[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)]
[House]
[Page H1963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         IMPORTANCE OF BIPARTISAN ENGAGEMENT ON INFRASTRUCTURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Torres of California). The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GIMENEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the House on the 
importance of bipartisan engagement on infrastructure.
  Yesterday afternoon, I had the privilege of sitting in the Oval 
Office with President Biden as we, along with a small group of Senators 
and Representatives, discussed the best way possible to move forward on 
infrastructure.
  Our commitment is clear: Republicans agree that we should put more 
resources and key investments into the things that we consider the 
traditional definition of infrastructure. This includes our roads and 
highways, bridges, ports, and waterways. In order to maintain our 
competitiveness in the world, strategic investments in things like 
public transportation and improved air and rail mobility are also key.
  We also need to continue fostering American entrepreneurship and 
private investment in the area of automotive technology with numerous 
auto companies making great gains in automotive vehicles running on 
clean, safe, sustainable energy sources, as well as creating an 
economic environment where they can continue to build out their own 
electric charging station networks.

  Republicans also understand the importance of the technology side of 
infrastructure, such as the need to expand rural broadband, fortify our 
cybersecurity to protect critical assets from foreign adversaries, and 
improving our telecommunication networks across the country. These are 
all key areas where Republicans and Democrats can come together and 
work on infrastructure solutions in a broad, bipartisan way.
  As it was made clear to the President, unfortunately, the current 
proposal floating around goes well beyond that scope and includes 
funding for projects that are not infrastructure. As much as some of 
our Members on the other side of the aisle want to speak it into truth, 
the expansion of social welfare programs is not infrastructure.
  If my colleagues want to engage in a rigorous debate over the merits 
of expanding Medicaid and providing elder care, or whatever else they 
want to put into this infrastructure proposal, they ought to bring 
separate bills onto the floor. I am sure my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle will be happy to engage in that debate.
  What we cannot allow is for these provisions to be snuck into a big 
spending package under the guise of infrastructure.
  I do have a small glimmer of hope that there is a bipartisan avenue 
for moving an infrastructure package. In order to get it done, it is 
going to take compromise between both sides. President Biden and my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle must engage in earnest 
negotiations with Republicans. Let's put all of our cards on the table 
and bring forward targeted legislation that actually supports American 
infrastructure.

                          ____________________