Thune: Democrats Are the Double Standard Specialists
“So if you’ve got a history of, you’re arguing here, there’s all these attacks on democracy, all I’m pointing out is that that was a very different standard in the last four years, in the last administration, and particularly as it pertains to the legislative filibuster."
Click here to watch the video.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor:
Thune’s remarks below (as delivered):
“Mr. President, we’re getting up, now, close to the time to vote on the Vought nomination.
“And it’s been a 30-hour discussion, conversation, and some of which I think is perhaps instructive.
“I mean, I would argue – I’d make an argument, honestly, that through multiple administrations, that Congress has bequeathed and given up way too much power to the executive branch.
“But I think the, through the all-night vigil, a lot of speeches that were made over here, there was a lot of high rhetoric, I would argue, about attacks on democracy, attacks on the Constitution.
“And I think it’s important just, when you make those arguments, that there be at least some amount of self-reflection, because over the last four years, there have been a lot of times when the executive branch went around the Congress or tried to rewrite the laws that Congress had passed in ways that increased spending.
“And I can use a good example, under the committee of jurisdiction, the Commerce Committee, which is where I spent a lot of my time over the past few years, there was a program called the BEAD program, which was designed to extend broadband access to people in rural areas of the country, unserved areas of the country.
“And it passed almost, well, about three years ago.
“I didn’t vote for it at the time, but that provision in the bill was designed to deliver broadband services to unserved areas, rural areas of the country.
“And we are now three years into that program, and there hasn’t been a single dollar spent or a single household connected through that program.
“And it was a $42 billion funding program.
“Forty-two billion dollars, not a single dollar spent.
“Why? Because the administration decided to add conditions to it, conditions that made it unusable to a lot of the telecoms – at least certainly the telecoms in my area, and I think I represent probably as rural of an area as you’ll ever find.
“What were some of those conditions?
“Well, they added, they said you had to use union labor, something in South Dakota, we’re a right to work state, so we don’t have a lot of that.
“You had to meet climate conditions for your subcontractors, your suppliers, everything else, you had to comply with certain climate requirements.
“And then, you- there was an issue about rate regulation.
“Now, rate regulation, interestingly enough, was specifically banned by the statute.
“The statute said no rate regulation.
“So what the administration did is they added to the law in all these ways, in a way that made it virtually impossible for anybody to use.
“So here we are, three years later, three years after that law passed this Congress, and not a single dollar has been spent, and not a single household has been connected.
“Why? Because the executive branch decided they wanted to do some things with this law that Congress never intended.
“I didn’t hear the complaints about that, or all-night vigils.
“Another thing I’ll point out is the student loan program.
“Now, as we all know, the student loan program, of course, authorized, again, funded by Congress, and that’s a subject of ongoing litigation, I think we all know that.
“But it’s hundreds of billions of dollars, actually, increase in spending.
“Not cutting spending, but increasing spending, and again, totally outside the parameters of what Congress intended for the program.
“The law is pretty clear, we believe, and I think when you sign agreements, or a lot of financial agreements that students enter into on the student loan program.
“And essentially what has been said by the previous administration, the executive branch, the attack on democracy, was that that’s not going to apply, and we’re just going to forgive them all.
“We’ll wipe out all the agreements.
“We’ll go around the law, circumvent the law.
“And folks on this side of the aisle applauded when that happened.
“Again, action taken by the executive branch outside the parameters of what Congress intended when that law was passed.
“I’ll use one other example, and that’s the Thrifty Food Program.
“I serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee, as does Senator Grassley and a lot of other of our colleagues.
“And in the 2018 farm bill, there was a provision in there that allows the Department of Agriculture to use this program for sort of inflationary increases.
“The Thrifty Food Plan’s based on current food prices, food composition data, consumption patterns, and dietary guidance.
“But interestingly enough, what the Department of Agriculture decided to do was go around 45 years of precedent and do something that’d never been done before, and dramatically increase the program – by $250 billion.
“Two hundred and fifty billion dollars.
“It wasn’t an inflationary increase that was based on the cost of this program over time.
“It was something that had never been done before.
“And the Government Accountability Office busted the administration for doing it.
“But they used, very cynically, the 2018 farm bill as the basis for USDA’s action, but Congress never agreed to permit a quarter of a trillion dollar increase in spending.
“So again, I mean, these are decisions made by the previous executive branch, which happened to be the executive branch of a different party, and everybody had a sort of different reaction at that time.
“So I’m certainly somebody who is not deaf to what I’m hearing out there about some of the decisions that are being made by this new administration and their willingness to look at and evaluate programs, perhaps reprioritize them based upon their priorities.
“I think that's something a lot of administrations do, and I think there’s probably a lot of the program spending decisions that you all are concerned about, I’d probably agree with.
“But I just don’t think that coming down here and launching what are, ‘attacks on democracy,’ or, you know, ‘trying to seize power from the Congress,’ really matches with the facts of what happened the last four years.
“And I’ll just use those three examples.
“But I think they're three pretty glaring examples of what happened the last four years.
“And the final thing I’ll say – because I think everybody here knows we’ve had this conversation a number of times – but it wasn’t that long ago that there was a letter, 2017, from a lot of members of Congress, United States senators, on both sides.
“It was Democrats and Republicans, and many on the Democrat side of the aisle who are still here today.
“That basically said, and I will quote it for you, ‘We’re mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the legislative process, and we’re steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world’s greatest deliberative body. Therefore, we’re asking you to join us in opposing any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of senators to engage in full, robust and extended debate as we consider legislation before this body in the future.’
“The legislative filibuster, part of the Senate’s heritage as an institution, the way the Founders intended for it to operate.
“And in 2017 there were 32 Democrat senators who signed that letter, a number of them who are here today, and I think you probably know who you are.
“Well, it didn’t take very long, when you had a little change in the power, where you had the Democrats, everyone who was here at the time – some of you weren’t, some of you were new – voted to get rid of the filibuster.
“You voted to change the rules.
“You knew where it was going.
“And some of you been very public about it.
“And you’ve been very public about it, what you would do if that happened.
“And what the issue at that time was, was whether or not to federalize elections, which again, has constitutional issues given the prerogatives of state legislatures to set the conditions under which elections are held.
“So if you’ve got a history of, you’re arguing here, there’s all these attacks on democracy, all I’m pointing out is that that was a very different standard in the last four years, in the last administration, and particularly as it pertains to the legislative filibuster.
“That is an issue I don’t think anybody here could argue.
“It’s more connected to this institution than probably anything else.
“It gives voice to the minority.
“It requires collaboration and bipartisanship to do anything consequential.
“And at the time, everybody thought it was a good idea to preserve it.
“A couple years changed, the political winds in Washington changed, and all of a sudden it was time to get rid of it.
“So we’re going to vote on this nomination, but I think it’s important to point out in the debate how many times an argument was made here on the floor by members on this side about attacks on democracy and going around or circumventing the authority and the power of the Article I branch of the of the government, the Congress, the Senate of the United States, by an executive branch – and yet, here are three pretty, I would say, glaring examples of something done by the previous administration.
“Former Mayor Marion Barry once described his political philosophy as ‘situationist.’
“And I think when it comes to politics, we all have our views informed and changed, perhaps, over time.
“But these are some pretty striking, I think, and glaring examples of the inconsistency that is being applied to the current administration when in fact, the previous administration, an administration of a different political party, came to some very aggressive conclusions with respect to how they wanted to modify and change and alter laws passed by this institution, the United States Senate.
“So Madam President, I think it’s time to vote, and let’s proceed with the vote.”
Next Previous
