Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment No. 58 to H.R. 4665. This amendment would prohibit funding for the State Department's Office of Global Change.

Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill rightfully targets U.S. taxpayer dollars from being sent to globalists who foment climate change hysteria and that provide no benefits to American citizens.

While the underlying bill provides temporary relief from these bad policies, we must target the actual source of this nonsense. That is why my amendment is needed.

The Office of Global Change is responsible for implementing and managing the U.S. international policy on climate change. It is, in other words, the executive office that was created with the mission statement of funding our enemies and destroying our own prosperity.

This is the office that oversees all of Mr. Biden's misguided policies, and we must, therefore, cut off the source of that funding by targeting the money, not just play whack-a-mole whenever a new issue arises.

Any American that is concerned about the globalist agenda infiltrating our sovereign decision-making process should be concerned about any office whose mission statement is ``global change,'' especially when this global change is all about disrupting and destroying our reliable, clean, and affordable domestic energy resources so that they can force a green dystopia that will cause energy poverty on a massive scale.

The Office of Global Change seeks to force CCP-inspired policies on the U.S. so that we become more and more energy insecure while the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, becomes more and more energy independent and secure.

If this majority is to deliver on the promises that we made to the American people, which means substituting radical climate politics for actual real governance, we must identify and eradicate the source of the problems. That means defunding the Office of Global Change.

My amendment would do just that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, again, I think what folks need to understand is that the Office of Global Change is responsible for implementing and managing the U.S. international policy on climate change, the very purpose of which is to destroy the prosperity of the United States of America.

As I listened to my colleagues on the other side talk about the ``existential crisis'' that we face because of climate change or the other rote talking points that they use, what you find is that none of those talking points, none of that hysteria is actually rooted in science, other than political science.

Every decision that has been made by the Biden administration in relation to energy policy has resulted in real, immediate energy poverty for thousands, if not millions, of people across the United States of America.

The failed policies of this administration have been visited upon us from the very moment that Joe Biden took office when he started canceling pipelines to be able to deliver affordable, clean, accessible, reliable energy.

I find it to be absolutely astounding to listen to the other side talk about issues of poverty and things around the world when we have an administration who right now with their policies is creating that very policy here.

We watch the border crisis and we see millions of people pouring across the border. We see what is happening in our inner cities. We see what is happening with people who have to make a decision about buying food or buying gasoline. Yet, they want to talk about funding an agency that the very purpose of which is to visit energy poverty around the world upon millions and millions of people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of amendment 58. We do not need an Office of Global Change. We need to defund it. That is the purpose of my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment No. 59 to H.R. 4665.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit State Department Remote Work Agreements, which allow a domestically assigned employee's alternative worksite to be located outside of the locality pay area of the regular worksite.

Now that is a lot of words that may seem confusing, but let me explain what I mean.

What it is at bottom is it is time for the Federal workforce to return to work. This has been the policy of the Republicans in the 118th Congress majority, and my amendment would bring the State Department in line with this stance.

Several concerns with Federal telework and remote work arose during COVID. One concern rightfully echoed by countless Americans struggling to make ends meet is whether Federal workers were receiving increased locality pay based off the cost of living in larger cities while they were actually working remotely from a different location where the cost of living was much less.

Mr. Chairman, you can imagine my concern when I found that the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual defines its remote work agreement as ``full-time core telework arrangements in which the teleworker's `alternate worksite' is located outside of the locality pay area of the regular worksite for the employee's position of record.''

Remote and telework for Federal employees should be used sparingly. It should be used to accommodate health issues. It should be used during a crisis. In other words, during select situations. It should not be used as a hidden benefit for Federal workers so that they can pocket extra cost-of-living cash.

Our Republican House majority should be committed to reforming Federal remote work, so it is fair and reasonable and used only when needed.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a misunderstanding on the other side of the aisle as to the purpose of my bill. The purpose of this bill is very simple. If you are being paid to live in Denver and work in Denver and your cost of living is associated with living in Denver, you should not be able to live in a little, tiny town of 300 people 200 miles away that has a substantially less cost of living but continue to receive your benefits based upon the more expensive cost of living that is in Denver, Colorado.

That is just the purpose of this. If you are going to live in a lower cost-of-living area and telework, you shouldn't be paid as though you are living in a large city. That is the point of this. It is very simple.

It is about nothing more than fairness. I think the American people expect our Federal employees to be honest about where they are working and the cost of living that they have. I do not believe that it is fair, and the American people don't believe that it is fair that we are actually paying people to live in more expensive areas while they are living in less expensive areas.

That is not what we agreed to as Congress. I don't believe that it is appropriate, and I urge my fellow Members to support amendment No. 59.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source