Far-Left House Democrats Argue So-Called Bipartisan Senate ‘Infrastructure’ Plan Does Not Go Far Enough

Far-left House Democrats are teetering on the “infrastructure” bill, calling it “crap” and perhaps not “in the interest of the public good,” a sign not all House Democrats presumably support the bill in the Senate that includes far-left provisions.

For instance, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) is uncertain about the Senate bill, indicating he feels left out of crafting the deal, “as opposed to the three people who wrote the bill who know nothing about transportation,” DeFazio said about Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ).

“They cut this deal. I didn’t sign off on it,” he added.

Newsweek reported Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and other far-left Democrats “may wind up blocking it if the Senate is unable to also secure a larger budget proposal via reconciliation.”

“Bipartisan doesn’t always mean that it’s in the interest of the public good,” she said Sunday.

The “bipartisan” bill, however, includes a spending item partly based on race, which would codify Critical Race Theory, a view that all disparities in group outcomes are due to racist systems.

The bill has a measure called “digital equity” grants, which are intended to “ensure” that Americans have access to “affordable” “wireless internet service,” will be allocated in part to those considered a “covered population.”

The bill defines “covered population” as a “racial or ethnic minority” and distributes money partly on the basis of that definition of group disparity.

The “bipartisan” bill also includes “gender identity” as a protected class. The bill reads:

No individual in the United States may, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that is funded in whole or in part with funds 16 made available to carry out this title [emphasis added].

The radical provisions have encouraged Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) to criticize the bill as more than just a “bipartisan” deal currently in the Senate.

“I think the bigger thing to be shocked by is what’s happened in the Senate. Senate Republicans who’ve agreed to this deal think that they’re only going to get a bipartisan deal. And it’s simply not true either,” tweeted a Fox News reporter, quoting Donalds.