David Rouzer

Mr. ROUZER

Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann).

Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?

Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, I yield the remainder to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. ROUZER

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today represents a missed opportunity to produce good, strong bipartisan legislation focused on the country's real infrastructure needs. Instead, it is one focused on an agenda cloaked under the guise of the term ``infrastructure.'' This bill is all about Green New Deal mandates. In fact, for every $2 spent, $1 of that goes to meet these mandates. The bill rejects widely supported bipartisan projects streamlining provisions that would save taxpayer dollars. The bill creates 41 new programs and adds dozens of new eligibilities to existing programs for progressive priorities, which means true infrastructure needs are likely going to have access to fewer dollars. The bill strips States of their ability to prioritize new roads and bridges. And we all know States need more flexibility to meet their infrastructure needs, not less. Today's bill is also a missed opportunity to address our aging wastewater infrastructure. In the most recent Congress, we reached a bipartisan agreement on a way to move forward on clean water infrastructure with realistic levels of funding that address the needs of our rural communities. Well, not this time. Unfortunately, by choosing partisanship, the majority has chosen a very rocky path that will make it unlikely any final infrastructure package will be able to pass both Chambers and get to the President's desk during this Congress. Mr. Speaker, it didn't have to be this way.

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. ROUZER. Inquiry to the other side: Does the gentlewoman have other speakers as well?

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendments en bloc. These amendments en bloc would further expand upon the majority's wish list of progressive priorities for water infrastructure, just like the underlying bill. These amendments create additional programs costing billions in taxpayer dollars. In addition, several of the amendments create additional burdens and take discretionary, science-based regulatory decisionmaking out of the hands of the experts. Again, this bill is nothing more than a partisan exercise, and this en bloc just throws together another bunch of bad ideas with little opportunity for input or debate. This group of Democrat amendments we are considering at the moment is completely lopsided, and by considering them en bloc, they will not be subjected to the scrutiny of standalone votes or debate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate today, and it is a real shame that a surface reauthorization bill and a wastewater reauthorization bill have to be partisan. They shouldn't be partisan. We wanted a bipartisan process, but that is not what we got. And here we are today. In fact, we probably could have avoided even en bloc amendments had we had the opportunity to have a bipartisan process. But that is not the path, unfortunately, that our friends in the majority chose to take; and that, Mr. Speaker, is quite regretful. It is regretful in a number of ways, but most regretful for the great citizens of this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Lee amendment No. 132. This amendment would require that any applicant for wastewater infrastructure funds undertake an assessment regarding the potential impacts of climate change on the project and to adjust that project accordingly. Well, that sounds well and good, but this layers a new Federal mandate on top of the multitude of Federal regulations that are already being imposed on States, Tribes, and local governments in order to maintain their wastewater infrastructure and serve their communities. A one-size-fits-all regulation like this will create more process and increase project costs, but not add any more protection for projects, the environment or the climate. States, Tribes, and local governments are already incorporating resiliency into their infrastructure project planning and implementation. This is not 1960. For example, the State revolving loan fund programs already fund a wide range of projects to add resiliency and climate change. That makes this amendment unnecessarily redundant and an impediment for communities looking to upgrade their wastewater infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, in my past career, I have served as a senior staffer in the U.S. Senate, under George W. Bush during his administration, as a member of the State legislature, and now as a Member of Congress. It is interesting to me that--and I have never quite understood this, but our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to think that Washington knows best about everything. Our local communities, our States, our local partners, they know what they are doing. Let's give them the flexibility. Let's let them do what they need to do for their communities. Climate change is not a new notion. It has been around for a little while. You have got a lot of States and a lot of folks in private enterprise, in fact, that are incorporating changes, not at the request of Washington, but because that is what they feel like they need to do. We don't need a one-size-fits-all approach for any of this. In fact, a lot of this could have been worked out, had we had a bipartisan open process, but we didn't. Mr. Speaker, that is regrettable. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, again, we have had the opportunity here tonight and before to have a very open bipartisan process. And that is not what we have had, and that is quite regrettable. It is regrettable from not only a standpoint of this institution, but it is regrettable for the American people. You know, all the proven successful surface reauthorization bills and wastewater reauthorization bills, they went through a thorough bipartisan process. That is not what we have had. Instead, we have just had lip service. When House Republicans held the majority, we led every successful bipartisan effort in the last 30 years to reauthorize surface transportation programs. However, this time around, there has been little opportunity for meaningful input from the minority, and this en bloc process just continues down that same road. Look no further than the number of Democrat amendments that we have considered today, many of which have not been subjected to the scrutiny of a standalone vote or debate. More than 100 Democrat amendments have been approved by the Rules Committee, while less than 30 Republican amendments have been made in order. The majority argues they are moving this through regular order and providing both sides with the opportunity to offer amendments. That is not true. Both sides should be appalled that this en bloc takes away from our individual right to speak on these individual amendments and randomly groups them with other items with zero input given to the amendments' sponsor. It is all just a partisan move meant to further suppress the minority's rights to fairly represent their constituents. I think we can all agree that every Member deserves an opportunity to be heard on these amendments. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROUZER

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROUZER

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission's 60th anniversary. In 1961, six sweet potato producers chartered the commission to support growers and to maintain North Carolina's standing as a leading sweet potato producing State. They are now more than 400 sweet potato growers strong as well as packers, processors, and business associates who remain dedicated to supporting our State's prosperous sweet potato industry. Since 1971, North Carolina has ranked as the number one sweet potato producing State in the U.S. with 65 percent of the Nation's sweet potato production. North Carolina sweet potato producers are family farmers who have been cultivating their land for generations growing many different crops. They work day and night, year after year to ship delectable, high quality, nutritious North Carolina sweet potatoes all across the country and the world. Agriculture is the backbone of North Carolina's economy, and the sweet potato industry is absolutely critical to our food supply in North Carolina and in the country. It is not an understatement to say that the North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission has more than fulfilled its founding mission to strengthen our State's sweet potato production, and I congratulate them on their 60th anniversary. May they have many more years of providing every American with one of our Nation's safest, nutritious, and might I add, delicious vegetables grown. Congress Must Aggressively Address the National Debt

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, our national debt exceeds $28.1 trillion. Congress year after year continues spending money with seemingly no regard for the debts we are pushing onto future generations. While it was necessary to spend a significant amount of money to get us through the COVID-19 crisis, we must now move aggressively to address the national debt, in my opinion, the most significant domestic threat that our country faces. And the sooner we take action the better. Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't seem to feel the need to pursue fiscal restraint. President Biden's spending agenda is hurting families and small businesses across the country. Meanwhile, he has sent Congress a $6 trillion budget request. This additional spending will lead to even more inflation. The excessive spending Congress recently approved has already resulted in inflation. We see it every day in the skyrocketing prices of goods. And if the President and Democrats in Congress get their way on major tax hikes, the economy and working families will be hurt even more. Today, the American dollar is still king, which is how we can print and borrow money with seemingly little consequence. But huge debt-to- GDP ratios threaten that standing and could easily cause a significant decline in our standard of living. Rampant inflation, which is really just a hidden tax, and a significantly devalued dollar could cripple our economy and easily lead future generations right back to the days of centuries before us. Now, in contrast, the budget proposed by the Republican Study Committee for fiscal year 2022 balances the annual budget in 5 years by reducing spending and maintaining pro-growth policies. It is the most pro-life budget ever written, with 17 pro-life provisions included. It protects Second Amendment rights, secures our border, and offers real solutions to return our country to fiscal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Study Committee budget combats Washington's out-of-control spending and puts American taxpayers first. We should all be able to agree it is long past time to bring fiscal sanity to Washington.