Harriet Hageman

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 40 to H.R. 4394 which prohibits the use of funds to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the tyrannical, unnecessary, and wrongheaded ``Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Water Heaters.'' In late July of this year, the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy proposed a rule to enforce strict conservation standards for consumer water heaters, holding affordable and reliable home appliances hostage to the will of a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in the Federal Government. All of this is being done in the name of the allegedly reducing global emissions and enforcing an energy transition that will do nothing to actually change global temperatures, either in the short or long term, but will absolutely cause a substantial increase in the cost of our appliances. We are facing some serious crises in this country: an open border, over 8 million illegal aliens invading America, a broken supply chain, bone-crushing inflation, China spying on us from above, a war in the Middle East, et cetera. What does this administration focus on? Making all of us poor in order to force us to use costly appliances that don't work. This administration is incapable of addressing the real issues that are important to the American public. What do they do? They target the home appliances, tools, and vehicles that actually work, from gas stoves to water heaters, from air-conditioners to lawnmowers, from the internal combustion engine to reliable vehicles. This nonsense needs to stop. Mr. Chair, I encourage the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, in this latest proposal, the administration is intentionally attempting to force an increase in the cost of water heaters for consumers and to take those water heaters that actually work off the market. What did I call that a few minutes ago? Oh, yeah, government-imposed wretchedness. The cost of home appliances is skyrocketing all because of this administration's war on prosperity. With new regulations, government- imposed market uncertainty, and an intentionally disrupted supply chain, there is certainly a method to their madness. A new word and concept has been born. This administration and radical bureaucrats running it have one goal in mind, and they call it de- development. Let that sink in. Throughout most of modern history, our political leaders have sought to improve our standard of living, to improve prosperity, and to make our everyday goods and needs more affordable, not less so, yet that is where we are now. The Biden administration is intentionally seeking to make us all poorer, to make us more dependent on the government, to take away our ability to feed, clothe, and house our families. It is the concept of de-development that underlies the very purpose of the Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Water Heaters. It is for that reason that we must make sure that such standards never go into effect. More than 9 million water heaters are sold in the United States every year. What water heaters we use should be a matter of personal freedom and economic choice. Our water heater manufacturers have built the most efficient and environmentally friendly products in the world. That isn't enough, no, not when the goal is not to make our necessary appliances more affordable but when the goal is to use regulations to change human behavior. I will say it again. When government-imposed wretchedness is not a byproduct of agency action but the purpose of the action itself, you know that you have an out-of-control government that must be starved of money. That is exactly what my amendment does. It starves these new standards of the lifeblood that they need to be weaponized against the American people. The bottom line is this: The Biden administration doesn't care about personal freedom or economic choice, and Democrats are cheering every opportunity they get to intervene in the day-to-day lives of Americans. Congress has the authority and responsibility to challenge the extent to which these proposed standards are both technically feasible and economically justified, and they are neither. This administration's strategy to destroy everything that works is causing energy poverty in vulnerable communities. While powerful clean energy companies are reaping the benefits of billions and billions of dollars in Federal taxpayer subsidies, the consumers are bearing the burden of the costs. Many Americans are already struggling to heat their homes, pay their utilities, and put food on the table, primarily because of this administration's failed energy policies. This proposed rule only worsens those problems while solving absolutely nothing. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of freedom and economic prosperity by supporting my amendment to defund this administration's proposed rule by preventing them from finalizing, implementing, and enforcing rulemaking pertaining to energy conservation standards for consumer water heaters. This is tyranny and it needs to stop. Mr. Chairman, 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, 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. Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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.

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.

Ms. HAGEMAN

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

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in favor of my amendment No. 165 to H.R. 4365. My amendment prohibits the use of funds to pay regular remote and telework for the civilian and contractor workforce of the Department of Defense. Madam Chair, at the very beginning of this Congress, our majority brought the voice of the American people to this Chamber saying that enough was enough, that it was time for the Federal workforce to return to work. To this end, we passed the SHOW UP Act because our constituents were sick and tired of the lack of service from the Federal Government. While progress has been made to some extent, there are still legacy and recent telework and remote work agreements that keep Federal workers who are supposed to be delivering for the American people out of the office. This includes the Department of Defense workforce, which is allowed to work from home in varying capacities. In 2019, the Office of the Director of National Security found that across the entire Federal Government 4.2 million employees were eligible to access classified information. The Defense Department is responsible for 3.8 million of these clearances. Of these clearances for employees of the DOD, 20 percent are civilian workforce and 26 percent are contractors. The DOD works largely in a classified setting. Its responsibilities are to safeguard this Nation. How this mission can be fulfilled when the employees are sitting at home is beyond me. Madam Chair, it is time for the Federal workforce, including those who work for the DOD, to return to work so the American people can receive a full and fair return on the services that they fund through their tax dollars. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I believe that my colleague on the other side misunderstands the amendment or the scope of it. The amendment does not prevent DOD employees from working from home if needed, such as for health or emergency situations. In fact, the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service is responsible for policy oversight of the DOD telework and remote work programs. These programs are administered in accordance with DOD Instruction 1035.01. This amendment specifically prevents only telework and remote work on a regular, recurring basis. The other categories that accommodate health issues, emergency situations, and more would be left untouched, providing the necessary flexibility. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, this should be a no-brainer that our Federal workers and our employees should actually go to work. In fact, it is actually bipartisan. President Biden called on his Cabinet members to aggressively execute plans for Federal employees to work more in their offices. The President and I do not see eye to eye on very much--in fact, very little. In this instance, putting workers back in the office is common sense. This amendment would not defund telework and remote work for servicemen and -women. This amendment specifically prevents funds for DOD employees, civilians, and contractors. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I urge 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, I rise in favor of my amendment, No. 60, which would prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from traveling outside of the United States. Mr. Chairman, under Mr. Mayorkas, the Department of Homeland Security is a disaster by every single metric, and he has utterly failed at protecting our country, securing our borders, adhering to the rule of law, and protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country. The southern border is in chaos. We are being invaded by military- aged men from hostile countries from around the world and our cities are being overwhelmed by a mass of humanity and level of migration most likely not seen in world history. At the same time, the Committee on the Judiciary continues to expose Mayorkas' role in creating, implementing, and enforcing the censorship industrial complex. The list of failures goes on and on and on and on. Despite Mr. Mayorkas' direct and intentional involvement in the destruction of the borders, boundaries, security, and integrity of the United States of America, he has had the audacity to travel overseas to praise--yes, praise--the importance of the borders in other countries and the benefits of having an orderly transfer of people and goods across the same. Yes, while ignoring the invasion on our southern and northern borders, an invasion that he has facilitated, Mr. Mayorkas actually traveled to a border between Poland and Ukraine to praise ``the use of U.S. technology that has been deployed to ensure the safe transfer of people and goods between Poland and Ukraine.'' That is right, even while our border has become a raging inferno, Mr. Mayorkas traveled to view another nation's border crossing, to view and judge their operations while also meeting and speaking with their border enforcement officers. If only he had the same such care for what is happening right here in the United States of America. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of amendment No. 60, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I do not believe Mr. Mayorkas was traveling to other countries to learn how best we can secure our border. In fact, I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that he has ever traveled to another country and asked them to stop sending their poor to our country to invade our country. The fact is that Mayorkas and his boss, Joe Biden, are the largest human traffickers and drug smugglers in U.S. history. We receive absolutely no benefit whatever from Mr. Mayorkas traveling to other countries to observe their functioning borders while ours is burned to the ground. There is no basis, rationale, or benefit for Secretary Mayorkas to travel outside of the United States to enjoy the fruits of an ordered society. He has failed to do his job and should not be rewarded for such failure by traveling the world at the taxpayers' expense. He needs to leave the visitation and discussions with foreign nations to the State Department. He needs to secure our border and reform his corrupt Department. My amendment would prohibit Mr. Mayorkas from traveling outside of the United States while acting as the Secretary of the DHS. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. 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. 61 to H.R. 4367, which would prevent the DHS from implementing its ``climate literacy strategy.'' Mr. Chair, it seems that there is nothing that Mr. Mayorkas and his Department won't do to distract from carrying out their central mission of defending the U.S. homeland, a mission at which they have failed miserably. The climate literacy strategy states its objective is `` . . . to develop a climate literate DHS workforce, ensuring all employees across the Department have a sufficient and up-to-date understanding of climate change and its relevance to the DHS mission.'' That is flatout hogwash. The DHS states it will develop and administer this climate literate workforce through its program for climate change professionals, which DHS calls the ``CCP'' for short. No, I am not making that up. It will also have a Department-wide website for sharing climate change information, have climate change trainings, and develop a community of practice to champion and share climate discussions. I will use the word again: This is hogwash. There are no resources to build a wall, no resources to apprehend illegal aliens, which have numbered over 10 times the population of the State of Wyoming since Joe Biden took office, no resources to stop terrorists from crossing our borders, but, of course, under Mr. Mayorkas' so-called leadership, there are vast sums of money available for promoting climate hysteria to ensure access to the newest climate propaganda and developments. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of amendment No. 61. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, again, with all due respect, it is not the DHS' responsibility to deal with climate. In fact, the DHS has absolutely no capacity to do that whatsoever. What the DHS' responsibility is is to protect the homeland from the invasion that we are seeing on the southern and northern borders. My constituents are sick and tired of this. Not a cent of money should go to distracting the DHS employees from their jobs of defending this country. I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment, strip every last penny from this bone-headed initiative, and force the DHS to actually do its job. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 62, which would prevent the DHS from carrying out its environmental justice strategy, whatever that nonsensical word salad means in today's parlance. Similar to the climate indoctrination boondoggle I addressed when addressing my prior amendment, this is yet another angle being taken by Secretary Mayorkas and the DHS to worship at the altar of the so-called climate change instead of actually focusing their attention and resources on the gross incompetence that this administration calls border security. While this administration continues to use newspeak to extol the virtues of this so-called environmental justice agenda, the reality is that Joe Biden, Mayorkas, and others in this administration are responsible for vast amounts of energy poverty around the world. What this administration is not pursuing is environmental justice. It instead, has an affirmative goal of universal government-imposed wretchedness. This is what happens when you staff an entire administration with people who have never held a job in the private sector--a collapse of your supply chain, your energy resources, and ultimately, your prosperity. Environmental justice isn't any such thing. It is an Alice in Wonderland level of gaslighting that is destroying our ability to produce energy, grow food, and provide affordable housing. Congress' power is in the purse, and we must exercise that power by ensuring that there are no funds going to anything that doesn't secure our border. For my colleagues across the aisle, 11,000 illegal border crossings a day does not count for border security. I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 62, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Again, Mr. Chair, I think that I have made my point with these three amendments. The purpose of the DHS and Mr. Mayorkas is to secure our border and protect the homeland. He has failed. There is no other thing that our DHS should be doing except specifically that. For that reason I urge that my colleagues support amendments 60, 61, and 62, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

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