Mike Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, it is clearly our responsibility to hold people accountable. There are a number of ways to do that: call them to testify, question them all day long, say whatever you want in public within reason. It is quite another thing to make it so they can't do the job because you are only paying them a dollar a year. It is outside the realm, the barriers here, of what we are supposed to be about. At some point, we went outside the norms. I have come to believe that norms are almost as important as the Constitution. You don't treat people this way. They couldn't imagine that we would do this to each other. They had that foundation that is so critical, and the law is almost as critical. I am starting to believe that the way we treat each other is the most important norm. If we can't act with a baseline sense of decency and respect that nobody's going to work for a dollar a year, respectfully, you are just messaging and insulting other people and disrespecting the dignity of this House. We can and we must do better. Mr. Chair, I oppose 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, again, it has to be pointed that there is a level of being completely ridiculous that two straight White men are debating all the issues of equality and equity as if we have faced them all our lives. We can't be the judge or the jury in this country on who should be served by the Federal Government. While we are probably not the best people to speak on the issue, let's try to make clear what I think my colleagues are really saying. What they are really saying is they don't like diversity, and they absolutely don't like inclusion. They don't want to address discrimination against people of color, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities. They don't want to build a Nation that supports people at the greatest risk of homelessness. Not caring allows them to ignore this insurmountable problem, but it doesn't make it less real. It is not radical to want to build a country that is welcoming to all people from different backgrounds, but they do want you to believe that our country has reckoned with its history of discrimination. They want you to believe that these issues are things in the distant past. They are wrong. They are attempting to legislate away those who look, think, or feel differently. That is not American. That is authoritarianism. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, again, in a moment of self-awareness, we are a bunch of straight White guys talking about social justice. When did a social justice agenda become a bad thing? Again, who am I to say, but weren't the leaders of the civil rights movement leading a social justice agenda? Does anyone imagine that that notion that we read about, as you go down to the archives, toward a more perfect union, does anyone think that we have met that and that housing and transportation have to be fundamental toward the ends of that agenda that we talked about? In the end, wasn't Lincoln saying that 87 years ago--every once in a while, we have to ask ourselves did we really mean it when we said that we were all created equal? We have to ask ourselves that today. We still have a long way to go, and it runs through all our systems, including our transportation and our housing systems. It is not a bad word. Someone needs to stand up to you when you do this. It is wrong. This amendment is wrong. This bill is horrible because of these things. I oppose it, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment. This includes amendments from both parties and was crafted through consultation between the majority and the minority. This amendment supports critical infrastructure, safety, and housing programs to emphasize the importance of achieving robust investment. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty.)

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the en bloc 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, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because while I strongly support the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Program, I do not support diverting resources that are also necessary to support the Department's investments in research and workforce development. The Office of the Secretary's Research and Technology program coordinates and collaborates with public and private partners to invest in research that will make our transportation system more safe, efficient, competitive, accessible, and sustainable. OST-R has already been cut by almost 15 percent in this bill, and another $10 million cut in research and these partnerships would be a major step backward. We simply cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. That said, it is good to see a colleague on the other side of the aisle recognize the importance of the CRISI program and the inadequacy of its current funding level, but let's also be frank with each other. The bill we are talking about here cuts the CRISI program by over $280 million. It is essentially cut in half. A $10 million increase in this amendment in the context of $280 million in cuts isn't undoing so much damage. The larger issue here is that the majority chose to write the T-HUD bill to an allocation that does not adequately support the needs of the agencies and programs within the bill. My friends across the aisle need to stop wasting time and work with House Democrats to write spending bills in accordance with the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act. Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to increase funding for the CRISI program once the majority increases the allocation of the T-HUD bill. Again, I support the intent of the increase of the CRISI program, but I do not support the offset. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my colleague's amendment. The Thriving Communities Program facilitates the planning and development of community revitalization activities to ensure that underresourced and disadvantaged communities can access funding provided in the bipartisan infrastructure law. Many rural and Tribal communities that have suffered historic disinvestment lack the resources and capacity to successfully develop infrastructure projects and access critical Federal funding. The elimination of the Thriving Communities Program is just another example of my colleagues across the aisle turning their back on the very communities they represent. Mr. Chair, I strongly support my colleague's amendment.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment to cut funding for the Build America Bureau by more than half. The Build America Bureau supports transportation and infrastructure development projects by working closely with States, municipalities, and project sponsors to provide technical assistance on preplanning and project development. They help with applying for credit programs and cultivate public-private partnerships. This helps communities successfully develop projects and navigate available public and private financing opportunities which require significant capacity and expertise that can be a barrier for many small, rural, or otherwise disadvantaged communities looking to access capital. We should support programs that make it easier to build, and I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I yield myself the such time as I may consume. As ranking member of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I take pride in how the work of this subcommittee impacts the day-to-day lives of every person in our country. Whether it is working to improve morning commutes to work and to school, fighting against the emissions that come along with moving people and goods from one place to another, or ensuring every American has a safe and stable place to call home, this bill touches the lives of every American. Yet, this bill undercuts the fundamental values of the American people, and it does so at the expense of our lowest income families. Rather than continuing investments to upgrade our outdated infrastructure, this bill would weaken the safety of our transportation workers and communities. Instead of reducing congestion on our roads, delays at our airports, and bottlenecks at train stations, this bill would make our daily commutes and travel times longer. When we should be investing more resources in safe and stable affordable housing to help the millions of American families that are barely able to get by each month, this bill would eliminate the opportunity for 22,000 working families to secure an affordable mortgage or home to rent. All in all, this bill trades the basic needs of everyday Americans for the wants of the wealthiest. This message is made very clear when the bill cuts more than $7 billion for freight, rail, transit, and port infrastructure projects that span all 50 States and the District of Columbia, urban and rural. This includes a complete elimination of the Thriving Communities program, striking out any new funding for the popular and bipartisan RAISE and Mega grant programs, gutting funding for light rail, subways, and bus projects by 82 percent, and slashing Amtrak's Northeast corridor funding by 92 percent; crippling the entire national network from Florida to New York, Texas to California, and in my own district, from Chicago to Arkansas, Montana, and all the way to the Pacific Northwest. This bill also eliminates more than $2 billion for housing development and community revitalization programs, based on merit and need, I might add, including pulling back half a billion dollars intended to make housing safer for low-income children and families. A safe and stable roof over your child's head should not be a worry for working parents already struggling to make ends meet. Yet, if enacted into law, this bill would force millions of families, the elderly, and the disabled to make even more difficult decisions each day on whether to live in a home riddled with lead and mold, all while the bill eliminates $25 billion from the Internal Revenue Service for tax oversight for the wealthy, an agency that this bill does not even have jurisdiction over. Compounding these concerns are the several controversial policy riders that unnecessarily attack high-speed rail, roll back transportation safety, and call into question civil rights protections for most Americans. This bill does not represent what a majority of our constituents have called on us to do, and I fear we have yet to see what additional cuts may be taken within this bill to appease those Members calling for draconian levels of spending, on the backs of everyday Americans. As such, Mr. Chair, I respectfully cannot support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I think I need to make clear at this point in time that the infrastructure law, that supplemental funding cannot be used to run and operate trains. This means these resources can do nothing to protect current train service or the jobs that keep our trains running smoothly. In addition, the Northeast Corridor Commission estimates a $57 billion cost to address major and basic infrastructure along Amtrak's 100-year-old Northeast corridor with an additional $43 billion cost for stations-related improvements to increase accessibility for riders. I thank Chairman Cole for his leadership and his willingness to accommodate as many requests as possible. He has been an honest broker on this and kept the lines of communication open, which goes a long way in this environment. I also give my appreciation to his staff and mine, who have spent tireless hours to get us to this moment. I look forward to working with the chairman as we refine this process for fiscal year 2025. This includes minority staff Christina Monroe, Jackie Kilroy, and Nora Faye; Charlie from my office, and Doug Disrud with the majority and his staff. Beyond what has been said before, this is a bad bill at a bad time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).