Mike Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chairwoman, I am prepared to close. Madam Chairwoman, research conducted in my home city of Chicago showed that homeless individuals living with HIV had significantly improved health outcomes and transmission risk when provided with HOPWA assistance, and substantial cost savings were achieved by reducing healthcare costs for this population. For people with HIV, housing is healthcare. That stability is healthcare. It means the difference often between life and death. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'', and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment. In FY23, we provided funding for a new grant program in the community development fund to support communities that are taking active steps to remove barriers to the construction of new housing. This is just one piece of the puzzle to help address the affordable housing crisis that American families are facing. This shortage is especially harmful to seniors and people with disabilities, who make up nearly half of the lowest income renters. Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support and vote for this amendment.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment and its attack on the resources of Democratic and Republican mayors, Governors, and county officials who rely on this to close the gap in funding for housing and infrastructure needs in their communities. CDBG investments reach every corner of every district. In Wisconsin, the cut to the State would be from $27 million to $13 million; in Chicago, it would be from $75 million to $37 million; and Sheboygan-- yes, Sheboygan--would go from $865,000 to $432,000. These investments reach every corner of every district. These funds remain one of the most important resources for State and local governments to rehab affordable housing, upgrade essential infrastructure, promote business redevelopment in distressed areas, and provide services such as job training. In fact, in fiscal year 2022, the largest share of CDBG program funding was for projects that support rehabbing single-family housing, critical water and sewer improvements, and street improvements. In Chicago, programs supported by CDBG include lead poisoning prevention, homeownership counseling, and home accessibility repairs for seniors and people with disabilities. The program also provides high impact, high return on investments for taxpayers, with over $2.4 billion leveraged across CDBG projects in 2021. From 2005 to 2022, CDBG facilitated the creation and retention of 521,000 jobs, contributed to infrastructure benefiting approximately 609 million individuals, assisted over 980 million constituents through public services, and met the housing needs of nearly 1.8 million households. This amendment is representative of a larger problem with the Republican appropriation proposals--cutting spending, but only on the backs of low-income and middle-class Americans, and divesting in programs that support job creation and curb the housing affordability crisis, all while making it easier for billionaires and corporations to cheat on their taxes. Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, the remote work agreements addressed in this amendment, where they exist, have been thoughtfully negotiated by OMB, labor unions, and management and have been in place under Republican and Democratic administrations. To impede on that process with a provision would be yet another Republican overreach that fails to take into consideration any special accommodation employees may need related to remote work. This prohibition, which fails to address circumstances under which remote work arrangements may be beneficial to the taxpayer or a necessary accommodation for an employee, is not a serious approach to policymaking. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, this amendment makes drastic, indiscriminate cuts from programs in transportation and housing without any regard for the merits of the programs contained in the bill or the people and communities involved across America that would benefit from these programs and rely on them to keep air traffic moving and roofs over their heads. I want to be clear up front about what this bill would mean. It would result in mass evictions. It would decimate funding for Amtrak operations and rail safety, and it would bring air traffic to a halt. Hundreds of thousands of families would be evicted upon losing rental assistance. The hiring of air traffic controllers would halt, towers would be forced to shut down, and air travel would become at best unsafe and at worst impossible. Funding for Amtrak would be decimated even further than it already is in the base bill, significantly reducing operations. The amendment trivializes the Appropriations Committee's process and disregards the consideration of Member requests that committee members put into writing bills. It will result in unimaginable draconian cuts to the very programs Republicans claim to support in their districts to their constituents and which provide critical, basic housing and safety needs. This includes: the FAA's air traffic control operations; Amtrak's operation and maintenance; the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Program, which supports rail safety; housing assistance programs for the elderly and people with disabilities; housing rental assistance vouchers for which cuts would result in mass evictions across the country; all programs that support Tribal housing and infrastructure needs; the Continuation of Care program, which supports hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans, domestic violence survivors, and youth; the popular Community Development Block Grant program; Community Project Funding, which Republicans and Democrats alike requested to address transportation and housing challenges; and critical investments in port infrastructure. This amendment would even cut the small amount of defense spending included in the T-HUD bill for critical maritime security programs. It would not encourage DOT or HUD to do more with less. Simply put, it would force our constituents to do less with less. This is particularly galling, because the bill rescinds enforcement money that will ensure wealthy individuals and corporations pay their taxes, which actually increases the deficit due to lost revenue. Is it really more important to give the wealthy a tax break rather than provide housing, roads, bridges, trains, and safety services from which all citizens benefit? Mr. Chair, 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 could roll the tape of what I just said last time to respond because these are indiscriminate cuts, but that is not particularly helpful. If we are here to make a point, let's make this point. If this is all about reducing the debt, let's not kid ourselves that we are going to accomplish this beating the hell out of nondefense discretionary. Let's go back to the Simpson-Bowles discussion and the debt commission that took place back then. The conclusions they came up with on a bipartisan basis was that anything to be serious had to be big, had to be balanced, and had to be bipartisan. But balanced meant cutting across all the lines. Now, what we have learned, if you spend any time in this House, is that there are sacred cows. If we are talking to our left and our right, what I would say to my friends on the right is that you got your sacred cows, too. Right now they are mooing everywhere because you are not touching them, and therefore, you are not serious about dealing with the debt. If you are, let's remember Simpson-Bowles did come over here one time under the late Mr. LaTourette and our friend, Mr. Cooper. Under Cooper- LaTourette, which was some feigned attempt to do this on a big, balanced, bipartisan basis with no sacred cows, it got 36 votes. If we are serious about this, let's talk about the commission and let's talk about all things. You can agree or disagree, but don't try to con the American people that we are serious about this, pounding on housing and transportation. It won't get the job done, and it will do a lot of damage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, 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, this grant program will provide critical resources toward making community charging stations for electric vehicles available and accessible. Oh, by the way, it will make EVs more popular. By increasing EV charging stations in communities across the country, we are modernizing our infrastructure, working toward our emission reduction goals, and creating good jobs in the process. Ensuring that charging stations are visible and accessible in our communities addresses concerns many drivers have when considering making the switch to electric. By prioritizing funding to projects in rural communities and low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, this program will help blue and red States. We have heard from State departments of transportation and private partners, like gas stations, who want this funding to build their customer base to bring consumers into their convenience shops. This is a Federal investment in partnership with industry. Additionally, this Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program is an authorized program, funded through the Highway Trust Fund. Authorizers, on a bipartisan basis, have authorized funding to be used for these purposes. This funding is wanted and is another important step in the Nation's efforts to battle climate change, meet emission reductions goals, and meet the automobile industry where they are at. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment prohibits the administration or any administration from finalizing any rule or regulation that has a significant impact on the economy. This is just another example of bad policy riders aimed at tying any administration's hands when carrying out the duly enacted laws by a Congress. It will stop the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development from finalizing rules that keep Americans safe on the roads, in the skies, or in their homes. This amendment has little to do with an appropriations bill, and it has less to do with supporting American infrastructure, advancing transportation safety, and addressing our housing shortage. Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I would suggest that this legislation comes from that same denial caucus that if you don't like history then change it or ignore it; if you don't like facts and you don't like science, then you ignore it. You do that at great risk, Mr. Chairman. We have had epidemics and we have had pandemics in our past, and we will have them again. If we are not prepared, then we risk people's lives. This amendment would prohibit the Department of Transportation and its agencies and public transportation operators from complying with any Federal law or regulation that requires an individual to wear a mask on public transportation or transportation hubs such as airports or any other circumstances. Let's be clear: There is currently no Federal mask requirement in place for users or employees of public transportation, yet this amendment would leave the Federal Government ill-equipped to implement evidence-based policies that protect the health and safety of the public and of essential workers in the event we are faced with another public health emergency such as a dangerous new COVID-19 variant or another even more deadly pandemic. In the event of a public health emergency where evidence shows that the use of face masks can prevent transmission and deaths, we must be able to respond quickly and allow agencies like DOT and CDC to provide guidance and measures that protect healthcare workers, caregivers, grocery store employees, retail workers, and so many other Americans who rely on public transportation for essential travel. This sweeping amendment is unnecessary and puts us all at risk. New variants are an expected part of the evolution of viruses and can be and will be more aggressive, transmittable, or cause even more severe disease than the original strain. We saw that in the great influenza of over 100 years ago. Our Nation's public health officials need to have options available to them to protect our communities. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, this form of denial is the same sort of denial that didn't believe in vaccinations when it deals with COVID and when the vast majority of those in ICU units were unvaccinated, risking other people and putting other people's health at risk. For this and so many other reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 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 would disrupt the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ability to enforce rules and regulations when vehicles are not in compliance with current Federal law. For my colleague concerned about vendors who have been selling pulsing brake lights, it is my understanding that the issue is now in litigation. We should not be impeding on or presupposing the outcome of the matter that has been referred to the courts. My colleagues may disagree with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's longstanding interpretation that high-mounted brake lights must be steady burning, not pulsing, but this is not an appropriations issue. If my colleague feels strongly that NHTSA should be considering new regulations related to the potential benefits of these lights, they should work together through regular order, which would be through the appropriate authorizing committees. This amendment, as written, would not just address the pulsing light issue. It would impact the NHTSA's ability to conduct compliance investigations involving all high-mounted stop lamps and prevent them from gathering information related to compliance test failures. In 2021, there were over 1.7 million rear-end crashes involving light vehicles, which resulted in almost 3,000 deaths and over 475,000 injuries. This amendment adds an unreasonable restriction on NHTSA's ability to conduct research and improve public safety on the Nation's roads. We cannot tie their hands to carry out their safety mission. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on 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 is very similar to a recent amendment discussed by the gentlewoman from Florida, and for the reasons stated as to that amendment, we oppose this amendment, as well. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Gee, Mr. Chairman, I thought you were just pounding the gavel to break the monotony, but I appreciate that. I have to be honest, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether this argument is worthy of the dignity of this House, that people who take the highest level of government function, Cabinet-level positions--and again you can disagree with them, Mr. Chairman, all you want, but to make this so personal and to take their orientation to task because you personally don't like the other people or their orientation, when it is absolutely none of your business, where has the Republican Party gone? How has it gone from a party that said: We are going to let people live their lives; we are not going to intrude on them at all; we are going to let them live personally, and the worst thing government can do is inflict their own beliefs upon them? That is exactly what the toxic atmosphere of language like we just heard is all about. It is not what we are as a country. Part of that personal freedom extends to everyone, even if they happen to be Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Chair, I apologize to the Secretary and all the public servants who have to go through this disgraceful kind of treatment. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It is not worthy of this body. I yield back the balance of my time.