Sam Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the dean of the House and the former chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today's bill is nothing more than a Trojan horse. It is a facade to lure everyone into opening a door for Speaker Pelosi's real priority, a $3.5 trillion or more tax-and-spend plan. This is unfortunate, because like infrastructure bills of the past, a bipartisan process was very possible. The Senate's infrastructure bill includes some good provisions for improving our infrastructure, but the process leading up to today and the lack of input from the House should have everyone concerned. We are establishing a terrible precedent when we take away the ability of chairs and ranking members to write or influence a bill of this magnitude. Today's debate structure tells the real story. In what world is 1 hour of debate on a $1.2 trillion package sufficient? Not a single member in this Chamber, on either side of the aisle, has had any input whatsoever in this bill as it was being negotiated in the Senate because Speaker Pelosi's partisan path boxed the House out of the entire process. House Republicans were eager to work on infrastructure, especially on a bipartisan, long-term highway bill for programs that expire just a few days from now. In fact, my Republican colleagues and I introduced the STARTER Act and made and outlined priorities we had hoped to address through a bipartisan process. The STARTER Act proposed record levels of investment in our roads and bridges and, more importantly, made commonsense changes to improve the project delivery process, including reforming the outdated NEPA process. However, we were very clear that any package that got too large, too expensive, or too costly would get no Republican support. But instead of working across the aisle to develop a bipartisan House bill that could be conferenced with the Senate, the Speaker hijacked the process to hold infrastructure hostage for the $3.5 trillion or more socialist spending spree the progressives want to ram through using budget reconciliation. Under their plan, the American people will bear the brunt of this unfettered spending. Inflation has gone up in every single month of this administration, and it is having the biggest impact on low-income and middle-class families. Gas prices are up by more than 42 percent from last year. Bacon is up 17 percent. Beef is up 12 percent. Eggs are up 10 percent. The list goes on and on. Meanwhile, wage growth is lagging, which means paychecks are stretched thinner, making it that much harder for families to put dinner on the table and pay their bills. The President promised not to raise taxes on the lower and middle classes, but Americans know full well that inflation is taxation. This hidden tax is hitting families' checkbooks very hard. But instead of slamming the brakes on this reckless spending, the majority is racing towards more and doubling down on their spending spree. For example, over the last year, transit has already received five times the funding it typically gets in one year, and people aren't even using it. Despite that fact, transit stands to get even more in this bill and through reconciliation. Worse still, this duplicative spending represents another broken promise by the President, who agreed not to use reconciliation to revisit funding already addressed in the infrastructure bill. All in all, these numbers are downright frightening. They scare me, and I know they scare the farmers and the small business owners. They scare hardworking constituents across my district who know they will pay for it in higher taxes and higher prices due to inflation. A recent poll showed that 6 out of 10 Americans support pumping the brakes on the $3.5 trillion or more spending package that is coming on the heels of today's bill. I truly hope the growing skepticism amongst congressional Democrats about that package is enough to bring it to a halt. But the fact remains that the infrastructure bill we are debating today is not the real priority for the Speaker and the progressives in the majority. This has been a horribly managed process from the outset, and there was never a legitimate effort to work with Republicans to find common ground on these historically bipartisan issues. I have supported all three highway bills that have been signed into law during my time in Congress, under both Republican and Democrat Presidents. It might be a surprise to some, but those were all led by Republican chairmen in the House. Regardless, I never thought I would see the House simply take up a major infrastructure bill from the other body and just vote on it with no input, especially when so many Members of the majority, including the chairman himself, expressed displeasure with this piece of legislation. It begs the question: What is the real motivation here for the majority to pass this bill? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the ranking member of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special anniversary for our country, an anniversary that exemplifies American ingenuity in aviation and agriculture--two industries very dear and important to me as well as vital to our planet. This anniversary is that of the first aerial agriculture aircraft taking flight. This type of aircraft makes it possible to feed not just America, but the entire globe. Exactly 100 years ago today, on August 3, 1921, Lt. John Macready piloted a modified Curtiss JN-6 ``Super Jenny'' over a plot of catalpa trees. Macready had a passenger that used a hand-crank 10 dispense lead arsenate from a rudimentary hopper, which helped eradicate insects that were harming the crucial crops. Crop-dusting, now also known as aerial application or agricultural aviation, was born. Today's agricultural aviation industry consists of 1,560 aerial application businesses that make aerial applications in all 50 states. The average agricultural pilot has approximately 25 years of experience. These pilots treat 127 million acres, or approximately 28 percent of cropland, each year. That means that just under a third of the food, fiber, and bioenergy produced in the United States today receives an aerial application. Not only does agricultural aviation feed our population--but it protects forests and eradicates disease- carrying pests. The industry's ability to constantly evolve to the technological needs of the nation over the past hundred years is why aerial applicators have remained so important for a century. Certainly, the future will be filled with unimaginable advances just as the past has. Lt. Macready in 1921 likely never could have imagined flying a massive aircraft, led by orbiting satellites and warned of weather, to a specific plot of farmland. Agricultural aviation's history is the story of agriculture's history--which is the story of American innovation. It is a story of adaptation and overcoming challenges for the public good. We give thanks to the industry and those that gave their lives to the industry. Please join me in wishing a happy 100th anniversary to this great American invention, and in looking forward to many, many more anniversaries in the future.

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew). (Mr. VAN DREW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3684. Here we are again. It is ``Groundhog Day'' for infrastructure on the floor this week. Exactly 1 year ago, I stood here as we took up the majority's first version of its my-way-or-the-highway bill. That bill, just like today's, was developed without working with Republican Members, and it passed mostly along party lines. And then that bill died, forcing Congress to pass a 1-year, short-term extension, something that we all know is extremely costly, and it is detrimental to our States' ability to plan and carry out the improvements that they need. Unfortunately, the Speaker has ignored the obvious lesson that successful legislating is through partnership, not through partisanship. As a result, today's bill is even worse than last year's failed effort. This bill is completely unpaid for. It is completely unpaid for, something that I have never seen in a highway bill in my two decades here in Congress. It is all deficit spending, and it is going to continue driving up what is already the highest inflation rate since 2008. Mr. Speaker, it didn't have to be this way. Earlier this year, our committee's leaders met with the President, and we made it clear that Republicans wanted to be a part of a bipartisan bill. I have no doubt that we could have compromised in a way that met many of the majority's goals while still including Republicans' priorities from our own proposal. Far from being impossible, the Senate committees have managed to do just that. They found common ground on commonsense project streamlining, flexibility for our State and local partners, and equitable treatment for rural America. However, in order to appease the progressives in their party, the majority showed no willingness to meet us anywhere in the middle. Instead, they moved their bill even further to the left than the one from last year. Ironically, even that won't be enough, as Speaker Pelosi right now is preparing another partisan effort that is going to completely overshadow this bill by pushing through a multitrillion- dollar, tax-and-spend plan using budget reconciliation. Mr. Speaker, I will just walk through a few of the things, just a very few of the things that are wrong with this bill. Mr. Speaker, $1 out of every $2 on this bill is tied up in the Green New Deal agenda. This bill eliminates a ban on spending transit dollars to fund art at train stations or transit stations. It is insane, given the infrastructure needs that we have in this country, that this bill would waste critical infrastructure resources on buying paintings and sculptures for transit stations. This bill significantly increases the size of government. It creates 41 new programs. As I mentioned, this bill provides no regulatory reform to make project delivery more efficient and less wasteful. This bill ties the hands of States that need to build new roads and new capacity. Even if that is their most critical need, it still ties their hands. These are just a few of the examples of why this bill is bad for the country. I can go on and on and on and on and on. This partisanship was absolutely unnecessary, and it is sad. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee have overwhelmingly approved their own pieces of a surface reauthorization. The Senate has also approved a bipartisan $35 billion water infrastructure plan. But instead of following that example or using the bipartisan agreement we had on clean water infrastructure that we agreed to last Congress as the framework, the majority again chose to walk away from bipartisanship. This bill now includes more than $170 billion for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, which is completely unrealistic, and it is out of touch with the Senate's bill and House Republicans. In fact, everything about this bill is out of touch. Although the President currently supports a bipartisan infrastructure framework in the Senate, progressives in Congress have already declared that that Senate proposal is dead on arrival without first getting their massive partisan wish list. If they don't get it, they have stated that. The Speaker and the far left are trying to hold infrastructure hostage in order to get their $6 trillion in other priorities through budget reconciliation. While the other side says that all the spending in today's bill is supposed to transform our transportation system, it is certainly going to change one thing in transportation, and that is your gas prices. More deficit spending is only going to further fuel inflation and raise the price of not only gas but food and every other necessity. Voting for this bill is an implicit endorsement of the Speaker's overall strategy to ram through a $6 trillion tax-and-spend reconciliation package, and I encourage Members to vote against this bill and against this partisan process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).