Senator Bill Hagerty: “It Is Possible To Achieve Bipartisanship”
24:51 Share

It's time to take the quiz. Five questions, five minutes a day, five days a week. Take the quiz every weekday at thequiz.fox and then listen to the quiz podcast to find out how you did. Play, share, and of course, listen to the quiz at thequiz.fox. It's live in the Bream with host of Fox News at Night, Shannon Bream.

This week on the Live in the Green podcast, GOP Senator Bill Hagerty from Tennessee to talk about a number of things we can hardly keep up, Senator, about topics we want to hit. We'll try to hit as much as we can. But thank you for joining us in this very busy week. I'm delighted to be with you, Shannon. Thank you.

You have done all kinds of things which give you expertise on a number of fronts. You also served as the ambassador to Japan in a region now where there is a lot of tension. With the new administration, it seems there will always be challenges to a new administration by foreign powers kind of testing and seeing where we're at. What do you make of where our relationship stands with China now in these beginning days of the Biden administration? Well, I think that you're exactly right. China is...

observing and wondering where we are. I think China feels like it's been a big win with this administration change because some of the first policy changes that were undertaken are huge benefits to China, notably killing the Keystone XL pipeline, which was going to make America even more competitive as a nation, even more energy independent, killed that pipeline, killed those jobs. And where do you think the oil is going to go, Shannon? That's going to go straight to China.

lowering their input cost. And where do you think the wind turbines and solar panels are made that John Kerry is talking about? They're made in China right now. So huge, huge impact to the net positive to China, net negative to America. You look at what we're doing with the Paris Climate Accord, same thing. China's got a huge advantage in that deal. Their obligations don't kick in for years.

And yet you've got America deciding to just step back down. Again, we're the only nation that actually had reduced our carbon emissions since the original agreement was signed. We're the only ones that have actually complied with it. But America is ready to sign right back up under the Biden administration, putting again that weight of additional cost and regulatory burden on our companies while China doesn't have to do anything in return. And China's emissions have increased steadily.

since they signed the Paris Climate Accord. So again, China's net benefit to all of this has been extraordinary, whereas we continue to put ourselves at a disadvantage. And then we all saw what happened in Alaska when they had the gall, the Chinese, the Communist Chinese Party sends their representatives there to talk to our Secretary of State, our National Security Advisor, and they had the gall to try to lecture us. I thought that was an appalling performance

It was all made for TV in China and straight out of their playbook. I really, really found it unfortunate that they would take a posture like that with us. And it just underscores the fact, I think, in American minds that we need to stand stronger than ever against China.

Well, and you understand the nuances of that region much better than most of us will because of your experience there. Um, but what do you say to those who, uh, from this administration, the diplomats who've spoken out and members of the Biden team and saying the last administration blew up a lot of relationships when it came to foreign policy that, um, you know, they refer to president Trump as sort of a bull in a China shop and that, uh, now diplomacy and, um,

The ability to negotiate and work together. The Americans are back at the table. They're back as part of the world stage, whether it is the climate agreements or negotiations with China over various things. I mean, they characterize the last administration, the last four years, as having a very negative impact on foreign policy. I would say the exact opposite is the case. If you look at what was accomplished with the migrant protection protocols in Mexico,

It took an extraordinary amount of diplomatic effort to get those agreements negotiated. And what did the Biden administration do? As soon as they came in, they tore them up and created a crisis at the border like we've never seen before. There's a clear example of a policy that was working that was just destroyed for partisan political purposes without thinking about the impact on America.

And they've made basically every town a border town in the process because they are pumping the people that are coming across the border into the interior of America as fast as they possibly can.

So how do we find balance with this issue? I mean, the border is under numerous administrations has been increasingly complicated and messy. These are real life people. We have authorities telling us just in the Rio Grande Valley area that they busted up at least five major human trafficking chains and issues. I mean, we know that people are willing to put themselves in dangerous situations to try to get to this country. The coyotes, the smugglers,

The cartels are banking on that. They are making money off of these people's lives. What is it going to take to clean it up? We've had Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. We've had Democrats controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. And yet this immigration problem, which is real people, never seems to get solved or bettered in any measurable way.

Shannon, you're exactly right. Although I do think the problem had improved significantly in terms of the lawlessness at our southern border under the previous administration. And it took a lot of work to get it there. It took engaging those countries like Mexico, like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. We engaged with those countries to get them involved and

redefining the asylum programs, getting people to stay in Mexico, the first country they came to, rather than continue to push across, push through Mexico and try to penetrate our border. That's the type of engagement that's necessary. A lot of investment went into making

that program work. And what we've seen, again, is just a complete destruction of that with no plan in place to address it other than just to more rapidly process people into this country. I think the plan actually is to just increase the flow across the border, destroy our borders and have open borders. That's not what Americans want.

But that's what the leftists in this administration are pushing for. And I think it's really tragic. If you look toward a solution, though, I would come back to the fact that we need to be working more directly with those nations below our southern border to create the right set of incentives. And the way you create the wrong set of incentives is just to say,

The door's open. We're happy to give illegal immigrants stimulus checks if they come here, provide free health care. The list goes on and on of creating the wrong set of incentives at a point when you need to be creating the right ones.

And we do hear Democrats speaking up. I mean, people like Congressman Henry Cuellar, a Democrat down in Texas, he sees the real world impact because these are his constituents who are impacted by what goes on at the border. And we have heard people like him and others stand up and say, Mr. President, you got to be careful about the messaging here because it does serve as a magnet to a lot of people who are seeking a better life.

And if they think that they will be welcomed here and provided with a number of things that are so much better than where they're from, can you really blame them for trying this? But he's he's tried to, you know, throw up some red flags, it sounds like with the Biden administration, because he's there on the ground sort of breaking with his party and saying the reality of this is a disaster. Do you think any of that message is getting through to the White House coming from its own party?

I certainly hope so. And I think it's incumbent on us to really try to empower that messaging as well. This shouldn't be a partisan process. This is an American problem. We've got to deal with this as a nation. This is a real crisis that's happening at our southern border. It's an embarrassment. And I think that having Democrats speak out about this will hopefully move it out of the

completely partisan realm that it's been stuck in and hopefully into a bipartisan realm where we can get something accomplished and get this fixed. Well, somewhere the White House says they want to see bipartisanship come together and get something accomplished is this new infrastructure bill. And as these packages come together, I mean, the latest price tag I've seen is around $4 trillion. And I got to tell you, the first time that I interviewed President Trump before he was even running-

I was talking to him about it as he was thinking about running. The number one thing he kept going back to in that interview was infrastructure and saying how the U.S. really has got to update our highway systems, our airports, our bridges. I mean, it was something that wasn't a partisan issue to him, I think, as a builder and as a businessman who was thinking about running. He thought it was a huge issue. We know that there is bipartisan support on a lot of infrastructure issues.

But is there going to be bipartisanship on this kind of bill? Is this something that is going to pass, as we've seen with other recent large packages, without a Republican vote or two or 10? Well, Shannon, as it stands, I don't think it has a prayer of passing because such a small portion of this is real infrastructure. I'm in Tennessee today. I've been meeting for the past two days with real infrastructure providers here. I'm talking about highways, bridges, airports. Why?

I was just just during the Chickamauga lock. That's a major waterway project. That's a hard infrastructure project that will generate a return on taxpayer investment.

those are the types of infrastructure investments i think we actually can get bipartisan support on president trump was was absolutely right if we want to remain the strongest economy in the world we want to remain competitive as a nation in this century going into the next we've got to continue to build out the strongest infrastructure in the world we can do it we have done it in the past and i think we can find bipartisan support but

What the Biden administration is doing is, again, the typical Washington game of titling a bill as infrastructure when it has very little to do with infrastructure. And if you think about it, if you add it all up, I think the hard infrastructure projects, like I just mentioned, plus if you add broadband into that, you'd still not get to 10 percent.

of the total expenditures they're talking about. The remaining 90% are things like the Green New Deal, more social programs, things that have really very little to do with infrastructure but have a lot to do with making our economy less competitive and putting a greater tax burden on our children and grandchildren.

With that in mind, do you think that there will be an appetite for calling out and saying, okay, I know there have been some proposals back and forth, but do you think there'll be any serious going to the table to say, listen, we are with you on bridges, on connectivity, whatever, that everybody could agree as much as it's possible to agree on anything in Washington these days?

about issues that you would define as infrastructure you would include in this bill? Or do you think the Democrats will say, we're going to take another run at something along the lines of reconciliation where we don't have to get the votes we need from Republicans in the Senate and we're just going to continue to pass things with that 51st vote we get from the vice president and that's how we're going to continue to get things done?

Shannon, I think that you hit on something I'm very concerned about is that that's continued to use this parliamentary trick called reconciliation. And again, for all of our listeners, the normal process is forces bipartisanship. It requires 60 votes in the United States Senate to get a piece of legislation through reconciliation, which is originally designed to do technical corrections to budget bills has been abused by both parties, by the way, but it's been abused and it's gotten to a point now with this one

$1.9 trillion COVID package, as they called it, which had very little to do with COVID at all. It's been abused significantly, and I think that they're looking at doing it again. Our job, and the way this works, again, is they only need 50 votes plus Kamala Harris to get it through, and they have exactly 50 senators, as do we. It's completely split right down the middle Senate right now, and that means there's no mandate here. It's hanging by a thread, and if we can get one senator

to agree with us on not including these these

programs that have nothing to do with infrastructure, not including massive tax hikes on corporations that would, again, make us the least competitive economy in the world when it comes to our tax policy. If we can get agreement on those things and tick them off, we can hopefully narrow this bill down to something that really is a lot more about infrastructure and a lot less about social programs and the Green New Deal and the other types of things that the Biden administration is trying to sneak into it. Well,

Well, it does seem like there is some area for compromise and agreement. So we'll continue tracking that one to see which path it does go down, as you said, with reconciliation or the more traditional route. We'll just have to wait and see. We'll have more live in the bream in a moment. This is Jimmy Fallon inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America dot com.

I want to do a little bit of a lightning round, try to get to a few more topics with you. Police reform. Senator Tim Scott last year offered something up that had bipartisan support. It was filibustered by the Democrats. It sounds like he's going to make another run at having that teed up. We know that Democrats are offering up the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. They say that's the best vehicle for getting some reform done. What do you think happens on that topic?

I think Tim Scott took the valiant effort last year, and the Democrats proved that they don't want to solve the problem. They want to keep it as a political issue to continue to drive a wedge in this nation and, again, get their base motivated. That's the wrong thing for America, and it's the wrong approach.

The act that they're proposing would do away with things like qualified immunity. I was just talking with a sheriff here in Tennessee today. He told me that he would not be able to recruit a single new officer were qualified immunity undone. That means that people could just go ahead and directly sue the police officer that arrested them if they're unhappy with their treatment. There are things like this that would be absolutely devastating. It's this whole notion of defunding the police that's

that sends such a bad and demoralizing message. They want to fundamentally change America. They keep saying that over and over again, but they're making America less safe and they're really disheartening the people, the men and women that have worked so hard to make America the strongest nation in the world when they start

demoralizing our police departments and sheriff's agencies. Listen, and there are definitely groups and lawmakers out there who say, yes, it's time to just get rid of policing as we know it, either defund it or wipe it out. It can't be repaired. There are others who say they want to rechannel some of the money to social services and things they think may help in the long run. As that debate plays out, what do you make of the treatment of Senator Tim Scott? He was the response to the president's joint address to Congress. There

There's some pretty nasty things trending on Twitter and he seems strong, but, you know, some attacks that I don't think regardless of party, we should tolerate on someone on the basis of their race. And it seems like it's a popular thing to do to go after him on that front as if he is not black enough or woke enough or progressive enough. So his voice doesn't matter in the conversation. Yeah.

You know, you talk about him being a strong person. I had lunch with him the next day after he made that great, delivered that great rebuttal. And he is a strong person, a God-fearing person. He told me and our colleagues there at lunch how much he appreciated

He appreciated the opportunity to be in this great nation and to deliver that message. One of the things I think I find most disheartening about this is the fact that, at least to my knowledge, none of our Democrat colleagues in the United States Senate have come to his aid or to his defense as he's been attacked relentlessly in the Twitterverse. Just as you say, they're calling him things like Uncle Tim. It's disgraceful. And to have...

none of his colleagues in the United States Senate step forward and say, this is wrong. Really does break my heart. Well, he's got an amazing personal story as so many lawmakers do on the Hill. If you can step away from the partisanship and really hear from these folks about where they came from and, and,

The lives that they've lived, there are amazing people all over the political spectrum on Capitol Hill. And I think it'd be nice to, you know, hear the more human side of people's stories because we all have one. And his is one, certainly one of the many that is worth hearing about. He has lived a lot of this. And he says, listen, I've been pulled over numerous times. I know what it's like.

to experience the quote, you know, driving while black experience and to be at the hands of discrimination. He has lived it in a way that you and I can't understand. So I think he's a valuable voice to have as part of that conversation. And I know he's a strong guy and I hope those things will continue. Let me ask you about this. You know, right now, the president has got a commission studying the Supreme Court and whether or not seats should be added to the court.

Some more progressive members of Congress have come ahead on the Senate and House side to step forward and say, like, no, it's time now. Let's let's add four seats. We're not going to wait for the commission. Conservatives were scared by the commission. Should they be scared about this idea of legislation that would go ahead and add four justices right away?

I think it's something to be tremendously concerned about. I think it's well thought out. President Biden signs the executive order to establish the commission, and then right on cue, the following week, you've got Senator Markey and Representative Nadler. They introduced the legislation to increase the number of justices to 13. That would give them the majority. It would be a 7-6 court, seven Democrats, seven liberals, and 8%.

And six people that would be more conservative. It's just a brazen power grab. And it's going to create a precedent that I think would be absolutely devastating to the court. You know, every time the powers change and, you know, we'll see the addition of justices. Where does it end? Do you wind up with as many justices on the Supreme Court as we have members of the United States Senate?

I don't know where you draw the line. I mean, if each party starts doing it and it's interesting because a number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said it's a terrible idea. It does ratchet up the tension. Does every new administration add whatever it takes to give their side the power? And we've heard from justices, you know,

Breyer recently speaking at Harvard, suggesting it's going to make the court look politicized, which is the last thing the justices want. The late Justice Ginsburg said nine's a great number. It's been that way for a long time. Let's leave it there. So we'll see. You know, there are others who, you know, in the press conference... Even Senator Joe Biden, when he was the senator. Right. An earlier version. He said Teddy Roosevelt's idea was a bonehead idea. That was a bad idea. Well, and we have some on the left in the press conference, which we covered extensively with Senator Markey and...

you know, Chairman Nadler and others that you mentioned, they say essentially the court was stolen. That then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and President Trump teamed up to overwhelm the court system and pack it with judges they clearly do not agree with. And so they say this is, quote, unpacking or unbreaking the courts.

What they're doing is politicizing the court system in a way that's never been done before. It's been nine justices for 150 years. Elections do have consequences, and I fully appreciate that. But coming in and destroying the third article, destroying the judicial system as we know it, and completely politicizing it, I think will be just devastating to our Constitution and to our nation. They're going to create a legislative, you know, an alternate legislative branch. That's

That's what they're trying to do because if they can't get something passed through our body in the Senate and the House, they'll just pack the court with justices that will rule the way they think they want them to rule and bring suits to get their desired goals accomplished there.

Okay, a couple of personal questions. Do you have friends on the other side of the aisle in the House, the Senate, up on Capitol Hill that you can spend time with, grab lunch with, discuss ideas with, have conversations with in a nonpartisan or bipartisan way?

Well, you know, I was fortunate, as you mentioned, to serve as U.S. ambassador to Japan. So I met a number of senators on both sides of the aisle when I was doing that job. I went through confirmation, met a number of senators through that process. And then as I was serving as ambassador, a number of them came to visit again because we have such a

huge economic relationship with japan is the third largest economy in the world after the united states and china also we have a massive military presence there is the largest component of u.s military station anywhere abroad is stationed in japan so i had the opportunity to get to know and have

lunch or dinner with a number of them. Unfortunately, I'm a new member of the Senate. Everything has been locked down since I've arrived. So the lunch rooms are not open in the Capitol. It's not conducive

The environment is not conducive as long as they've got us locked down to the type of interplay that you described. But I'm optimistic. We're finally on to our committee work now. And I've had the opportunity to speak and talk with, again, offline a number of my colleagues on the Democrat side. And I do think that it's possible. The challenge has been, Shannon, when the television is on.

And when those cameras are on, I see a marked difference in the behavior of folks up there. And it's disheartening, again, to see that. But I understand the nature of politics. It's just unfortunate that our political environment is such that folks are concerned that they're not just being rabidly partisan at every point that a camera is on them, that they're going to fail on their political mission.

Yeah. Yeah. And, and I, it does, people are put in very difficult positions. At least they, some of them are self-imposed, but I would hope that people can rise above that and beyond that. Cause I think the American people would value and appreciate that. You know, they, they want to see people who are genuinely trying to make life better for all Americans. Okay. So not that you have time for fun, but when you do, what do you like to do in your downtime? Yeah.

Well, the best thing I do with my downtime is get home and spend it with my kids. I've been blessed to have four wonderful children, Shannon. You and I have talked about that before. They're at a wonderful point in life and also at a challenging point in life. They're teenagers. So I do the very best I can to spend time with them. My boys are both scouts. I've had the opportunity since I've been in the Senate to get back and go camping with them. We're actually planning our summer camp.

trip where we'll spend some time camping and hiking on that as well. We're working on a fishing trip coming up here in the next couple of weeks. So spending time outdoors with my kids is the absolute best thing I could do. Sharing with them the way I grew up in rural America. I want them to appreciate that if they do. So that's what I do with my spare time for fun and enjoy doing that with my wife.

Well, I'm with you on the fishing and the hiking, the sleeping outdoors overnight. I will leave to you and the scouts who do it very well. My wife sort of does that same way as well. She's happy for us to do the activities in the daytime, but it's for the boys to sleep on the cold, wet ground. There you go. Well, it makes you tougher, as my dad would say. It'll put hair on your chest. Senator Bill Hagerty, it's great to visit with you. I hope you'll come back soon. Thank you for joining us on this week's Live in the Green. Thanks so much, Shannon. Great to be with you.

Listen to the all-new Brett Baer podcast featuring Common Ground. In-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Baer favorites like his all-star panel and much more. Available now at foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts.