Mike Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kim).

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment and its extreme proposal to zero out the National Network grants. Amtrak's National Network trains carried 16.5 million people last year and provided the only intercity public transportation in many small rural communities. Without this grant, nearly all of Amtrak's service outside of the Boston-Washington Northeast Corridor--15 long-distance routes that are the only Amtrak service in 23 States, and 28 State-supported short- distance routes funded through Amtrak State partnerships--would disappear. That would include the Texas Eagle from Chicago to Arkansas. How would I visit Mr. Womack or Mr. Hill in Arkansas without this, just to name a few? The funding in this committee bill is already woefully short of ensuring the National Network is safe, reliable, and on time. Funding for the National Network has already been cut by 35 percent, from $1.2 billion to $776 million which, if enacted, would radically reduce or suspend service on rail lines across the country. It also cuts funding for the Amtrak workforce of more than 20,000 employees, including almost 3,000 employees in the State of Pennsylvania. I support robust funding for Amtrak and its National Network so that we can have safe and reliable passenger rail service across the country. We need investments in rail, not these draconian cuts. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, let's dismiss the notion that we don't subsidize all other forms of transportation, especially air travel. If the private sector wants to take over air travel and pay for all parts of airports and everything that comes with it, then so be it, but that is not going to happen. The fact of the matter is there are many benefits from having a robust rail system that serves communities that would not otherwise have them. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in doing so. 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. Chair, tomorrow I think I will join the boondoggle caucus just to find out everything that is going on with boondoggles everywhere. For the life of me, I can't understand why some of my Republican Members and friends across the aisle take offense at projects that increase safety on our roads while so many others support this and have earmarks--or however we want to describe or call them-- it really doesn't make that much difference. It is important to remember that these came under Republican guidance that required a Federal nexus under this year's rules. The committee project funding within this bill has gone through extensive vetting by Republican and Democratic offices before being submitted for review to the committee. Let's make that even clearer. Every single one of the 127 transit projects containing funding in this bill were submitted by a Republican or a Democratic Member of this body. Not only has each Member undertaken extensive vetting within their districts to identify the project as a priority, but the Department of Transportation has reviewed every single project and determined they are eligible. They are eligible based on guidance and requirements that our Republican colleagues determined, including Federal law and regulation. Those of you who are not aware, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee already voted to strip funding away from three eligible projects simply because they benefit LGBTQ+ youth, seniors, and allies. We have seen this before. It is an overreach by Republican Members for otherwise eligible projects so that based on their own ideology, they can dictate how each individual Member should support their district and constituents who voted them into office. To my Republican colleagues who have funded transit projects in this bill, what will you tell your transit agencies who put the sweat and resources into submitting eligible projects for funding? I would mention the folks who did that: Mr. Garcia, Mr. LaHood, Mr. LaTurner, Mr. Moore, Mr. Pfluger, Mr. Rose, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Valadao, and many, many more along those same lines. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, a quick thought on earmarks. In general, a person doesn't like earmarks, but on the other hand, using the language that they often use, they don't want some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in D.C. making decisions on how their money is spent. It is one way or the other. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, 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 yet another anti- mobility amendment to eliminate funding for transit capital investment grants. The bill already cuts transit infrastructure by 82 percent. The gentleman from Pennsylvania's previous amendment doubled down on that by eliminating Member-sponsored transit projects. The bipartisan infrastructure law authorized this program to receive $3 billion for fiscal year 2024. Instead of debating an amendment to get us closer to that amount, we are wasting our time reneging on yet another bipartisan agreement. This amendment would make it impossible for dozens of commuter rail and bus projects already in the pipeline for construction grants to move along in a timely manner. That includes the thousands of jobs supported by those projects. In fact, for every $1 invested in public transit, another $5 is leveraged. Today, there are 69 projects across the Nation seeking funding under this program, including such places as Huntsville, Alabama; Indianapolis, Indiana; Rochester, Minnesota; Columbus, Ohio; Salt Lake City, and Spokane, Washington. While we often focus on the local benefits, the need for increased mobility and access to job centers, medical care, and schools goes beyond any one district. Transit gets essential workers from home to the places many of us rely on: hospitals, stores, service delivery hubs, and schools, not only supporting thousands of jobs across the country but the local economies that rely on these workers. The American people are tired of seeing half complete construction projects on the side of the road and deserve the confidence of this body that their taxpayer dollars will result in real infrastructure benefits. Instead of cutting off funding for buses and subways and those employed by and relying on these transportation systems, we should be investing in these projects that give commuters more reliable service, lower congestion on the roads, and make it a little easier to breathe. I urge all my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, when President Eisenhower developed the Interstate Highway System after coming back from Europe in the Second World War, it wasn't brought to you by some corporate sponsor. It is a recognition that there are things that government does that have value. It accomplishes things the private sector can't or won't do, and that doesn't mean they shouldn't get done. It is the whole purpose of government. We recognize it at this time when we are trying to be economically competitive with the rest of the world that our economic competitors are outspending us on the critical ingredient leading to economic growth, which is, in large part, infrastructure. That is why the trucking industry, the rail industry, and so many others were pushing so hard to get that infrastructure bill done. It is why we have to do that to keep growing the economy, which drives jobs and, indeed, tax growth so we can pay for these things. If we don't, and the roads and our transit systems become pothole- filled or inoperable, the economy will come to a standstill, as well. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I note that Mr. Connolly of Virginia plans to submit a statement to the Record opposing this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey).

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

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, can I just point out the absurdity of where we are right now? Let's have two White guys talk about racial equality and equity, but here goes. Instead of focusing on investing in affordable housing and the safe, efficient transportation infrastructure that powers our economy, we are discussing several harmful anti-equality amendments that have no place in this bill and are frankly a distraction. The Diversity Council and related groups that my colleague objects to include several affinity employee resource groups that provide opportunities, resources, advocacy for fairness, and peer support for HUD employees that are part of historically marginalized and underrepresented groups such as people with disabilities, women, and veterans. We may not like the fact that those inequalities still exist, but they do. It does no one any good to hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil. The existence of these groups is not divisive. Instead, it promotes inclusion. I don't know why some of my Republican colleagues are so afraid of the word ``equity'' or why they would stand in the way of efforts to ensure that the needs of disabled, women, and veteran employees are met so they are all treated equally and fairly. It is and always will be a movement toward a more perfect union. There was never anything in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, or anything else you can go down the street and read in another building, that tells us that we will ever have this accomplished. Instead, it is easier to say it is divisive, it is not necessary, it denies truth, or it denies history. That in itself is destructive. This amendment is unnecessary. It is divisive, offensive, and a deep distraction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment slashes funding for the HUD office responsible for enforcement of fair housing law by 25 percent below fiscal year 2023, undermining basic civil rights protections that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, and familial status. This gutting of the office would result in the loss of an estimated 150 personnel who work to enforce the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and other civil rights laws. In addition to improper investigation of fair housing complaints, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity coordinates with the Department of Justice, trains fair housing practitioners, enforces VAWA protections, manages grants, conducts civil rights reviews of HUD investments, and develops policies that proactively advance housing equity. Mr. Chair, I have seen firsthand in Chicago how, for example, LGBTQ youth--who are over-represented in the homeless population--can face discrimination when attempting to access homeless shelters. HUD guidance has played a critical role in clarifying the responsibilities of housing providers and assisting them in how to best promote fair and equal access. Again, weakened civil rights enforcement hurts our most vulnerable constituents the most. In 2021, 54 percent of fair housing complaints nationwide were cases of discrimination on the basis of disability. Housing affordability is not the only crisis Americans face when seeking stable housing. Discrimination is a real challenge for people with disabilities, veterans, seniors, and Tribal communities, and other vulnerable populations. Instead of hollowing out meaningful implementation of civil rights protections, we should be taking every possible action to ensure Americans are not falling prey to loopholes and the lack of enforcement. 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. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, when I came to this House, I was told a cardinal rule is we are not going to let Israel become a partisan issue. The manner in which this supplemental is moving forward does just that. It is dangerous, and it is unnecessary. It is also a dangerous game my colleagues across the aisle are playing with our national security. Removing Ukraine aid from this package sends a message to Putin and the rest of the world that our aid is conditional on political climate. It is clear that some of my colleagues have forgotten why Ukraine's fight is so important; what it means to democracy across the world. Let's remind them. This past weekend, we traveled to Kyiv and met with President Zelenskyy. We discussed the critical role the U.S. plays in the war and what else has to be done in the coming winter. Munitions are dwindling, and the needs are increasing. Not only is Putin certain to view the current crisis in the Middle East as a distraction from Ukraine that can be used to his advantage, but antagonists in both conflicts are connected through him. Just last week, Russia hosted representatives from Hamas and Iran. Iran is supporting both Hamas' attacks on Israel and is believed to be assisting Putin in his assault on Ukraine. Ukraine believes that 1,000 Iranian-designed drones were used by Russia over the past 6 months alone. We do not have to choose which crisis to respond to. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said: ``We have the capability and the strength to address different challenges at the same time. We don't have the luxury of choosing only one threat and one challenge.'' If we want to hold Hamas accountable, defeating Putin in Ukraine is also in our best interest. Anyone who tries to argue that a choice must be made between Ukraine and the American people or Ukraine and Israel is presenting a false dilemma. We must help Israel defend itself in the face of terrorism while simultaneously supporting Ukraine in their war against an autocratic invader.