House votes to repeal shutdown deal provision allowing senators to sue govt for at least $500K

WASHINGTON, DC: The House moved to scrap a controversial new law that would let senators sue the government for at least $500,000 or more if their phone records were accessed without notice. 

Quietly slipped into a government funding bill by Senate Republicans, the measure sparked outrage for being retroactive and appearing to benefit just a handful of senators whose records were subpoenaed during the investigation into alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

What is the controversial provision in the government funding bill?

The House voted 426-0 to repeal the controversial provision on Wednesday, November 19. The measure angered lawmakers from both parties because it was slipped in without warning and caught senior spending committee members off guard. 

The provision was hidden in a 394-page, four-bill spending package meant to fund the government and end the nation’s longest shutdown. It requires that senators be notified if their phone records or other metadata are accessed from service providers, like phone companies.

It also limits the government’s ability to defend itself in court, removing protections that usually shield officials from lawsuits for official actions.

Because the law is retroactive to 2022, it applies to the eight Republican senators whose records were subpoenaed during the investigation of Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Those senators have strongly criticized former special counsel Jack Smith for accessing their records.

When did the lawmakers learn about the provision?

Most lawmakers only learned about the provision hours before the Senate was set to vote on the spending bills, as pressure mounted to reopen the government after a 43-day shutdown. Leaders of the Appropriations Committees in both the House and Senate said they had no idea the measure had been included.

“I am not backing off,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican whose phone records were subpoenaed during the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. “I am not going to take this c**p anymore. I am going into court and we’ll see what happens.”

Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, complained, “We are not included in the discussions at all.”

Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma and chair of the House Appropriations Committee, echoed the sentiment, “Did I know about this provision in the bill? No. Do I think it needs to be in a funding bill? Not particularly.”

The provision sparked strong bipartisan opposition in the House, where members, unlike senators, would not benefit financially from it.

“What they did is wrong,” said Representative Austin Scott, a Republican from Georgia. “This should not be in this piece of legislation, and they can say it’s about good governance all they want to. When they made it retroactive, all of a sudden it was no longer about good governance. There’s actually a list of people that know they will get paid as soon as this thing is signed.”

Representative Chip Roy, a conservative Republican from Texas, added, "It is beside my comprehension that this got put in the bill, and it's why people have such a low opinion of this town."

Which senators favor the move to repeal the provision?

Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota and the Senate majority leader, acknowledged on Wednesday that the provision could have been handled more carefully, but he maintained his support for its overall purpose.

“I take that as a legitimate criticism in terms of the process,” he said, responding to concerns that top lawmakers were left uninformed about the proposal, which emerged during the last-minute push to end the government shutdown. “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 coequal, independent branch of the government.”

While Senator Graham and other Republicans pointed out that Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, had initially agreed to the measure, Schumer later said he now favors repealing it.

“The bottom line is Thune wanted the provision,” Schumer said. “And we wanted to make sure that at least Democratic senators were protected from Bondi and others who might go after them. So we made it go prospective, not just retroactive. But I’d be for repealing all the provisions — all of it. And I hope that happens.”

Unlike Graham, most Republican senators eligible to sue the government under the new law have since sought to distance themselves from it.

“I am for accountability for Jack Smith and everyone complicit in this abuse of power,” Senator Bill Hagerty, a Republican from Tennessee, wrote on social media. “I do not want and I am not seeking damages for myself paid for with taxpayer dollars.”