Hagerty Exposes Democrats’ True Intention

August 8, 2021

WASHINGTON—United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) today on the Senate floor exposed Democrats’ true intention for expediting a final passage vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which it to usher in the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending spree. Following calls from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to have the Senate to vote on amendments to the bipartisan infrastructure bill, Hagerty proposed that the Senate vote on 17 amendments noting that he has no objection to voting on as many amendments as possible. Yet, Hagerty was immediately met by objection from Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ).

*Click the photo above or here to watch*

Partial Transcript

Hagerty: “Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number, that they be the only remaining amendments in order:

Ernst #2639

Cornyn-Padilla #2602

Wicker-Stabenow #2206

Cruz #2389

Lee #2517

Grassley-Klobuchar #2500

Crapo-Wyden #2507

Blackburn #2328

Warner-Portman #2617

Wyden-Lummis-Toomey #2619

Cantwell #2588

Wyden-Murkowski #2603

Cantwell-Braun #2621

Van Hollen #2613, as modified

Cruz-Lujan #2490

Daines #2599

Sullivan #2586

Shelby #2535

Rounds #2636

Sinema-Portman #2620

Further, that the Senate vote in relation to all pending amendments with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendment. And that if a roll call is ordered, then 60 affirmative votes be required for adoption for the amendments listed in this agreement, except for

Lee #2517

Warner #2617

Wyden #2498

Ernst #2639

Grassley #2500

And that there’ll be two minutes for debate equally divided prior to each vote.”

Sinema: “Reserving the right to object. Thank you, Madam president. As my esteemed colleague from Tennessee is aware, and as we all are aware, the Senate operates under unanimous consent reserving the right and the prerogative to any one Senator to object to moving forward when consent is not present. Now, as the Senator from Tennessee made clear yesterday in his remarks on the floor, he has declined to provide unanimous consent for a time agreement moving forward in this post-cloture time period. I’m sure it will then come as no surprise to him that there are Senators on both sides of the aisle who object to unanimous consent on one or more of the amendments listed in his proposed list today. I’m sure that he offers the same level of respect to those Senators denying their unanimous consent as has been offered to him, as well. Now, I am proud to report that throughout this bipartisan process, we have produced over the course of a number of months, a piece of legislation drafted entirely by the independent and bipartisan members who’ve worked over this number of months. We’ve introduced the legislation and we’ve had robust debate, and I’m proud to say consideration of 22 amendments on this bipartisan bill. It has been an open and welcoming process. As we are currently in the post-cloture debate time. Again, as I’ve mentioned, it requires unanimous consent to both move forward with all of the amendments or any of the amendments, as well as a time agreement. And as we have seen today, we do not have unanimous consent on either a time agreement or on moving forward on amendments. And therefore Madam President, I propose that we continue moving forward under regular order. And with that I object.”

Hagerty: “The Senator’s objection exposes the Democrats’ true intention. I’ve never objected to consider amendments on this bill—not once. Democrats say that they want amendments, but they can’t take yes for an answer. Democrats’ true intention is to rush this bill through so that they can hurry up and light the fuse on their $3.5 trillion spending spree, a socialist debt bomb, then leave town for vacation. If they want to vote on amendments, why would the Senator object to my reasonable request? The only way that Democrats will agree to the amendments is if they can rush this bill through. I note the absence of a quorum.”