The audio:
The transcript:
HH: I’m going to talk now with Majority Leader John Thune about that. Leader Thune, welcome. I want to begin by asking if you and Senator Cotton, who are two members of the Gang of Eight who get briefed on intelligence matters have been briefed on anything, yet, about Iran.
JT: I think at some of the Gang of Eight meetings, it’s been high-level stuff, Hugh, but you know, I obviously don’t talk a lot about what’s said in those meetings. But I don’t think a lot of specificity, I would say.
HH: Okay, what would you conclude from the cancellation of today’s meetings, and the dispatch of the George H.W. Bush carrier to join the Lincoln?
JT: I think that you know, obviously there, the administration perceives the Iranians to be escalating, and you know, clearly cutting off the talks was a huge signal that they were sending. But I think it’s, I mean, we’ve got a lot of interest to defend in that region of the world, and it has implications not just for that region of the world, but for the entire world. And so I think the President and his team are right to take it seriously and to ensure that America’s national security interests are protected there.
HH: Last question on Iran, Mr. Leader. If we go to a battle with them, what is an acceptable conclusion of that battle, from your perspective?
JT: Well, obviously for me, Hugh, it would be regime change. I mean, I think you’ve got to get new leadership in there. And there’s no guarantee that new leadership might be the answer, either. I mean, we’ve seen that before in other places around the world. But I do think that the Iranian people are clamoring for a voice in their government, and for the same rights that people in freedom-loving countries have around the world. And I think that’s what we ought to be supportive of there. And so if that were an end game, I think that would be at least a great starting place.
HH: We will pick it up from there next time we talk. I want to thank you, by the way, and congratulate you for getting the Defense Appropriation bill done, as well as 11 of 12 appropriations bills done. I don’t remember the last time that that happened, so hat tip to you, the leadership, Chairwoman Collins, Senator Collins, of course, the leader of the Appropriations Committee. When was the last time that happened?
JT: You know, it’s been a while, Hugh. I actually ran into one of my former colleagues in the House of Representatives. We had come in together, you know, almost, now, 30 years ago, and he said I think the last time we did all the appropriation bills was 1996. So…
HH: Sheesh.
JT: It’s been a while. It’s been a while.
HH: Oh, I’ve been doing this show for 25 years, and I do not remember it ever happening before. So congratulations on that. Regular order is restored except for the Department of Homeland Security. So I’d like to go there and ask you where the status is of those talks, what the Democrats are asking for, and whether or not we have creative ask backs?
JT: Well, we do. I mean, I think there are, if you kind of put it into three categories, there are things the administration is already doing, which are significant. And they’re a lot of the things the Democrats have asked for. Then, there are things you could do through that DHS funding bill that are funding oriented that you could, you know, increase or withhold funds into certain categories of the DHS budget. But then, there are the things that I think they want, which are policy changes. And if they’re going to insist on any kind of policy changes, we’re going to be at the table with ours, too, because I don’t think we want, we do not want these negotiations evolving into something that makes it harder to deport and detain dangerous illegal aliens that are in this country. And so I, you know, that bill needs to be focused on protecting and ensuring that law enforcement officers are safe in their jobs, able to do what the American people expect them to do, and to deport and detain dangerous illegal aliens. How you go about that matters, and I think Tom Homan has done a great job on the ground there of, you know, sort of getting that situation a little bit more in a place that hopefully the Democrats ought to be pleased with. I mean, I just think of the things that have already been done, Hugh, including in the DHS funding bill, the original one, which they agreed to and helped negotiate, by the way, that it had a number of reforms in it, including body cameras. And then, they walked away from that, and then they walked away from the two-week funding bill. At least a lot of them did. And the two-week funding bill is way too short in the first place. I mean, this is, they don’t know what they want. All they know is they want to fight Trump. And that, to me, is a really bad motivation, and it’s going to get them to make some bad decisions, which I think they’re doing.
HH: Well, I think they’re in a box canyon now, Leader Thune. I’m going to suggest that we, Republicans, offer them the DREAMers, which everybody in the country except 5% on each edge want to be done, along with the ability to cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities, because sanctuary cities are a problem.
JT: Yeah.
HH: They’re a refuge for dangerous illegal immigrants, and possibly even worse than criminals, maybe terrorists. And everybody wants the DREAMers done. We can flip the script here. Any conversation about that on the Hill?
JT: There are some conversations around that. And again, I think if this does get, if the Democrats were actually serious about negotiating, I think those are things that could be put in place. Certainly, as you know, there’s a lot of interest on our side in doing away with sanctuary cities, which as you point out, is a huge problem. And I think the President has expressed in the past some interest in dealing with the DREAMer issue. I think the President’s in position, if we wants to, to be the guy, because he is viewed as the person who closed and secured the border, could do something on this issue. But in the end, you’ve got to have a willing partner. And I don’t know if he’s going to have that with the Democrats. We’ll see. I mean, I think right now, what I’ve suggested, and I think it’s true, is that if the Senate Democrats want to make a deal here, they’re going to have to sit down with the White House and figure out a path forward. But I don’t think the Democrats know what they want. I mean, they haven’t given us the list of their demands, yet, other than these vague categories. And I just think they’re in a tough spot. But TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, cyber, you know, CISA, the cyber operations for the country, are all in that bill. And if they decide to shut the government down, I think it’s going to be a very hard position to defend.
HH: Do they even have a lead negotiator, Leader Thune? Do they have someone that they’ve said it’s going to be Chuck Schumer is going to sit down with Leader Thune and the President to work this out? Or is it their Appropriations vice chair? What is it?
JT: They haven’t said, and we’ve been asking. You know, we’ve said we’re prepared to negotiate, and the White House is ready, I believe, to sit down. Katie Britt, who chairs the subcommittee on Homeland on the Appropriations Committee has sort of taken the lead role, or at least has offered up the opportunity to sit down with whomever the Democrats want to put forward. And you know, obviously, we will be engaged, I will be engaged in that as well. But you know, in the end, the Democrats have got to tell us what they want and be willing to negotiate with the White House. And at this point, it seems like they’re more interested in having the issue than they are in having a solution.
HH: Would you personally support a deal that included both the DREAMers and a funding cut-off switch for sanctuary cities? And that might be 100%, it might be 50%, it might be 25% of all federal funds in all categories. I don’t know what it is, but a trigger?
JT: Yeah, I mean, let me think about that. I hate to, I mean, not to negotiate in advance, or negotiate against yourself, so to speak, until we kind of figure out what the Democrats want. But I think, like I said, I think there’s some things that could be put on the table. This is a president who obviously likes to find solutions, and is willing to go places that others haven’t. And so let’s see where the conversation goes.
HH: Yeah, he did the First Step Act in Term one. A first step act on regularization would make a lot of sense to me. Let me close by asking you about the poor people at TSA. During the last shutdown, I was flying a lot, and they were working without pay for a long time. Are they back in the same hopper again, working without pay?
JT: Yeah, I mean, that’s the problem. Now fortunately, I mean, it falls on the pay period, so they’re probably paid for a couple weeks. But if this continues, that’s what’s going to happen. In fact, I was just talking to one of my colleagues who flew in just, you know, over on Monday here to come back into town, and said he was asked by TSA agents at the airport, you know, are we going to be in this situation again where we don’t know where the next paycheck’s coming from. That’s what the Democrats are, this is where this ends up, where this leads us. And again, that’s not a good outcome for anybody. So I hope they figure out what they want and are willing to sit down and negotiate in good faith. And let’s see if there’s a there, there. But if not, at least help let us fund these agencies with a continuing resolution until the end of the fiscal year. At a minimum, they ought to be willing to do that.
HH: Majority Leader John Thune, thank you for joining me. By the way, good luck to your South Dakota quarterback who’s leaving the fabled halls of Columbus for greener pastures. But good luck to Lincoln.
JT: Yes, indeed. He’s a good quarterback. Thanks, Hugh.
HH: He’s going to be a great kid down there. Thank you, Leader Thune.
End of interview.
