The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 68
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up