The Senate has reached a rare bipartisan agreement on their frustration regarding a provision in a recently passed law that enables lawmakers to sue the federal government and receive substantial taxpayer funds. This provision, which was included in a legislative package designed to reopen the government, allows certain senators to seek compensation of up to $500,000 for alleged damages. The measure has sparked strong criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, with many expressing outrage at how it was added to the bill without prior discussion.
Lawmakers from both parties have voiced their concerns over the inclusion of the provision in the package, which was designed to reopen the government. The provision, which grants targeted senators the right to sue the federal government for up to $500,000, has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. Some argue that it’s an unfair advantage for a select group of lawmakers, while others believe it’s a necessary measure to ensure that the DOJ can’t be used as a weapon against members of the Senate. The controversy has created a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, as both sides find themselves united in their frustration with the measure.
The provision was included in the spending bill by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., at the request of GOP lawmakers, and was approved by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The law allows only senators who have been targeted by the DOJ and former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the federal government for up to $500,000. The provision is narrowly tailored to apply only to senators and would require they be notified if their information was requested by the DOJ.
Thune explained that the provision was added to the bill, but acknowledged the frustration of lawmakers who were unaware of its inclusion. He argued that the provision was necessary to ensure that the DOJ could not be used as a weapon against the Senate, and that it was important to have some sort of accountability and consequence for that kind of weaponization. Schumer, on the other hand, took issue with the way the provision was included in the bill, and suggested that it was an opportunity to protect Democratic senators from future investigations.
Schumer criticized Thune for his role in adding the provision, and noted that it was an opportunity to get protection for Democratic senators. He called for the repeal of the provision and suggested that the House would take up the repeal. The House is expected to vote on legislation that would repeal the language, and many in the upper chamber want to get the chance to erase the provision should it pass through the House. Whether Thune will put it on the floor remains unclear.
Several senators, including Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who was one of the eight senators whose records were requested during Smith’s probe, expressed their displeasure with the added provision. Hawley argued that giving lawmakers a financial incentive to sue the government was not the way to ensure accountability, and that the people who need to be held accountable are those who made the decisions to do this. He also suggested that the provision could be reworked to only allow for a declaratory judgment in court rather than a monetary one.
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., also expressed his support for repealing the provision, but wanted to fix it. He argued that the best way to handle the situation was to be able to take away the retroactivity and ensure that this never happens again. Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., called the provision a