The House of Representatives voted unanimously, 426-0, to remove a controversial provision from the government funding bill that allowed senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 if their phone data was accessed without their knowledge. This provision had been included in the funding bill by bipartisan Senate leaders and was part of the legislation that ended the recent government shutdown.
As the situation develops, it is not yet clear if Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., will bring the House’s repeal measure to a vote in the Senate. Thune remarked to NBC News, “We’ll see what the House does,” indicating that he is awaiting the House’s next moves.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., expressed his anger and surprise upon discovering the provision’s last-minute inclusion, asserting that many House members shared his sentiments. “We had no idea that was dropped in at the last minute. And I did not appreciate that, nor did most of the House members. Many of them were very — are very angry about that,” Johnson stated. He emphasized his hope that Thune would address the matter in the Senate.
Bipartisan sentiment among senators leans towards repealing the provision. Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo., voiced his concerns, noting that while he understands the need for accountability after his own phone data was accessed during investigations, he believes there are better ways to hold the government accountable without implicating taxpayers: “I think taking taxpayer money is not the way to do it.”
Conversely, Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., remains a staunch supporter of the provision, arguing, “They went after my phone. I did nothing to deserve that. … I am definitely going to sue,” underscoring the tension between senators over how best to address privacy concerns.
This debate underscores a broader discussion regarding accountability and the safeguarding of personal data, a topic that resonates with many Americans today. The potential repeal of this provision reflects a commitment to ensuring that legal safeguards do not unfairly benefit only a select group of lawmakers. As the legislative process continues, it raises important questions about accountability and transparency within the government.