From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Harold Hutchison

Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa introduced legislation Thursday that would send nearly a third of the federal employees out of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

The bill, known as the ‘Decentralizing and Reorganizing Agency Infrastructure Nation-wide To Harness Efficient Services, Workforce Administration, and Management Practices (DRAIN THE SWAMP) Act, is far more sweeping than the “Returning SBA to Main Street Act,” legislation introduced by Ernst Dec. 12 that focused on the Small Business Administration (SBA). Ernst told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the move would improve services for Americans while saving billions of taxpayer dollars.

“Federal employees don’t want to work in Washington, so why should taxpayers be footing the bill? By relocating at least 30% of the federal workforce, we will save billions and improve service for veterans, small businesses, and all Americans. The bureaucrat laptop class has been out of the office for far too long, and it is time to get them back to work for the American people,” Ernst told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The legislation requires most government agencies to “promote geographic diversity, including consideration of rural markets” when relocating employees from the D.C. area and to “ensure adequate staffing throughout the regions of the Administration, to promote in-person customer service.” Exceptions are made for fewer than 10 agencies, most involved in national security, like the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Energy.

The legislation also requires most federal agencies to reduce the total office space in their Washington, D.C., headquarters by at least 30% in a two-year timeframe following the bill’s enactment.

Ernst issued a 60-page report Dec. 5 that covered findings from Ernst’s investigations into telework since she sent an August 2023 letter to 24 government agencies requesting a review of the issues involved with telecommuting.

Previous investigations by Ernst into telecommuting by federal employees detailed the issues that telework created involving locality pay, an adjustment to the basic pay of civilian employees in the federal government intended to make sure that federal employees have comparable compensation to private-sector counterparts in a given area of the country. In the August 2023 letter sent to 24 government agencies requesting a review of the issues involved with telecommuting, Ernst cited a media account of a VA employee who attended a staff meeting while taking a bubble bath.

Ernst issued a 60-page report Dec. 5 that covered findings from her investigations into the issues  involved with telecommuting by federal employees. Those findings detailed issues that telework created involving locality pay, an adjustment to the basic pay of civilian employees in the federal government intended to make sure that federal employees have comparable compensation to private-sector counterparts in a given area of the country.

In one case cited by the senator on multiple occasions, a United States Agency for International Development (USAID) employee received locality pay for the Washington, D.C., area despite living full-time in Florida. The employee in question retired before the conclusion of the probe, according to a summary posted on the USAID inspector general’s site April 30.

Ernst’s legislation mandates that affected federal agencies “ensure that the rate of pay of the employee is calculated based on the pay locality for the permanent duty station of the employee.”

The Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Outgoing President Joe Biden announced a new climate target of reducing American carbon emissions from 61-66% over the next decade, even though President Trump would be able to undo it as soon as next month.

Outgoing President Joe Biden announced December 19 a new climate target of reducing American carbon emissions of more than 60% over the next decade, even though returning President Donald Trump would be able to undo it as soon as next month.

“Today, as the United States continues to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, President Biden is announcing a new climate target for the United States: a 61-66 percent reduction in 2035 from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas emissions,” the White House announced, the Washington Free Beacon reports. The new target will be formally submitted to the United Nations Climate Change secretariat.

“President Biden’s new 2035 climate goal is both a reflection of what we’ve already accomplished,” Biden climate adviser John Podesta added, “and what we believe the United States can and should achieve in the future.”

The announcement may be little more than a symbolic gesture in the end, however, as Trump is widely expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement upon resuming office in January, in the process voiding related climate obligations.

Trump formally pulled out of the Paris accords in August 2017, the first year of his first term, with then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stating that the administration would be “open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its business, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.”

Such terms were never reached, however, leaving America out until Biden re-committed the nation to the Paris Agreement on the first day of his presidency, obligating U.S. policy to new economic regulations to cut carbon emissions.

In June, the Trump campaign confirmed Trump’s intentions to withdraw from Paris again. At the time, Trump’s team was reportedly mulling a number of non-finalized drafts of executive orders to do so.

Left-wing consternation on the matter is based on certitude in “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) or “climate change,” the thesis that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, is primarily responsible for Earth’s changing climate and that such trends pose a danger to the planet in the form of rising sea levels and weather instability.

Activists have long claimed there is a “97 percent scientific consensus” in favor of AGW, but that number comes from a distortion of an overview of 11,944 papers from peer-reviewed journals, 66.4 percent of which expressed no opinion on the question; in fact, many of the authors identified with the AGW “consensus” later spoke out to say their positions had been misrepresented.

AGW proponents suffered a blow in 2010 with the discovery that their leading researchers at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had engaged in widespread data manipulation, flawed climate models, misrepresentation of sources, and suppression of dissenting findings in order to make the so-called “settled science” say what climate activists wanted it to.