Mike Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, we now enter the theater of the absurd. Again, for the second day in a row, let's have two White people talk about racial equality in the United States because we know so much about it from having, oh, so much experience, but here we are. The reality of the situation is, this isn't serious, but it is the new normal. If we don't like people, we will pay them $1. If we disagree with them, we will cut their salary. At some point in time, we have to recognize the fact that we are going to disagree. We are probably going to, for most of the rest of our lives, live in a divided government, so when we disagree with the administration or the administration disagrees with us, is the notion, well, we just won't pay them anymore because it will make a good sound bite or theoretically help us raise money because it sells well at home. However, it doesn't do anything for our constituents. The reality is, public servants who are doing their jobs and carrying out the policy of the administration they serve should be commended, not demonized. Our government is dependent on being able to attract the best talent to bring their skills to public service. Despite what has been said, the fact of the matter is, some of the best and brightest out there sacrifice to go back to public service or stay with it when they could do much better in the private sector. Who is going to be willing to do that if their names are dragged in the political mud because someone disagrees with them? The Secretary is a dedicated public servant. This is not how we solve policy differences. We shouldn't make this personal. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, my friends across the aisle can turn a blind eye to the wildfires, smoke-covered skies, life-threatening heat waves and extreme weather we now face nearly every day somewhere in this Nation. We have seen the impacts of climate change in real time, and yet this amendment would hamstring our ability to meaningfully address the accelerating threat of climate change. Ignoring climate change in our approach to the transportation sector would be particularly egregious and irresponsible. It is, quite frankly, not an option. Our transportation infrastructure is responsible for more greenhouse emissions than any other sector of our economy. This means that our approach to transportation investment can and must be one of the biggest parts of the solution. Climate change also makes our roads, bridges, railways, and public transit more vulnerable to damage from extreme weather. We have to recognize our climate reality in order to make our infrastructure more resilient and less costly. Instead of rebuilding the same old infrastructure after disrepair, we should be investing in climate- conscious, cost-effective solutions that ensure we build back stronger in order to equip our infrastructure to withstand the test of time and future disasters. This is a matter of practicality, risk mitigation, and human safety. It also presents a tremendous opportunity to boost our economy by investing in new technologies and creating new jobs. The Department's Climate Change Center is the agency's hub for research, policy analysis, partnerships, and action on climate change. I suppose some of my Republican colleagues are targeting it because they don't believe climate change is real and, unfortunately, we cannot have a productive debate when one side chooses to ignore scientific evidence and consensus. Mr. Chairman, it is the functional equivalent of standing in the middle of an expressway, closing one's eyes, and saying there are no trucks. Trucks are coming. This is disheartening and puts our future at great risk. I wholeheartedly support the Department of Transportation's efforts to create comprehensive approaches to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gases and improve the resilience of the transportation system. I believe the American people support the cost savings, clean air, new jobs, and healthy environmental future that will come with working to achieve our climate goals. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, stating the obvious, that the Department of Transportation's only purpose is to make sure that our roads and our rail systems are safe. The underlying bill, as proposed, dramatically reduces all the funds that do that and makes our rail systems and our highway systems far less safe. To say that in the middle of a discussion on an amendment that has nothing to do with that is ridiculous, and it is a further reason I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, 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.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a very similar amendment to what has been considered before. Those agreements addressed in this amendment, where they exist, have been negotiated by OMB, labor unions, and management and have been in place under Republican and Democratic administrations. Again, this kind of sweeping prohibition, which fails to consider or 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. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how to phrase this, but I would ask the sponsor of this amendment, through the Chair, a question. I believe he referred to the Secretary of Transportation's name. I wasn't sure I heard that correctly. If the Chair could ask that the sponsor repeat how he referred to the Secretary of Transportation. Acoustics aren't always great here, so I want to make sure I got it right.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, well, I would reserve the balance of my time, and I would ask the question through the Chair.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, but I would still like to make sure I heard what I thought I heard. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I assume that the answer is that the sponsor doesn't want to repeat what he may have said. I just didn't hear it. At this point, I am prepared to close, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, let me begin by saying that the sponsor of this amendment, I believe, is on the T&I Committee, which has jurisdiction over aviation and rail. This is an amendment which would be better off being moved forward as an authorizing proposal rather than going forward as an appropriations amendment. This amendment makes it plain as day that the Republicans are happy to put the interests of big corporations ahead of protecting the American people from corporate greed that increases costs, reduces quality of service, and limits options. Specifically, it prohibits any funds for conducting a competitive analysis of mergers, which raises concerning implications for both airlines and rail. The Department of Transportation is required by law to certify to Congress that an approved airline merger is in the public interest and provide an analysis of the effects of the merger on competition in the domestic airline industry. Congress itself has set forth in law a list of factors that are considered in the public interest, which includes several related to competition. Yet, this amendment would prohibit the Department of Transportation from complying with that requirement and from even conducting an analysis or considering factors Congress has specifically identified as important, shirking all responsibility to the public interest. At the same time, this broad amendment would implicate all T-HUD agencies, also impacting competition in the rail industry and our understanding of competition in the housing market. The Surface Transportation Board has authority over railroad corporate mergers and acquisitions and similarly may approve such mergers only when it finds them to be in the public interest. This requires evidence that the proposed merger will affirmatively enhance competition, efficiency, and quality of service. This amendment ties the hands of the agency with exclusive merger jurisdiction involving railroads, even as the number of Class 1 railroads has fallen from 40 to 6 since 1980. Further, the Department of Housing and Urban Development would be prevented from conducting any competition-related analyses to inform our understanding of rental markets, even as Americans face rising rents and corporate landlords are caught price-fixing. Competition is critical to protecting consumers from corporate greed and fostering a flourishing market economy, something we should all fight for. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this misguided amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, let me close by saying this. I gave the gentleman from Kentucky an opportunity to clarify his pronunciation of Secretary Buttigieg's name. I have the belief that he purposely mispronounced it to disrespect him. If he wants to correct that by correctly pronouncing it, I would yield the time to him. As they say, it speaks for itself. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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