[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H5473-H5477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
                 INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to (H.R. 
3684) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
amendment thereto will now resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will redesignate the Senate 
amendment and redesignate the motion to concur.
  The Clerk redesignated the Senate amendment and redesignated the 
motion to concur.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) each have 10 minutes 
remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and, more 
importantly, I thank him for his tremendous leadership. His 
understanding of infrastructure in our country and the way to build it 
in a green way to honor our commitment to our children is something 
that is a blessing to the Congress.
  For decades he has served on the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, and he has done so in a way that has taken us into the 
future.
  But we haven't had a bill in a while, and so I thank him for his 
INVEST in America Act that he had earlier that is not all reflected 
here, but nonetheless hopefully we will see some provisions in the 
Build Back Better Act.
  I rise in support of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is about jobs, jobs, 
jobs, jobs. Support for this legislation is bipartisan, bicameral, and 
respectful of the needs of workers and communities across the country.
  Following the vision of President Biden, the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill addresses a great need in America which has been 
neglected for decades, as I mentioned. Our roads, bridges, and water 
systems are crumbling. Some water systems are over 100 years old, Mr. 
Speaker, made of brick and wood.

[[Page H5474]]

Our electric grid system is vulnerable to catastrophic outages.
  We must not only rebuild the infrastructure for the 21st century 
economy, we must rebuild the middle class, creating good-paying 
American jobs and turbocharging American competitiveness and growth. 
These are connected.
  Again, I thank President Biden. He said: I am happy to work in a 
bipartisan way in order to have an infrastructure bill where we come to 
agreement, but I will not confine my vision to that piece, that 
legislative piece. We must build back better.
  I think it is very important to note for people across the country 
who have seen infrastructure in the past come in and divide their 
communities, perpetuate injustices, environmental injustice in their 
communities, that it is necessary for us to build back better in a way 
that empowers.
  When I say ``rebuild the middle class,'' it is about jobs, but it is 
about jobs in a new way; more inclusive for women, for people of color, 
for younger people to be engaged and trained with workforce training to 
participate in the new economy. With jobs and justice.
  In the past our infrastructure bills have reinforced that 
environmental injustice and divided communities. The Build Back Better 
Act will undo that. With the passage of this bill, accompanied by the 
Build Back Better legislation, with its equity piece, much of that 
injustice, as much as possible, will be reversed.
  It is about building up. It is not about trickle-down: Oh, this is 
what we are going to do and a lot of people will benefit and maybe you 
will get some of it. No. It is about meeting the needs of people, both 
for the water needs or transportation needs or infrastructure needs in 
many ways, but also that starts and then builds up.
  Along with the Build Back Better Act, this prioritizes some aspects 
of justice and opportunity.
  Let me be clear. While the investments in the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill are strong, historic down payments to build back 
better, we are not confining our vision--as the President has said, he 
is not confining his--for rebuilding infrastructure to this 
legislation.
  We all know that we have to build back in a responsible way to meet 
our green climate initiatives, our goals, and our responsibilities in 
that regard.
  Passing an infrastructure bill is always exciting for what it means 
in terms of jobs and taking our country into the future, and it has 
always been bipartisan over the years here. Not for a while because 
there was resistance when President Obama was President. We passed a 
bill, but it was not of the magnitude that we needed.
  This is a step closer to a once-in-a-generation investment in our 
infrastructure, as the Conference of Mayors have said. Now we must go 
further to build back better.
  I urge strong bipartisan support for this legislation.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).
  Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his leadership on 
this extremely important issue.
  I want to expose for my constituents the real truth about the so-
called infrastructure portion of the Democrats' destructive $5.5 
trillion package.
  You can read for yourself in the bill that only a fraction of the 
funds go to roads, bridges, broadband, and other things people outside 
the swamp would generally consider infrastructure, a true and 
embarrassingly small drop in the bucket, considering the current state 
of Michigan's infrastructure. By the way, our roads still haven't been 
fixed.
  But more importantly, I am asking you to read between the lines to 
understand that this package will stretch the long, intrusive arm of 
the Federal Government into your life, more than ever before. Your 
energy bill, your taxes, your job, your Nation's borders, your economic 
freedom.

  As your Representative, I can't let this happen, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman 
once again conflates, confuses, confabulates. The bill before us is a 
bipartisan bill from the Senate, $550 billion of new spending on top of 
the expected income. It is not $3.5, $4.5, $5 trillion and doesn't 
include all those other things. It does include roads, bridges, 
highways, transit, water, wastewater, drinking water, lead pipes, 
ports, airports, and broadband, which I think his constituents want.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this very, very important piece of legislation.
  The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will make critical 
investments, not just in roads and bridges. This legislation will also 
invest in transit, rail, electric vehicle charging stations, electric 
buses, airports, ports, water, energy, environmental remediation, and 
high-speed broadband internet. I will focus on this last category, the 
$65 billion for broadband.
  Millions of Americans are not connected to the internet. In my home 
State of South Carolina, nearly 1 in 10 households lack access to an 
internet connection, and even more cannot afford service. As a result, 
they cannot work remotely, cannot learn remotely, and cannot access 
telehealth. The internet is as essential to the 21st century as 
electricity was to the 20th century, and far too many Americans are 
left out.
  That is why I worked closely with the House Rural Broadband Task 
Force, Chairman Pallone, and members of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee to craft comprehensive legislation to make high-speed 
broadband accessible and affordable for all. Our bill passed the House 
last Congress as part of the Moving Forward Act.
  While the legislation we are considering today doesn't include that 
bill in its entirety, and more action will be required, it does 
incorporate many of our bill's essential principles. It gives 
preference to future-focused infrastructure, prioritizes persistent 
poverty communities, and includes oversight and accountability 
mechanisms.
  The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act also invests in 
affordability and adoption. It requires an affordable option to be 
offered on newly-funded networks, extends the monthly discount on 
internet bills, and funds digital equity and inclusion projects.
  Throughout our Nation's history, communities in most need of Federal 
funds have all too often been the last in line.
  Together with the Build Back Better Act, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act will make America's greatness accessible and 
affordable for all Americans. I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank probably the most 
knowledgeable Member of Congress about infrastructure in this country 
and our needs, Mr. DeFazio, the chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  He and his committee, Mr. Speaker, and members of his staff have 
worked very long and very late hours over the past 2 years--and, 
frankly, longer than that, going back to the 116th Congress and the 
115th Congress--to produce the legislation that served as a basis for 
this bipartisan bill. I also thank Chairman Pallone and the members and 
the staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who contributed a great 
deal as well.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, during the course of the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump 
said he was going to invest a trillion dollars in infrastructure--a 
trillion dollars. In 2017, he became the President of the United 
States, and in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, no trillion-dollar 
infrastructure bill was offered to this House or to the Congress.
  Mr. DeFazio, myself, the Speaker, and other leaders went down and met 
with President Trump. Mr. DeFazio was talking about the trillion 
dollars that the President talked about. He really thought there was 
probably more needed, but he was talking about the trillion dollars. 
The President said dismiss that, that is too little. It is not enough. 
We need at least $2 trillion--President Trump, 2019.

[[Page H5475]]

  What we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a product that reflects 
the needs of our economy, an infrastructure system in dire need of 
upgrade and expansion, and addresses some, but by no means all, of the 
realities of the climate crisis we face.
  In fact, a bill which did a much better job passed this House, led by 
Mr. DeFazio. Unfortunately, it was not subject to conference, which is 
what the process ought to be.
  However, this bill would enable our businesses to seize on the 
opportunities presented by those challenges and to create millions of 
good, new jobs in the process.
  And I thank Mr. DeFazio for his leadership and advocacy.
  We have before us legislation that will invest more than $1 trillion 
in transportation networks--half of what President Trump said we ought 
to be doing, but a very significant step nonetheless--in expanding 
broadband access, in addressing climate change, and in helping our 
communities build back better and more resilient.
  It would enact a major component of President Biden's Build Back 
Better agenda. This is part and parcel of the whole. This is a segment 
of what the President has rightfully called generational, 
transformational change.
  I hope we can come together and pass this legislation, Mr. Speaker, 
with strong support from Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans 
have been browbeaten into opposing this bill, not because of 
substantive reasons, but for political reasons so that President Biden 
will not have a victory. But that perspective is incorrect. The people 
who will not have a victory are the American people.
  I hope we come together, as I said, to pass this legislation in a 
bipartisan fashion to help our businesses and working families make it 
in America. I use those words on purpose because I have been talking 
about making it in America for over a decade.
  I have been proud, for many years, to lead House Democrats' Make It 
In America plan for jobs and opportunities, a plan with three core 
components: infrastructure, this bill; and education, the bill to come, 
although this has significant training in here for workers to get good 
jobs and good-paying jobs. It is a plan with also another core, and 
that is entrepreneurship.
  Infrastructure has been central to our Make It In America plan since 
I first put it on the table in 2010. That is because momentum has been 
building for these investments in infrastructure for many years. As a 
matter of fact, then-candidate Joe Biden called me up and said: I want 
to talk to you about Make It In America.
  We talked about it, and it is in our Democratic platform, Make It In 
America.
  I don't know anybody who is not for making it in America, either 
manufacturing, even if it is zeros and ones, or succeeding, making it 
in America.
  Businesses, labor, economists, and State and local leaders have been 
clamoring for Congress to do exactly what we are about to do today with 
this vote. And when I say ``exactly,'' they would like more. I think 
they would have liked the House bill, Mr. DeFazio's bill, much better. 
But none of us get perfect, and this is a bipartisan bill.
  Our Make It In America plan has called for multiyear, fully funded 
authorizations to address the backlog of projects both for 
transportation and for water infrastructure, and that is what Mr. 
DeFazio has been leading on.
  This bill includes a 5-year, $110 billion authorization for highways, 
roads, and bridges; $39 billion for transit; and $55 billion in water 
infrastructure to literally get the lead out and make our water safe to 
drink.
  It calls for making our electricity grid more resilient and more 
reliable, which we included in Make It In America. This bill invests 
$78 billion to do exactly that and creates a new grid deployment 
authority to promote innovation and smart-grid technologies. That is 
about our national security. That is a national security demand on us.
  In the Make It In America agenda, we challenged Congress to promote a 
modern energy infrastructure that reduces waste and incentivizes 
storage and alternative forms of energy for vehicles. That is what Mr. 
DeFazio did in the bill that we passed. It is not as good, I think, but 
that is what is in this bill.
  The $7.5 billion included in this legislation for building an 
electric vehicle charging infrastructure in America, particularly in 
rural, disadvantaged, and hard-to-reach communities, meets that 
challenge. That is why 40 percent of the Republicans in the United 
States Senate voted for it.
  When House Democrats traveled across the country listening to the 
American people over the last few years, we heard what they need to 
make it in America. We heard about the need to expand access to high-
speed internet, including deployment of 5G wireless infrastructure. 
That is what Mr. DeFazio did, and that is what this Senate bill does. 
This bill achieves those goals by including $65 billion to bring 
broadband access to nearly all Americans by auctioning new spectrum for 
5G wireless. That is what Whip Clyburn was talking about, making sure 
that all of us can make it in America because we have access to the 
internet.

  It is also about education, and we have called for reforms that allow 
for stackable credentials for students preparing for the workforce as 
well as those already in the workforce looking to get ahead by learning 
new skills.
  This bill before us today includes provisions that provide States 
with flexibility in how they use funding to strengthen workforce 
development. We all talk about that. It helps more people train for in-
demand skills, such as engineering.
  In so many ways, the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act is a product of House Democrats--Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Scott, Mr. 
Pallone, Mr. Neal--and, yes, many Republicans who have also talked 
about making it in America.
  We have been united in promoting this agenda for 10 years, and now we 
have the chance to effect a large portion of it.
  Mr. Trump talked about it; he just didn't do it.
  This legislation, of course, is just one-half of an even larger 
effort, as I said, by President Biden and Democrats to achieve that 
objective of helping our people make it in America.
  The other piece is the Build Back Better Act. That legislation, which 
is progressing steadily toward consideration on the floor, would enact 
the remainder of President Biden and Democrats' domestic agenda, 
including major efforts to address the climate crisis and reforms that 
will help millions of American families achieve economic security.
  We all talk about being pro-family. That is pro-family. Childcare is 
pro-family. Earned income tax credit is pro-family. Expanding Medicaid 
is pro-family. So much. And if we are pro-family, we need to support 
those items.
  While the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act makes 
investments toward tackling the climate crisis, the Build Back Better 
Act will take the steps needed to transition our economy to clean 
energy in line with the President's commitment to the Paris climate 
agreement and Mr. DeFazio's bill that we passed through this House.
  Where this legislation today invests in our Nation's physical 
infrastructure, the Build Back Better Act makes investment in America's 
human infrastructure.
  When I go to a building and cut a ribbon at some base or whatever, I 
say that is very nice, this physical structure, but if we build great 
bricks and mortar but don't have people who can do the job, we build in 
vain.
  In our working families, in our communities, that is what we invest 
in, in opportunities for hardworking Americans to get ahead.
  We are moving steadily ahead with that bill, and I am hopeful that we 
are nearing the finish line. I look forward to bringing that bill, the 
Build Back Better Act, to the floor soon.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe Democrats will demonstrate unity on both 
pieces of legislation as we put President Biden and congressional 
Democrats' agenda into action. Let's get it done. Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  This body could and should have worked together on bipartisan 
legislation to improve our roads and our bridges, wastewater 
infrastructure, and other vital infrastructure components. But instead, 
the majority preferred to put us through a very highly partisan

[[Page H5476]]

messaging exercise. And for what? The majority leaders' grossly 
mismanaged process.
  I have no doubt that they thought that their ``my way or the 
highway'' approach reflected all their progressive priorities, and they 
were mighty proud of it. But it led to the House, both Republicans and 
Democrats, being completely sidelined in this process. And we knew that 
this was the most likely outcome.
  I want to highlight two key points.
  The first is that today's legislation is one of the largest 
infrastructure bills ever before the House, but because of the 
Speaker's mismanagement of this entire process, the House failed to be 
taken seriously and failed to have any input into this bill.
  The second point is that this bill is a Trojan horse for 
reconciliation. We all know that. Voting for this bill is a vote for 
Speaker Pelosi's $3.5 trillion spending spree, and there is no way to 
separate the two. Even the Speaker acknowledges this, and many others 
as well.
  Lost among all of these poor decisions is the absolute necessity to 
address America's real infrastructure needs. I firmly believe that the 
work we do on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is 
critical to the economy and to the lives of all Americans, and if the 
House process was bipartisan from the very start, this conversation 
would have been much different, but here we are. Instead of zeroing in 
on real infrastructure, the majority is talking about spending 
trillions and trillions of dollars on everything that they can think 
of, and I have to ask: When does it end?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we could have perhaps had a bipartisan bill out of the 
House, except for the unified rejection of climate change on the other 
side of the aisle.
  Transportation is the largest single emitter of CO2 
pollution in the country. This is a critical threat to our country, to 
the world, and we have to deal with it.
  The bill we wrote and passed would have dealt with that very 
meaningfully and moved us into 21st century infrastructure. This bill 
contains some of those elements that even the Republicans on this side 
would not support. EV charging, nope, not in their bill. Electric 
buses, nope, not in their bill. Electric school buses, nope, not in 
their bill. None of those things were in their bill.
  In fact, their alternative, which they didn't even offer on the 
floor, by the way--so they don't really have an alternative--was $350 
billion for highways, status quo, with an increase in spending. No 
changes in policy except for the one, Rodney Davis' thing, which is in 
the Senate bill, to gut NEPA. Then, transit flatlined over 5 years, and 
rail, zero--goose egg, zero.

                              {time}  1245

  No wastewater, no reconnecting communities, no drinking water, no 
lead pipes. And by the way, every billion we spend on wastewater or 
drinking water creates 20,000 good-paying jobs. No broadband in their 
bill. And the list goes on and on.
  So we don't have a real alternative on that side of the aisle. And 
should they help to vote this down, they oppose it, then they have no 
answer. The answer is a continuing resolution, status quo, funding, 
flat funding.
  Not dealing with the 400,000 bridges in America that need substantial 
repair or replacement. The 40 percent of the National Highway System 
which has deteriorated to the point where it has to be rebuilt from the 
roadbed up. The $100 billion-dollar backlog in transit, a decrepit rail 
system--we just had a derailment; people died--and they are going to 
put zero dollars into rail in their bill.
  Wastewater systems that back up into basements or flow into rivers, 
and water mains that burst, I mean, we have to deal with these things. 
It didn't used to be partisan. The problem is we also believe in 
dealing with climate change, and they can't admit to climate change 
because Donald Trump says it's a myth. And you can't defy Donald Trump 
on that side of the aisle. That is very, very sad.
  At least these 19 Republican Senators nodded toward it. They included 
money for EV charging, electric buses in the bill--at least a little 
tiny nod. They did take up our mandatory greenhouse gas reduction 
program. They did take out our critical fix-it-first principles, but we 
will improve on the bill with new, novel programs in the reconciliation 
process yet to come and deal with some of those issues, deal with the 
greenhouse gas reductions, deal with more transit, more rail, more 
wastewater--in different ways. Drinking water, lead pipes, all those 
things will be in the reconciliation bill yet to come.
  But plain and simple, the bill before us today is the infrastructure 
bill, the only option.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank all my staff. There are too many to list in the 
time that I have remaining, so I include in the Record a list of their 
names.

                               Conclusion

       Before I conclude, I want to take a moment to thank my 
     staff--especially those who drafted the INVEST in America 
     Act. They have spent countless days, nights and weekends 
     working on a transformational surface transportation bill 
     over the past two years.
       I wish we were considering that bill today. But, without 
     their hardwork and dedication we wouldn't be here and about 
     to deliver for the America people the most significant 
     investment in our nation's infrastructure in decades.


                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

       Helena Zyblikewcyz-Staff Director
       Jackie Schmitz
       Garrett Gee
       Brittany Lundberg
       Chris Bell
       Zan Guendert


      Subcommittee on Railroads Pipelines and Hazardous Materials

       Auke Mahar-Piersma-Staff Director
       Andrea Woehbler
       Frances Bourne
       Katherine Ambrose
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, they did an absolutely phenomenal job 
putting this whole package together--twice, two Congresses. Real 
legislative process on this side of the Hill. Even though the 
Republicans lost, they participated in the process--not so much on the 
other side. Some day we might get back to regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, I conclude and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and my 
colleagues from Maryland, Representatives Hoyer and Raskin. Our State 
of Maryland has a proud history of innovation in satellite technology 
and space exploration. Greenbelt, Maryland is home to Goddard, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's first Space Flight 
Center. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which 
operates a fleet of weather satellites, has its headquarters in Silver 
Spring. Additionally, the largest provider of residential satellite 
broadband service, Hughes Network Systems, is headquartered in 
Germantown. Hughes serves consumers in some of the most rural, hard-to-
reach areas of the country.
  As the House considers the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we 
join our colleague, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) in expressing our support 
for satellite technology, which offers an opportunity for helping 
achieve our broadband deployment goals. Satellite innovators in 
Maryland and elsewhere have designed measures to reduce latency by 
using a mix of communications platforms, including low-earth orbit 
satellites and fixed wireless networks.
  The infrastructure bill provides broadband grants for service 
providers that meet a ``real-time, interactive'' standard for 
permissible latency. We believe that residential satellite broadband 
service providers could potentially meet this standard by using a mix 
of geostationary and non-geostationary satellite networks or fixed 
wireless networks. Satellite broadband service providers that are able 
to meet the standard for permissible latency should be considered for 
broadband grants provided in the infrastructure bill. We look forward 
to working with our colleagues and the Department's National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration staff on this 
important issue.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have one question. Why are we using an 
infrastructure bill to write the rules for new technology?
  That's exactly what's happening today.
  The cryptocurrency tax reporting provision in this bill will have 
long-lasting and harmful implications for innovation here in the U.S.
  So, we need a fix. The ``fix'' debate started in the Senate. But it 
didn't go anywhere. And I said in August, if the Senate can't get it 
done, we'll fight it out in the House.
  So, I'll be introducing a bill to put the guardrails in place to 
clarify the scope of the new reporting requirements.
  We need to keep America at the forefront of innovation.

[[Page H5477]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 601, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________