The Senate is splitting over a controversial provision in a recent spending bill that would allow targeted senators to sue the federal government for up to $500,000. Both Republicans and Democrats are furious over the measure, which they feel was inserted in the legislative branch spending bill without prior notice, allowing lawmakers to profit from taxpayer funds.
The provision was included in the government reopening package by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on request from GOP lawmakers. It was also approved by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The provision is intended to prevent the DOJ from abusing its power to go after sitting senators, either through phone records subpoenaed as part of the Arctic Frost investigation or through other means.
Thune defended the provision, arguing that the entire package was released 24 hours before its vote and that the need for accountability is important, even if the process was not perfect. ‘I think I take that as a legitimate criticism in terms of the process, but I think, on the substance, I believe that you need to have some sort of accountability and consequence for that kind of weaponization against a co-equal branch of the government,’ he said.
Schumer blamed Thune for the contentious provision, but noted it was an opportunity to protect Democratic senators from potential future investigations. ‘Look, the bottom line is Thune wanted the provision, and we wanted to make sure that at least Democratic senators were protected from [Attorney General Pam] Bond, and others who might go after them,’ Schumer said. ‘So, we made it go prospective, not just retroactive, but I’d be for repealing all the provision, all of it. And I hope that happens.’ 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.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who was one of eight senators whose records were requested during Smith’s probe, said he was neither asked about the provision nor told about it, finding out when he read the bill. He criticized the process, arguing that the idea of having taxpayers pay for the lawmakers’ legal fees was not a form of accountability, but rather a cash grab. ‘I just think that, you know, giving them money — I mean making a taxpayer pay for it, I don’t understand why that’s accountability,’ he said. ‘I mean, the people who need to be held accountable are the people who made the decisions to do this, and, frankly, also the telecom companies. So I just, I don’t agree with that approach.’ He also criticized the narrow tailoring of the provision to apply only to the Senate, suggesting it could be reworked to include declaratory judgment in court.
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., supported repealing the provision but wanted to fix it. ‘The best way to be able to handle it, I think, is to be able to fix it, take away the retroactivity in it,’ he said. ‘The initial target of this whole thing was to make sure this never happened again.’ Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., called the provision a ‘total mess’ and raised concerns on both sides of the aisle.
Not all senators are in favor of repealing the provision. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., stated he would sue the DOJ and his phone carrier, Verizon, and argued that the provision was not self-dealing, but rather intended to deter future similar actions. He proposed expanding the provision to others affected by the investigation. ‘Is it wrong for any American to sue the government if they violated your rights, including me? Is it wrong if a Post Office truck hits you, what do you do with the money? You do whatever you want to do with the money,’ Graham said. ‘If you’ve been wronged, this idea that our government can’t be sued is a dangerous idea,’ he continued.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was succinct in his response. When asked if he would support a repeal of the provision, he told Fox News Digital, ‘No.’