Mike Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, do we really want to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods because we disagree with them? These public servants are doing their jobs, carrying out the policy of the administration they serve. They should be commended, not demonized. Our government is dependent on them in our ability to attract the best talent to bring their skills to public service. We shouldn't be penalizing public servants who are representing the administration they serve based on these policy disagreements. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, my colleague is already trying to undo the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which included funding to improve and expand ferry service in rural and urban communities across the country. These funds allow places like Georgia, Representative Buddy Carter's district, to acquire ferries and install charging stations to build on the innovation necessary to protect our waterways, reduce costs, and lower emissions. These projects allow communities to work within and across States where waterways are shared and there are mutual benefits to advance technology. These funds also support the use of alternative fuels, which include, but is not limited to natural gas, hydrogen, and electricity. Innovation should be championed by the Federal Government rather than discouraged, and our industry partners should be able to trust that we will stand behind bipartisan goals to create this pilot. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, it can only be described as disgraceful to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods. Our government is dependent on their skills and their dedication to the job to help this country go forward. Ms. Gordon has been a strong advocate for and a hands-on practitioner working to expand access to homeownership and wealth building for millions seeking the American Dream. If you have an issue with the policy, let's discuss that and not penalize her and other public servants. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to yet another attack on scientific consensus and on evidence-based approaches to addressing our climate reality. This amendment would prohibit any agency funded in this bill from considering the social cost of greenhouse gases in budget formulation, procurement processes, or environmental reviews. It is an unconscionable denial of reality. The social cost of carbon is simply an estimate, in dollars, of the economic costs or damage that will result from emitting one additional ton of greenhouse gases into the air. Climate change has tangible and measurable economic impact on a myriad of aspects of our economy from agriculture to healthcare to infrastructure and energy use. When heat waves, drought, or extreme storms affect crop yields, that loss costs our economy and disrupts our food supply. When smoke from wildfires and extreme heat or cold cause illness and death or homelessness increases due to extreme weather displacing people from their homes, that costs our healthcare and emergency service systems. When hurricanes, flooding, and mudslides destroy critical infrastructure, supply chains are disrupted, and time and money must be spent to rebuild. We know, beyond a doubt, that greenhouse gas emissions lead to increased atmospheric CO2 which leads to a warming climate which leads to more extreme weather and rising sea levels. In 2022, the cost of climate and weather disasters in the United States totaled more than $165 billion. In every decade since the 1980s, the average annual cost of these disasters has increased substantially. The amendment before us would prohibit agencies from considering measurable and tangible economic costs when making policy and spending decisions. It would literally prohibit accounting for reality. This is a whole new level of climate denialism, not just a personal denial of overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus, but a sweeping prohibition on ever acknowledging and considering certain evidence that Republicans would rather ignore. This is, of course, particularly egregious in the case of the Department of Transportation, given that our transportation infrastructure is responsible for more greenhouse gases than any other part of the economy. I can't overstate the recklessness and cynicism of enacting a prohibition on accounting for reality into the law. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would prohibit HUD from continuing to carry out an existing rule that ensures that all individuals have equal access to many of HUD's core shelter programs in accordance with their gender identity. I am not sure why my colleagues are so intent on targeting such a vulnerable population, but I find it unconscionable. This amendment would do serious harm to our efforts to protect one of the most vulnerable populations, LGBTQ youth, who comprise up to 40 percent of the homeless youth population and who are 120 percent more likely to experience homelessness than non-LGBTQ youth. These young people are at an incredibly high risk of abuse on the streets. A study by True Colors United found that among homeless transgender youth: 75 percent had been victims of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; 25 percent had been victims of intimate partner violence; and 20 percent had been victims of sexual exploitation or trafficking. In addition, LGBTQ youth are two to three times more likely to commit suicide. Transgender youth also have high levels of HIV/AIDS, mental health problems, and substance abuse disorders. When these young people arrive at a shelter, they are not a safety risk to others. They are desperate for help. We should be doing everything that we can to make sure these alternatives exist to living on the streets, and then when they ask for help, they are not turned away. Frankly, it is not that difficult to help these people who need assistance while respecting their identities. More than 300 domestic violence and sexual violence organizations have signed a national consensus statement agreeing that it is appropriate to serve transgender women alongside other women. This amendment is not based on the facts. In reality, transgender women are particularly vulnerable to abuse in housing systems themselves. One survey found that over one-half of transgender respondents who stayed in a shelter in the past year were verbally harassed, physically attacked, and/or were sexual assaulted because of their gender identity. We should be doing more to protect this population, not less. To ensure continued progress toward ending youth homelessness, we cannot roll back rules that ensure basic equal access rights and protect transgender youth from discrimination and violence when seeking shelter. This amendment would lead to increased numbers of unsheltered homeless LGBTQ youth. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, NHTSA has issued a proposal to update fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks, and that proposal is going through a public comment review period. Why would we stop that? Fuel economy standards aren't new. These standards spur the auto industry to innovate in improving fuel economy to the benefit of consumers and the environment. The administration's July proposal increases these standards to advance energy security, reduce carbon emissions, and save families money at the pump. The rule is going through the rulemaking process, and constituents and concerned parties can and should weigh in, but let's be clear about what improving fuel economy standards can do. This rule would save consumers more than $50 billion on fuel over vehicles' lifetimes. It would reduce our dependence on oil, saving more than 88 billion gallons of gasoline through 2050. It would prevent more than 900 million tons of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of taking more than 233 million vehicles off the road from 2022 through 2050. By increasing fuel economy standards, we would be decreasing costs for Americans at the pump, which is something my colleagues claim to be so concerned about, but how dare such an improvement come with positive benefits like carbon emission reductions. I support the administration's proposal to go through the rulemaking process to improve fuel economy standards to reduce costs for drivers, promote American energy independence, and reduce carbon emissions. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, this amendment, which would very broadly prohibit funding for transit-oriented development, ``so-called'' because that is what it is called, is yet another example of vague and sweeping overreach. Communities in all of our districts rely on flexible HUD and DOT funding to close the gap on critical housing, transportation, and community infrastructure projects. Yet, this amendment would limit a recipient's ability to locally pursue different projects to determine where and how the community wants to invest. Cities, towns, and suburban areas may pursue transit-oriented development, which is simply an approach to urban development that aligns housing, commercial, and transit development for a variety of reasons unique to that community. If a community wants to pair housing and transit development to save costs, reduce traffic congestion, increase access to essential goods and services, attract businesses, or connect Americans to good jobs, the Federal Government should not prohibit them from doing so. Mr. Chairman, I find this place amusing in that we are for States' rights until we are not. We are Federalists until we are not. Apparently, it just depends on where you stand on an issue rather than whether they really believe in local jurisdictions having control over their own destinies. No program in the underlying bill requires that funds be used for transit-oriented development, and there is no reason to adopt a restriction that prevents the use of funds for one particular approach to urban development. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, let us go back to the reality of the situation. I live in a transit-oriented development. I can walk 15 seconds outside my front door, get on the Red Line, and go downtown in Chicago, and I do. Many people do. There is a reason we encourage transit-oriented development. It actually gets more people to ride transit, which is a good thing because they are not burning gasoline, not creating more climate change. It is better for the economy. It gets people to their jobs quicker and safer. If they want to do this, and it is an option and works the way that it actually does from personal experience, great. What I said about people being for States' rights and not being for States' rights when it is inconvenient, I am implying that this amendment does just the opposite of what my father's Republican Party used to say, which is we are not going to dictate to local governments how they should function, how they should operate. This is a page out of the opposite book, and it is a horrible idea. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, according to data from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System and Crash Report Sampling System, heavy vehicles are involved in about 77,000 crashes a year, resulting in over 500 fatalities and almost 34,000 injuries. NHTSA estimates that the proposed rule would prevent over 16,000 crashes a year, saving over 100 lives and reducing over 8,000 nonfatal injuries annually once all vehicles covered under this rule are equipped with AEB. The rule is going through the rulemaking process, and constituents and concerned parties can and should weigh in, but we shouldn't stop the process altogether. I support the administration's proposal to go through the rulemaking process and appreciate that NHTSA is looking into ways of making our roads safer. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Keynesian economics, I guess, aside, the gruel belongs wherever the gruel belongs, but public safety belongs to everyone else. It is not just the trucking industry, it is the people who are involved in those injuries, as well. We need to be concerned about them. The rulemaking process has existed under every American President during our lifetime. It is part of the democratic process. It should be respected. If people want to participate, fine, that is the way it should operate. Mr. Chair, for all those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, no one remembers who Edward Everett is. He spoke for a couple hours at Gettysburg. That speaks for itself. There really doesn't need to be much in response to those who deny that climate is an existential threat, so I will just say two lines. According to the data collected by NASA, the past 9 years have been the warmest years since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. The 10 warmest years on record in world history have all occurred since 2010 in recorded temperatures. We have to address that reality, and the fact is, our transportation infrastructure is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector of our economy. It needs to do the most to reduce that threat, as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, we were quoting Dickens before. There is a line in Shakespeare. I will let somebody else fill in the rest of the lines. ``It is a tale . . . full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'' We are the first generation to feel the effects of climate change. We are the last generation that can do anything about it. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, just for reference, the last statement made--this is the first administration in my lifetime that has passed a comprehensive infrastructure bill of this magnitude. To suggest that it is going the opposite direction while supporting a bill that guts much of that effort belies comprehension. I sometimes wonder what people will think in the future when they ask us, dad or granddad, what did you do in Congress? The best you can say is I cut a dedicated public servant's salary to a dollar because I disagreed with them. Ms. Trottenberg has an extensive, 25-year-plus public sector career in all levels of government, including stepping up to serve as acting administrator for the FAA to help ensure this country and our global partners could continue to rely on the safety of our national airspace system. We again should not be penalizing public servants who are representing the administration they serve based on policy disagreements. I can't imagine our Founding Fathers thinking this would be a good idea, but it is, I guess, the new normal. It is no reason to support this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.