[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 87 (Thursday, May 23, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Page S3067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             INFRASTRUCTURE

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on infrastructure, yesterday, as 
everyone knows, Speaker Pelosi and I met with the President and a group 
of other Senators and Congress Members to discuss the prospects for a 
bipartisan infrastructure bill.
  We went to the meeting with high hopes. The President, 3 weeks 
earlier, had said he would be willing to do a $2 trillion 
infrastructure bill and tell us how we would pay for it. Unfortunately, 
it was a very short meeting. The President walked out after a few 
minutes with the paltry excuse that he would not work to get things 
done for Americans unless Congress abdicated its constitutional duty to 
provide oversight of the executive branch.
  His motives were transparent. He knows darn well that these 
investigations should and will go forward. He had nothing to say on 
infrastructure. It was typical of the President. He boasts that he 
wants to do something and then has no followthrough. This 
administration has become an erratic, helter-skelter, get-nothing-done 
administration. Even on infrastructure, where there is usually 
bipartisan agreement, he couldn't even come to the table and talk. He 
had to throw a temper tantrum and walk out.
  Presidents throughout our history have worked with the other party 
while being investigated. They know--every President knows--it is a 
fact that Congress will do oversight. Some of it will not be pleasant 
for any President. President Obama didn't like oversight; President 
Bush didn't like oversight; President Clinton didn't like oversight; 
President H.W. Bush didn't like oversight; President Reagan didn't like 
oversight. But none of them, Democrat or Republican, said: I am going 
to stop the government from functioning. I am going to refuse to help 
hundreds of millions of Americans who need help in one way or another 
because I don't like Congress fulfilling its constitutional 
responsibility.
  The bottom line is simple. The President was merely looking for any 
excuse, however inelegant, however transparent, to wriggle out of 
working with Democrats on a much needed infrastructure bill.
  Nothing about yesterday's meeting at the White House changes the fact 
that we have serious infrastructure demands in our country. Nothing 
about yesterday's meeting changes the fact that a substantial 
investment in infrastructure can boost our economy, put millions of 
Americans to work, create green jobs and green energy sources, and meet 
the ever-growing demands of the new 21st century.
  We came to the meeting with the President with serious intentions to 
work with him on a large bipartisan bill. He had asked the night before 
in his letter where we wanted to put the money. I brought to him a 35-
page proposal with ideas on how to craft one. We talked about what 
needs to be done: repairing and rebuilding our old roads and bridges, 
water and sewer, building a power grid so that we can bring clean 
energy from the parts of the country blessed with wind and sun to other 
parts of the country in need of energy, dealing with infrastructure in 
a way that creates broadband for all of the rural and inner city homes 
that don't have it, creating green jobs, encouraging electric and other 
kinds of vehicles that will reduce the output of carbon into the air, 
and creating much more energy-efficient homes and schools.
  There are many demands. It was a comprehensive proposal. The 
President might not agree with all of it, but we were there, prepared 
to roll up our sleeves, work, and come up with a plan.
  Unfortunately, the President had no plan. Despite his promise 3 weeks 
earlier that he would have a plan, he had none. Two nights before, he 
had said: Well, let's not discuss infrastructure until we discuss USMCA 
and NAFTA. Then, that morning, he didn't even take a seat. He stood up, 
obviously agitated, and said that the investigations were wrong and 
stalked out.
  We left the meeting disappointed in both the President's decision and 
demeanor. But America can be assured that Democrats will try to find 
ways to move the ball forward on this important issue of roads, 
bridges, broadband, and power--with or without the President.
  Democrats believe in infrastructure, plain and simple. We believe 
that our infrastructure is an urgent priority of the country and this 
Congress. We believe we need to rebuild existing infrastructure--the 
roads, bridges, ports, and sewers. We need to build the infrastructure 
of tomorrow, such as wind, solar, a new power grid, and broadband for 
rural and inner city America.
  We believe our next investment in infrastructure must be substantial. 
We believe we can pay for it without asking the middle class to 
shoulder the burden.
  We believe a new 21st century infrastructure program is one of the 
very best ways to create millions of long-term, good-paying jobs, to 
boost our economy, and to help combat climate change.
  So I say to my Republican colleagues in the Senate: Despite the 
President's unwillingness to work on anything that benefits the 
American people, according to him, let's move forward on an 
infrastructure bill. Let's put together a large, strong, well-funded, 
and clean infrastructure bill.
  Members of both sides should want the opportunity to work on 
something that will benefit every constituency in every State in 
America. Members should want to tell the American people that they are 
working to bring jobs to their States, broadband to rural and 
underserved urban communities, to work together to improve the economy 
and the environment with a clean, green infrastructure bill. There is 
no reason why the Senate should not pursue a bipartisan infrastructure 
bill.
  Congress has taken the lead before. Congress can take the lead again, 
no matter what the President does. Just because President Trump doesn't 
want to lead doesn't mean that our work on infrastructure is over--not 
by a long shot.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________