.

Ms. HAGEMAN. They instead chose to echo the lies coming out of China, that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. Mr. Chairman, my constituents sent me to Washington, D.C., with the mandate to stop sending taxpayer dollars to the WHO, an entity which covers for the CCP, helped cover up the COVID outbreak, and routinely attempts to infringe of the sovereignty of Americans in furtherance of its globalist agenda. I say all this to repeat what the American people rightly know. That the WHO is a corrupt organization which bends to the Chinese Communist Party and does not deserve a cent of American tax dollars, no matter through which account this money is distributed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, it is simply not in the interest of Americans to have their tax dollars going toward a program that studies the health burden of tobacco in other countries. This is simply an attempt to export the Federal nanny State into other countries through one of the most corrupt international organizations ever known. What we should be focusing on is domestic deregulation, not global governance. After everything we have been through over the last few years, after witnessing the WHO's complete and utter incompetence during the spread of COVID-19, after witnessing them turn a blind eye time and time again to the CCP's culpability, you would think that we would have learned that American tax dollars should go to American priorities and not the priorities of our adversaries. Having any funding for the WHO in any appropriations bill is inconsistent with the stated goal of the 118th Congress to defund the WHO completely. They are a failed puppet organization of Communist China. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in favor of my amendment No. 83 to H.R. 4368. This amendment would prevent the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service from implementing its proposed rule mandating electronic identification ear tags, known as EID, for cattle and bison transported in interstate commerce. Let me start by saying this: The United States has the highest quality and safest meat in the world. We currently have a robust, effective, and affordable animal identification and traceability system in place that works. Our high standards of disease prevention and detection make us the leader in world food quality. This rule is problematic for many reasons, including the fact that it sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a Federal agency to dictate how our ranchers run their operations. Our ranchers do not need the D.C. bureaucracy to tell them how to manage and identify their livestock. Yet, that is exactly what this rule allows. This rule will create a paperwork nightmare, forcing our producers to hire a slew of compliance officers just to meet the new requirements. The creation of this federally mandated system will require extensive data collection and countless reporting obligations. Last year, Ireland mandated EID ear tags. Today, just 1 year later, there are an untold number of reports that they must file with the government. Ireland is now considering killing off 1.3 million head of cattle to reach their ``climate targets.'' Their EID mandate will help them carry out this slaughter. This rule will increase the cost of food and food production, thereby hurting the consumer. This rule will ultimately cost our ranchers millions of dollars in compliance costs, forcing many of our smaller independent operations to sell out. It will thus result in further vertical integration of the food supply chain, making our independent livestock producers nothing but serfs to the big ranches and meatpackers. The primary supporters of this rule are the four big packers, two of which are owned by Brazil and one of which is owned by China, and the ear tag manufacturing companies. This rule raises serious privacy concerns for our independent ranchers. APHIS' estimated cost of this rule is indefensible, and the minimal amount included in the rule for implementation is entirely inadequate. The real cost of mandating EID ear tags is exponentially higher than what APHIS claims, and this is an unfunded mandate. In short, we simply cannot afford or allow a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, who have never handled livestock or made an honest living raising animals, to tell our ranchers how to operate. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I reiterate that we already have an identification and traceability system in place that is effective, robust, and affordable. Some larger operations have voluntarily implemented EID because they have the resources and the manpower to do so. If small and medium operations are forced into this same system, however, and without the proper capital, they will be locked out of the markets. My colleague just admitted that the funding in the rule doesn't provide adequate funding to implement the rule, and so it is going to cost our ranchers literally millions upon millions of dollars to comply. It is an unfunded mandate. This proposed rule is based on dubious assumptions. It raises more questions than answers. It is a solution in search of a problem. It is dangerous, and it should be stopped. I will finish with this: My amendment does not touch the cost offset in the bill. It merely addresses the flawed policy advanced by USDA. It does not prevent any American rancher, cattle producer, or bison producer to use EID technology, but it does not allow the USDA to mandate it. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, respect for one's neighbors and service to one's community are the values that have built this great Nation. However, solitary acts of kindness and assistance were not nearly enough for Dr. Elbridge Brubaker who throughout his entire career consistently made it his goal to improve the quality of someone's day. Dr. Brubaker was a born and raised Wyomingite who always recognized his lifelong dream to become a physician. He would later realize that dream after completing his education at the University of Wyoming in 1961 and obtaining his medical degree from the University of Tennessee in 1965. Upon graduating with his medical degree, he made the decision to serve our country in the Army as the Chief Medical Officer in Montgomery, Alabama, where he was responsible for performing physicals of potential recruits. Following his time in the Army, Dr. Brubaker returned to Casper, Wyoming, and opened a family medical practice that he operated for over 5 decades. His exceptional ability to provide compassionate care was valued by each and every 1 of his patients. However, most importantly, he was a loving husband, father, and grandfather who valued time with his family and the good Lord above all else. Dr. Brubaker's kindness and expertise have undoubtedly left a powerful mark on the community of Casper and in the hearts of everyone who knew him.

Ms. HAGEMAN

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

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment 49, which would require that all documents and correspondence of the Countering Extremism Working Group are provided to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government and the Committee on Armed Services. I am offering this amendment to build upon a larger concept and theme within the House NDAA this year, ending the politicization and weaponization of the DOD. I am proud to stand with my colleagues here in the House and fight for an NDAA which is focused on warfighting, readiness, and lethality and for an NDAA which conducts meaningful oversight into the political issues which have infiltrated the DOD in recent years. Through our work on the Judiciary Committee and on the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, we have discovered that rampant abuse of power is not confined to one agency or department, nor is it limited to one subject area. In the wake of a partisan political persecution spurred by the events on January 6, extremism or domestic violence extremism has been misconstrued to include a wider group of individuals to serve as a predicate for State surveillance, invasion of privacy, and in some instances, deprivation of rights. We first uncovered this within the DOJ with the padding of DVE crime statistics, which was done to support the political statements of policymakers. In my first 7 months in Congress, I have had the opportunity to uncover some of these abuses. However, there are some legacy issues which date back to before my time in Congress, to a time when true oversight for the purpose of the protection of the rights of Americans took a back seat to the politicization agenda of some influential leaders on the other side of the aisle. One such issue was other potential abuses of extremism in the government, including in the DOD Countering Extremism Working Group. My amendment would ensure that both committees receive documentation from the DOD about the work done in the Countering Extremism Working Group so we can provide proper oversight. I hope there is nothing there. I hope we find that the DOD abused no serviceman or -woman's rights and that this was an exercise in legitimately protecting their own force. Without confirming this through the evidence, I cannot trust that the Biden administration and the DOD Under Secretary Austin did the right thing simply because they have failed to earn the trust of the American people due to routine exposure of wrongdoing and abuse. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, this bill is nothing more than related to transparency and oversight. We have had FBI whistleblowers who have testified before the judiciary and the select committee as to how the FBI is padding its DVE statistics. We want to ensure that the Countering Extremism Working Group is not just another way in which our government has been weaponized against the American people. What I cannot understand is why any Democrat would oppose transparency and good government. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, again, this bill is about transparency and oversight. We all support our troops. This isn't about not supporting our troops. This is about ensuring that the Countering Extremism Working Group has not been politicized; nothing more and nothing less. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I would note for the record that the gentleman on the other side just slandered the men and women in service, in uniform, by making the accusations that he has. Again, what I am talking about here is simply providing us with the documentation. This isn't about interfering in the work that the working group has done. It is simply to oversee and make sure that that particular working group is not being weaponized against our men and women in service. As I said, we may not find anything at all. They may have done exactly what they were required to do, but at the same time, there is nothing wrong with this body overseeing and ensuring that these types of groups are operating the way that they should. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, the word of the day is transparency. Any group that is within the Department of Defense we should have oversight of, and that is all that this bill does. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and legacy of Larry Dockins, a Wyomingite who courageously served our country and who was and remains a beloved hero by all who knew him. After receiving his GED, Larry made the decision to join the Army National Guard in 1962, where he began his lifetime career in service to his country. Throughout his time in the Army National Guard, he prioritized the needs of his community and that of his fellow residents. Plowing snow and hauling hay were just a few of the ways in which Larry was able to assist those around him. He was also a proud member of the Command Maintenance Evaluation and Training team, which sought to solve logistical and equipment-related issues experienced by National Guard units through assistance and training. Upon the conclusion of his service, Larry retired as a master sergeant. Despite his love for public service, Larry valued family above all else and cherished every minute he was able to spend with both his grandkids and great-grandkids. Larry, sadly, passed away on January 4, 2023. His selfless service will always be remembered by his family and friends and will leave a lasting impression on the communities he dedicated his life to assisting. I urge all my colleagues to join me in remembering the life of Larry Dockins, honoring his service to our Nation and standing with his family in these difficult times.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I take my duties as Wyoming's lone congressional Representative very seriously, and my obligation to be honest and trustworthy is the foundation of my ability to carry them out. This privileged resolution isn't about politics. It is about the seriousness of being honest and forthright as a Member of Congress and upholding the oath of office that we all take upon being sworn in. It is true that the gentleman from California wouldn't be the first Member of Congress to exaggerate or stretch the truth; however, willfully lying about serious issues our country has faced is something entirely different and claiming that a sitting President has committed what amounts to treason is beyond simple hyperbole. This Member's lies led to the wasting of millions of taxpayer dollars for unnecessary investigations and the deflection of our attention from the most pressing issues at hand to focus on a made-up crisis. This Member's actions were designed to delegitimize the 2016 election and to hamstring the Trump administration. For all the talk about not accepting the election results in 2020, perhaps Democrats and the media, which are mostly one and the same, might want to look at their actions in 2016. To make matters worse, this Representative perpetuated these lies while he was chair of the House Intelligence Committee and consistently implied, if not outright stated, that he had inside information. In that capacity, he lied about the following: How the FBI and DOJ obtained and renewed a FISA warrant; that FBI and DOJ officials did not omit material information from the FISA warrant; how the DOJ used the Steele dossier; what was collected by the FISA warrant; the FBI's vetting process for the Steele dossier; that he had an alleged smoking gun showing that President Trump colluded with Russia. Each of these claims has proven to be false. The lies have continued. In fact, they have become compulsive, and they continue right through to this very day. The lies weaken this body, and if left unchecked, threaten the rule of law, our election integrity, and the civil rights of his targets. The words and actions of this Member were dangerous and untrue-- knowingly untrue. There must be a serious consequence for that. Being censured is the least of what he should be subjected to, and I support this resolution.

Ms. HAGEMAN

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

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, over the last few decades, and as accelerated during the Obama and Biden administrations, our constitutional separation of powers has been undermined by Congress' overdelegation of legislative powers to regulatory agencies in the executive branch. H.R. 288, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, or SOPRA, would begin to rectify this imbalance. SOPRA requires nothing more than for courts to apply de novo review to all questions of law, including agencies' interpretation of statutes and rules. That is what courts are supposed to do under the Constitution. They are supposed to interpret the law. SOPRA would override the ill-advised Supreme Court precedents like Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council that require courts to defer to agencies' interpretation of statutes and rules so long as they are reasonable but even if they are wrong, even if they are incorrect. It would end this improper judicial deference that gives agencies greater leeway to pass rules carrying the force of law and which puts a thumb on the scale in favor of the administrative state and against the American people. By doing so, SOPRA would help restore the constitutional separation of powers, reclaiming the courts' role as the branch that interprets the law and Congress' role as the branch that makes the law. If we were to look at this issue as if it were a dartboard, courts should be aiming for the bull's-eye of what a particular statute means and enforcing the legislative intent. Deference doctrines, however, allow courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute or regulation if they are anywhere on the dartboard. This is improper, unconstitutional, and needs to change. Agencies often try to avoid consultation and collaboration with the very people who are the experts, the people who must live, work, and often suffer under the rules and regulations that they mandate. It is a case of an all-knowing bureaucracy in Washington thinking that they know better than the people in the real world, the businessowners, the farmers, the ranchers, the construction workers. SOPRA also would help to promote the electoral accountability of policymakers by ensuring that it is Congress' policies, and not those of unelected bureaucrats, that govern the American people. Over the last couple of days, we have had the opportunity to talk about the REINS Act, and today, we are here talking about SOPRA, restoring constitutional order, applying Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, where Congress makes the laws and the executive branch is merely there to carry them out. As I indicated yesterday when talking about the REINS Act, I cannot understand why anyone in the legislative body would want to defer to unelected bureaucrats to make the decisions that impact the citizens of this country. This body, Congress, was created to legislate. We need to jealously guard our power, our authority, and, ultimately, our accountability to the American public. Again, I cannot understand why anyone who was elected would argue that we should allow agencies and folks sitting here in Washington, D.C., to make decisions that affect literally millions of people across this country without any accountability whatsoever. I want to retake our authority to legislate. I want to make sure that this body carries out its responsibilities and duties. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of SOPRA.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, or SOPRA, is great legislation that I fully support. My amendment is simple and seeks to clarify that de novo judicial review applies to agency guidance as well as to agency rules and congressional statutes. Specifically, my amendment explicitly states that interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and all other agency guidance are subject to de novo judicial review. Unlike rules, guidance is undefined in the APA's definition section. Agency guidance consists of interpretive rules that explain how agencies interpret the statutes and rules that they administer and general statements of policy that prospectively advise how agencies may choose to exercise their authority. Guidance is not subject to the APA's notice and comment requirements and, at least not officially, does not have the force of law or at least shouldn't have the force of law. Yet, we have seen a growing trend of administrative agencies attempting to use guidance to have the force of law while at the same time avoiding even the APA process. For example, in my private capacity before being elected to Congress, I was part of an effort to push back on the Department of Agriculture's attempt to mandate RFID ear tags on the cattle and bison of our Nation's ranchers. The agency tried to force this on the agriculture community through a two-page guidance document that was posted to the USDA website. This circumventing of the congressional legislative and agency rulemaking process would have cost our cattle producers $2 billion to comply with this guidance, all without a single comment or public hearing. Further concerning is that guidance is often not judicially reviewable because agencies then claim that it is not final agency action. Even when it is reviewed, the government then asks for deference to the agencies by the courts. While the language in SOPRA is implicit that the requirement for de novo judicial review of all relevant questions of law applies to agency guidance, my amendment would make it explicit. In closing, my amendment would clarify that agency guidance, which agencies routinely abuse, is subject to de novo judicial review under this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, the irony of what my colleague on the other side is saying is that the only time that the courts would be addressing guidance is when the agencies are attempting to enforce it against someone outside of the agency. Again, an example might be the EPA attempting to enforce their guidance against an irrigator in Wyoming because he moved an irrigation ditch and they have concluded that such irrigation ditch, through their guidance, is actually a navigable water of the United States. Now, fortunately, recently, the Supreme Court of the United States slapped that down and has indicated that the EPA is no longer going to be able to abuse its power and try to control irrigation land and other resources by claiming that mud puddles and such are navigable waters of the United States, but that is just an example. The only time that the courts are going to be looking at guidance is if the agencies are attempting to enforce it. Further, while my colleague on the other side would argue that these are just frequently answered questions and internal documents, the fact is that this is the way that agencies are circumventing the APA, circumventing the law, and attempting to enforce unofficial documents against the citizens of the United States of America. I would also point out that yesterday we did pass a similar amendment to the REINS Act and what this does is it makes SOPRA and REINS consistent in terms of covering guidance documents as well as official rules. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I find it so ironic, having been a practicing attorney for 34 years and fighting over these exact battles in court, that I am having someone who hasn't practiced for decades tell me that I am ignorant. The agencies are the ones that attempt to enforce guidance, and I have defended lawsuits along that very line. Therefore, while someone who may have sat in this room for years believes that he has the ability to judge what people in the real world deal with, the fact is that agencies do attempt to enforce guidance against citizens of this country. The only thing that this amendment does is to say when that happens, the courts are to apply de novo review to the interpretation of what that guidance means. Nothing more and nothing less. Again, this is a very simple amendment that says to the extent that guidance documents are before the court for interpretation, the courts must apply de novo review rather than defer to the agency interpretation of that guidance. It is very simple, and it is something that is appropriate and ensures that we are following our constitutional separation of powers. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Cloud of Texas to offer amendment No. 5 to H.R. 277, the REINS Act.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the REINS Act, which is an important effort to ensure Congress reclaims its rightful authority and responsibility to legislate. This amendment is technical in nature, but it is important, nonetheless. In April of this year, the Biden administration issued an executive order on modernizing the regulatory review. The purpose of this executive order is to allow the administration to implement their agenda more quickly and efficiently. The executive order also raises the threshold for centralized review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, from $150 million to $200 million. The order also gives the administrator of OIRA a discretionary role in determining which regulations are considered for full OIRA review. OIRA serves as a responsible check on major regulations, reviewing the cost and benefits of each regulation, and ensuring that all public comments have been reviewed and considered before the regulation goes into effect. OIRA, in other words, is a check on due diligence. This order will mean that fewer rules are reviewed by OIRA and, thus, less due diligence will be conducted over the administrative state. So long as this executive order stands, a loophole will exist in the REINS Act. Fewer rules would be classified as major, and consequently would not be subject to congressional approval under the REINS Act. My amendment would close this loophole by clarifying that OIRA must issue a finding of the full cost-benefit analysis of each rule and issue a determination as major or minor according to that finding. Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.