Harriet Hageman

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. These proposed resource management plans are part of the Biden-Harris administration's national strategy to terminate domestic production of traditional energy resources, and it is just another example of their war on American energy. Conveniently, shortly after the plan was announced, The Washington Post, a national paper covering this decision, stated that the U.S. taking this step is the biggest step yet to end coal mining. Supporting this amendment means supporting Wyoming jobs and ensuring that America meet its power requirements for years to come. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3706) to amend section 3663A of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that restitution includes necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by a person who has assumed the victim's rights.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3706.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are here today to pass brings much-needed support to crime victims across the country. The bipartisan and bicameral Victims' Voices Outside and Inside the Courtroom Effectiveness Act, or Victims' VOICES Act, passed the Senate through unanimous consent. I am proud to be the House lead on this important legislation. I thank my friend and colleague across the aisle, Representative Lucy McBath, for her work on this legislation and for her continued advocacy on behalf of victims. I will also take a moment to remember and acknowledge Ms. Jackson Lee. She was a cosponsor of the bill and a longtime advocate for the rights of crime victims. My thoughts and prayers go out to her family. The purpose of the Victims' VOICES Act is simple: It assures fairness for all crime victims in accessing and receiving restitution from convicted defendants. Supporting victims and holding criminals accountable has always been a top priority of Congress. In 1996, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act was signed into law and required defendants convicted of certain crimes, including violent crime, to pay restitution to their victims. These types of restitution can include lost income, childcare costs incurred while participating in the investigation, or medical and nonmedical care and treatment. In cases where a victim is a minor, deceased, or unable to act on their own behalf, a family member, legal guardian, or a person appointed by the court may assume the victim's rights. However, many jurisdictions have wrongfully ruled these individuals are precluded from receiving restitution for their own lost income or expenses. Parents, who lovingly cared for their child who was the victim of a crime, may not receive compensation for taking time off of work to help their child heal. Family members whose loved ones did not survive a brutal attack may not receive restitution. This is wrong. We should be thanking these brave and thoughtful citizens. Instead, the government is casting them aside. This is an especially concerning issue in crimes of violence and in Tribal communities, like my district, where locating and protecting missing and exploited women and children is a major challenge. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, those families and the victims of crime should not be discriminated against. Our men and women in blue agree. This legislation is endorsed and supported by law enforcement organizations and victims' rights groups, including the National District Attorneys Association, RAVEN, National Children's Alliance, Major County Sheriffs of America, RAINN, and the National Native American Law Enforcement Association. Let's work together by lightening the burden for victims and their families and making it easier to finally access justice. Again, I thank Representative McBath for co-leading this bill with me in the House and I thank Senator Cornyn for his leadership on this important effort in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 3706, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, the victims and their families should receive full restitution when they are the victims of crimes. It is for that reason that I have supported and am sponsoring S. 3706, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment, No. 58 to H.R. 8774, which prohibits classified teleworking and remote working for DOD employees. The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and House Republicans in the 118th Congress prioritized returning the Federal workforce to the office and cracking down on wasted Federal office space. To this extent, last year I sponsored an amendment to the fiscal year '24 DOD appropriations bill blocking routine and regular telework and remote working, ensuring that DOD personnel who defend the Nation operating largely in a classified environment are in the office. I thank Chairman Calvert and the committee as similar language is in this year's bill, but since last year, new DOD policy may thwart the return-to-office needs of the government, while also raising serious national security concerns. On January 8, 2024, the DOD Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness updated the Department's telework and remote work policies for the first time since 2012. Under this new policy, DOD personnel are qualified for telework and remote work when: ``The duties of the position do not require more than occasional handling, discussion, or processing of classified material.'' In short, if you handle classified information, you still qualify to work from home. While this policy permits the handling of information just up to the collateral secret level, it requires the DOD to provide the employee with a classified teleworking device, which means more resources and spending simply to accommodate telework desires in a job not compatible with that style of work. This is not the only development as the Space Force has awarded contracts for the development of a digital environment to integrate classified and nonclassified work from a remote location as well. Reporting on the development of this software already shows that there is an interest in elevating this technology to top secret and special access program level. Mr. Chairman, the development of these technologies and DOD policies for classified remote and telework are a new concerning trend. They risk delaying the return of the Federal workforce to the office, as personnel traditionally exempt from telework and remote work are now being brought into the system, versus focusing on bringing everyone back. It also raises significant national security concerns. Homes, coffee shops, and other places people choose to remote work from are simply not as secure as a DOD facility. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, while I would like to assume that our Federal employees charged with handling sensitive information will always act responsibly, we cannot control human nature, and, therefore, we cannot control where these DOD systems will be opened up in the public. Further, the DOD facilities themselves protect information from intrusion such as physical break-ins or cyber threats of bad actors seeking access to our information. The security simply cannot be guaranteed in every household of the DOD workforce. I quote the director of a company developing this technology for the Space Force. In an article discussing the software and development, the director stated: You can't just pop your laptop up at Starbucks. Some of the things within that user agreement would be, you know, you are in a closed space, there are no windows, there is no one else home, your cell phone isn't with you, things of that nature. What is being described here is a SCIF, something that DOD personnel only have access to at work and not at home. Outside the office, even equipped with new technologies, there is too much unpredictability for the handling of classified information, and these policies should not be allowed to go forward. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I believe that my colleague is misunderstanding the policy that is being proposed by the Department of Defense. This doesn't relate to people on committee work. This has to do with the policy that was proposed by the DOD office on January 8, 2024, that would allow DOD personnel to occasionally handle, discuss, or process classified material in an at-home or away-from-work setting. The purpose of the amendment is to prohibit that. The idea that this is a total ban on telework for Members and staff of Congress, that has absolutely nothing to do with this. This is directly related to the DOD Office of Under Secretary's personnel and readiness policies that were updated earlier this year. There is clearly a misunderstanding by my colleagues on the other side as to what the purpose of this amendment is. Mr. Chair, 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 have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment No. 21 to H.R. 8771, which blocks funds for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO. The FAO exists within the U.N. system as a specialized agency. It has 194 member states, and it has a mission to improve food quality and combat hunger in over 130 countries. This sounds like a good cause, so why my amendment. Simply, FAO is the current target of the Chinese Communist Party influence strategy within the multilateral system, facilitated by FAO Director General Qu Dongyu, a Chinese citizen and former Vice Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the CCP. It is no secret that the CCP is waging a multilateral influence operation with the intent to undermine the U.S. as a world power while reorienting the global system in its favor. Seeking to advance this cause by gaining legitimacy inside the U.N., the CCP is targeting elections for leadership positions within these specialized agencies, then seeking to shift its policies in the CCP's favor. Over the course of the last 12 years, China has run the World Health Organization, the U.N. Industrial Development Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Telecommunications Union, and now the FAO. In 2020, China nearly succeeded in its bid to lead the World Intellectual Property Organization. All of these organizations coordinated major sectors crucial for development in modern life, yet I am concerned that the State Department is not taking these threats seriously and only engages with countering Chinese ascensions to these leadership positions when elections get down to the wire or if there is media scrutiny. It is time to step up and counter CCP influence. It starts by engaging with agencies to prevent CCP control. The U.S. contributes 22 percent of the FAO's regular budget compared to China's 12 percent. If we are going to foot the bill at international organizations, we should not do so at the expense of promoting the CCP. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, for my colleagues who may share my concern about CCP influence but are concerned about not supporting the FAO mission, I would also note that Director Dongyu's tenure has been marked with criticism, including from U.N. officials, for mismanaging the agency and failing to properly respond to global food shortages. A December 2022 Politico article, interviewing more than a dozen U.N. officials and diplomats, highlighted these concerns. These officials criticized the top-down authoritarian management of the FAO, saying, ``It is not him. It is China,'' and, ``I am not convinced he would make a single decision without first checking it with the capital,'' referring to China. It is a matter of fact that the invasion of Ukraine, a major food exporter, further contributed to food shortages, especially for Ukraine's trading partners. U.N. officials criticized the FAO for refusing to realize this reality, even though it falls directly within its jurisdiction. The concern got so bad that U.S. and EU officials had to force an emergency meeting of the FAO council. Under his watch, the priorities of the collective FAO have been sidelined for the director general's priorities, which the West has warned are similar to China's Global Development Initiative. I would also note that, according to the base text of this bill, there is precedent for such a policy, as section 7048 restricts funds for a specialized agency chaired or presided over by a country which supports international terrorism. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment No. 22 to H.R. 8771, which prohibits funding for the United Nations' International Organization for Immigration, or IOM, activities in the Western Hemisphere. What is at stake with this amendment is twofold: ending the channels connecting U.S. taxpayer dollars to activities facilitating mass migration to the southern border and reclaiming Congress' control over the allocation of funding. The underlying bill allocates $2.4 billion for migration and refugee assistance to carry out sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, which allow for membership and contributions for IOM and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. Congress broadly allocates this pot of money for these purposes, and then the State Department and USAID have the discretion to allocate these funds as they see fit. While this process alone should raise concern about the appropriations authority, we should be even more concerned that this system is helping the IOM, which is facilitating mass illegal migration, creating the crisis at our southern border. We have uncovered the fact that the IOM is using contributions from countries, including the United States, to lobby the Biden administration to repeal and replace policies that secure the southern border and also engage in activities providing assistance that facilitates mass migration to that same border. Shortly after President Biden took office, IOM issued a statement in support of his executive orders, which set this administration off on its destructive border and immigration agenda. The IOM has also risen in support of the Biden administration's creation of unlawful parole categories, the kind this body impeached Secretary Mayorkas for, and continued to criticize the U.S. for keeping title 42 restrictions in place. The IOM also pressured the Biden administration to end the remain in Mexico policy, which it considers ``inhumane and against international law.'' Of the most concern is how U.S. taxpayer dollars provided to the IOM are then being provided directly to illegal migrants, facilitating the mass migration to our southern border, causing this problem. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, to add insult to injury, U.S. dollars provided to the U.N. are also sent to NGOs that use these funds to provide cash, debit cards, food, clothing, medical treatment, shelter, and even ``humanitarian transportation'' to U.S.-bound illegal immigrants in Latin American nations and Mexico. In short, U.S. taxpayer dollars are being sent over our borders to the IOM, which is then using them to facilitate the crisis at our border. The IOM is using U.S. taxpayer dollars to push our government to lower its border security policies and then aiding in programs rushing illegal migrants to the border, overwhelming the system in place and helping to facilitate the crisis we are facing. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not harm the United States' ability to help refugees if it so desires. First, it keeps in place U.S. funding for IOM activities in other regions where there are refugee crises. It simply blocks U.S. funding for activities in the Western Hemisphere that are harming our own border security. Second, if the United States wants to provide refugee services, it should do so directly and not rely on international organizations to administer these services. To the extent that the U.S. does want to engage with international organizations, this does not mean it should not review how its funds are used and whether the organization is operating in the best interests of the United States. In this instance, the IOM is not, and the U.S. should not be complicit in bad policies that harm our country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an organization dedicated to promoting oil and gas production in Wyoming over the last 50 years. Western Energy Alliance was formed in 1974 to advocate for small, independent companies as our Nation was grappling with terrible energy policies during the oil crisis, and there was a period of conflict in the Middle East in the 1970s, a time that is similar to today when American energy leadership is so desperately needed. Today, the Alliance continues to challenge Washington's anti-oil and -gas policies. For example, the Alliance teamed up with the Petroleum Association of Wyoming to counter plans to close off 2.5 million acres in Wyoming from production under BLM's Rock Springs Resource Management Plan. The plan would starve our Nation of the energy it needs to grow. Because of the Alliance, our Nation over the past five decades has benefited from increased energy production and will continue to do so for the next 50 years.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. HAGEMAN

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

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 17 to H.R. 8580, which would prohibit the VA from continuing to decommission mileage reimbursement kiosks in its facilities nationwide. As the age-old saying goes, if it is not broke, don't fix it. Unfortunately, this basic premise was disregarded when the VA decided to quickly do away with mileage reimbursement kiosks at its facilities nationwide, which had previously provided veterans with an easy-to-use system to file their beneficiary travel reimbursement claims, among other key functions. These changes were made as part of the November 2020 rollout of the VA's new online beneficiary travel self-service system, which sought to reform the way in which these claims are submitted and processed. Since its introduction, the VA's new system has been plagued with countless issues and has ultimately disadvantaged a large segment of America's veterans, such as those who live in rural areas, including Wyoming, where access to the internet can be limited, and our elderly veterans are not as familiar with this type of technology. An OIG report from May 2023 highlighted that from February 2021 through July 2022, the new system fell short of all four of the VA system performance goals. Initial feedback from veterans outside the VA and veteran service organizations was never taken into account during system development. The VA did not provide proper training to veterans on how to enter claims in the new system until almost 5 months after the system's launch. Madam Chair, these mistakes are simply not acceptable. Combined with the removal of the mileage reimbursement kiosks, these foundational flaws have resulted in missed reimbursements and increased difficulties for America's veterans. While I certainly understand the need to streamline and improve upon existing systems and processes, modernization should never come at a negative cost to any of our veterans who have devoted their lives to serving our Nation and safeguarding the freedoms that we hold dear. It is our responsibility, and should remain our priority, to do everything in our power to ensure our veterans can easily access the benefits and care that they have rightfully earned. Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I will repeat, this is for the benefit of our veterans. This is a program that was not properly rolled out, and our veterans are the ones who have suffered as a consequence. They are the ones who have given their lives and their dedication to protecting our freedoms. It is critically important that we make sure that we make it as easy as possible, as streamlined as possible for them to be able to seek the reimbursement that they are entitled to. These kiosks have been effective in doing that. Until there is an alternative that can replace the kiosks, we should not be decommissioning them. Madam Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I don't think that there is anything that epitomizes more the Democrats' obsession with abortion than bringing that issue in relation to an amendment as to whether the VA should be allowed to decommission kiosks for mileage reimbursement for our veterans. The fact that that is the only issue that they are able to address when trying to find a way to make sure that our veterans are able to be properly reimbursed for the expenses that they incur just, I think, is a reflection on the Democratic Party as a whole right now. They are not even capable of discussing anything other than abortion, even when the amendment has nothing to do with that particular topic. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.