Connect with us

Congress

Thune steadfast on data seizure payouts for senators as Republicans seek repeal

Published

on

The House plans to vote Wednesday to repeal a provision that could award eight GOP senators hundreds of thousands of dollars for having their phone records seized without their knowledge during a Biden-era probe. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who secured the measure, is standing his ground.

“The House is going to do what they are going to do with it,” he told reporters Tuesday night. “It doesn’t apply to them.”

But many senators from both parties are eager to roll back the legislative language they didn’t know Thune secretly negotiatedwith Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in the government funding package that ended the longest shutdown in history last week. Republicans could revolt if leadership doesn’t give them a vote to overturn it.

In interviews Tuesday with nearly a dozen lawmakers, confusion, frustration and anger ran rampant about what has quickly become branded as a politically toxic, taxpayer-funded windfall for a select few. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) went so far as to quip there could be “some stabbings” at the Senate GOP’s weekly lunch Wednesday when the topic will inevitably get discussed.

“Whoever put this in had an obligation to tell us about it, and they didn’t,” said Kennedy. “There’s something called trust and good faith around here.”

Even Schumer conceded the widely unpopular language should ultimately be scrapped.

“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] Bondi and others who might go after them,” he said Tuesday. “But I’d be for repealing all of it and I hope that happens,” he told reporters.

It’s not clear whether it’s too late to reverse course in the Senate.

The provision at issue, which President Donald Trump signed into law last week, would award senators $500,000 or more if they discover their electronic records were seized without notification.

In seeking to attach it to the funding bill, Thune was directly responding to furor from several Senate Republicans eager for retribution against former special counsel Jack Smith, who obtained the phone records for at least eight Republican senators during his investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Thune in an interview acknowledged that members would indeed discuss the issue at lunch Wednesday but reiterated that he personally was not having second thoughts about including the measure in the funding deal.

“It’s designed to protect United States senators,” Thune said. “We have a number of people who are interested in making sure that that sort of thing has a consequence if that kind of weaponization of the government along the lines of what Jack Smith did is ever employed again in the future.”

Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who claims he was targeted by the Smith probe, praised Thune for including the language. Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is confirmed to have had his records subpoenaed during the Smith investigation, has said he plans to take advantage of the provision to make it “so painful” for those involved.

Some Senate Republicans admitted they hope the language is preserved. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said he wanted the provision expanded to let a broader range of parties sue to show “how corrupt Jack Smith is.”

It’s far from certain disgruntled lawmakers would make it easy for Thune to move a standalone bill to revoke the provision, even if he decides he wants to — they could insist on controversial amendments or make the voting process drawn-out and disruptive. Nor is it clear Republicans would allow the provision to be stripped in a subsequent government funding bill.

There’s far less hand-wringing in the House, where members were criticizing the language before they even voted on the Senate-passed funding bill last Thursday.

The House Wednesday evening is expected to easily pass a bill to repeal the payout provision with support from Speaker Mike Johnson and House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, who is working to get Smith to sit for a transcribed interview before his committee.

In the Senate, several lawmakers signaled Tuesday night they were anxious to distance themselves from the new policy and wanted to follow the House’s lead.

“I’m going to support repealing it,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), the chair of the legislative branch appropriations subcommittee.

He added he was not alerted about the language until after he already voted for the funding package last week and that he later received an “apologetic” call from GOP leadership over how the matter was handled. Thune confirmed that he had spoken to Mullin and that the Oklahoma Republican was not aware of the provision’s drafting.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she was likewise in the dark in advance of the vote.

“That was something that the leaders put into the bill, and I played no role in that whatsoever,” she told reporters.

Democrats made clear they would continue to pummel Republicans if Thune failed to take action.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the ranking member on the legislative branch appropriations subcommittee, said he was “furious” with leadership and has since introduced a bill to pare back the provision.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), another senior appropriator, said in an interview his party was “going to make every effort to try to reverse that pretty serious mistake.”

“I guess there’s an argument that it offers some future protection, but that’s not what the provision is about,” he said. “The provision is about a cash payout to Republican senators, plain and simple.”

Jennifer Scholtes and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

The House Ethics Committee wants to do better

Published

on

Three lawmakers accused of serious ethical lapses have been forced to resign in just over a week, prompting even members of the House Ethics Committee to question whether the panel is up to the task of policing its own.

The committee is at a moment of reckoning as it seeks to prove itself ready, willing and able to root out bad behavior in its ranks. It’s spent the past year and a half rebuilding its reputation after internal disagreements about how to handle an ethics report over ex-Rep. Matt Gaetz spilled into the public and threatened the bipartisan panel’s credibility.

Now, amid the high-profile resignations of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) and Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.), members who sit on the highly secretive committee are opening up — eager to share their perspectives, acknowledge their limitations and defend their work.

“The reality is we are still too slow, and I believe that we should be moving faster. I’ve expressed some of my recommendations on how we can do that to staff,” said Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), who joined the Ethics Committee this Congress, in an interview. “I want people to take the Ethics Committee more seriously.”

In extended interviews Monday and Tuesday, Ethics Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) said his panel is hamstrung by the House’s institutional bureaucracy.

“I’ve been asked, you know, could the Ethics Committee, if there were additional resources provided to the committee, would that help us move cases through quickly? And of course, the answer to that is yes,” Guest said. “But you know, it has to be up to leadership. It has to be up to the Speaker and the Minority Leader as to the size of the staff that they would like to see the Ethics Committee command.”

Their comments come amid questions around how Gonzales and Swalwell were able to serve in office for so long unchecked: Both were accused of engaging in sexual misconduct with former staffers, with Swalwell accused of rape. Each stepped down before the Ethics Committee ever had a chance to render findings of fault and enact punishments.

Cherfilus-McCormick also resigned moments before the Ethics Committee was due to meet Tuesday afternoon to consider a punishment for a determination that she illicitly funneled millions to support her campaign, which could have culminated in a recommendation of expulsion.

Now attention is turning to Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.), who stands accused of numerous violations, including illicitly engaging in government contracts while in federal office and threatening to release a former girlfriend’s nude videos. He has maintained he has no plans to resign as his case before the Ethics Committee has languished without resolution.

In November, the House Ethics panel quietly requested the Office of Congressional Conduct — the quasi-independent office that fields and investigates complaints against members and staff from the public — to drop its probe into Mills, according to a person with knowledge of the ethics process who was granted anonymity to describe the confidential process. That message was transmitted to the OCC the same day the House voted to effectively table a resolution offered by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) to censure Mills for various alleged improprieties.

The OCC was established in 2008 by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and proponents say it provides a necessary, largely independent set of eyes — including on ongoing investigations. Critics view the OCC as an untrustworthy political group; it sat defanged for months this Congress before Speaker Mike Johnson brought a perfunctory measure to the House floor that set up its ability to launch investigations by appointing its board.

Guest declined to discuss details of the Mills case but did not deny that such a request had been made, saying it was standard practice for Ethics to take the reins on a probe from OCC “once an investigative subcommittee is established.”

He conceded the Ethics Committee at times may operate slower than some would like, but its process was deliberate and thorough. “If members want this to be a rush committee where we have two weeks to come up with a report and return that report back to the body, then I’m not the right person to be serving in that room.”

He did say he hoped to discuss with Johnson how to improve the panel’s operations. One continued challenge for members is the loss of jurisdiction once a lawmaker resigns from Congress, which has historically meant the committee stops its investigation and does not release a report of its findings. Guest proposed a new policy where a report could be made public upon a lawmaker’s resignation, meaning bad actors could not always leave office in order to hide from revelations about their misdeeds.

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier of California, the top Democrat on the Ethics Committee, said the committee could better handle cases of sexual misconduct and has spoken to Democratic leadership about modernizing the panel.

“I think on sexual harassment, [the] thing that occurs to me is that there should be one place to go that’s clear to report, that has enough staff, and they’re been very well trained in the subject area, so that people feel like there’s a place they can go and be safe, protected,” he said. “And then there’s a due process that responds in a way that is deliberative, but under the urgency of circumstances.”

This is an area where the Ethics Committee has, in recent weeks, found itself struggling to respond to public pressure. When the House was poised in March to vote on a measure brought by Mace that would have compelled the committee to make information on sexual harassment claims public, Guest and DeSaulnier said in a statement it would have a chilling effect for victims. The resolution was ultimately tabled.

On Monday, the panel released a statement reaffirming its commitment to taking allegations of sexual misconduct seriously — and a list of publicly disclosed sexual misconduct investigations dating back to 1976. Many of those cases were closed without resolution because the member under scrutiny resigned from office before the committee could conclude the case.

One lawmaker who has served on the Ethics Committee, who requested anonymity to describe the panel’s private operations, argued that disclosure of sexual misconduct cases can harm potential victims who may not want their cases brought before the panel in the first place.

This explanation is largely falling on deaf ears from members who want more transparency and accountability, though, with Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) calling the Monday release of previously disclosed sexual misconduct allegations against House members an inadequate “cleanup job.”

Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), a member of the Ethics Committee and a former federal prosecutor, suggested that improving the panel’s internal systems for handling sexual harassment claims might be a lost cause.

“I think the ugly truth is there’s no process that handles this well that I’ve seen, whether it’s state courts, federal courts, internal corporate investigations, Congress or the Senate,” he said.

Continue Reading

Congress

Senate launches budget debate

Published

on

Senate Republicans opened debate Tuesday on a fiscal blueprint meant to pave the way for passage of a party-line immigration enforcement funding bill later this year.

The Senate voted 52-46 to advance the budget resolution, which Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) unveiled earlier Tuesday. It instructs House and Senate committees to write legislation expected to deliver about $70 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies.

The Senate is expected to give the measure final approval this week before leaving town. The chamber could move to a marathon voting session, known as a vote-a-rama, as soon as Wednesday, though plenty of Republicans are betting that it won’t start until Thursday.

Continue Reading

Congress

Cherfilus-McCormick resigns amid ethics investigation

Published

on

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) has resigned in the face of corruption charges at home and calls for her ouster in Washington, she announced in a statement on Tuesday.

News broke minutes before the House Ethics Committee was about to meet for a public hearing Tuesday afternoon to determine a punishment for the third-term Democrat, who was charged with stealing $5 million in Covid relief funds.

Cherfilus-McCormick said in a statement the Ethics proceedings did not constitute a “fair process” and that she was “choos[ing] to step aside” rather than “play these political games.”

Continue Reading

Trending