House Unanimously Overturns Controversial Payout Clause in Government Funding Bill
For days, whispers on Capitol Hill hinted at an unusual addition to the recent government funding bill—a clause buried deep in the text, largely unnoticed by lawmakers, yet with far-reaching implications. Staffers described late-night edits, missing signatures, and a scramble to trace the language before the story reached the public.
On Nov. 19, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to remove the contentious provision, which would have allowed senators to receive payments from the Department of Justice (DOJ) for unlawful access to their phone records.
The measure passed unanimously, 426–0, fulfilling House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) promise to address the clause after it stirred controversy during the earlier vote on the funding package.
The disputed language, included in the legislation that ended the 43-day government shutdown, would have enabled senators to sue the federal government for up to $500,000 if they were not properly notified that their records were accessed—a right already protected under federal law in investigations involving Congress members. The new two-page bill removes the provision entirely, though its fate in the Senate remains uncertain. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has not committed to acting on the repeal.
Bipartisan Criticism of the Provision
Prior to the House vote, Republicans joined Democrats in condemning the clause, warning it could jeopardize the broader funding bill. During a Rules Committee hearing, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) strongly objected to the inclusion, echoed on the House floor by Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.), who argued that lawmakers should not receive taxpayer-funded payouts tied to disputes over alleged DOJ overreach.
Facing growing frustration, Speaker Johnson pledged swift action to introduce legislation reversing the clause.
Origins of the Clause Remain Unclear
Senate Republicans have expressed confusion about how the language ended up in the bill. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) remarked, “It wasn’t the virgin birth—somebody put it in there,” noting he had not been informed of its inclusion. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who oversaw the legislative branch funding bill, also said he was unaware, calling the discovery “very frustrating.”
The provision emerged against the backdrop of the congressional Arctic Frost investigation, a sweeping probe into conservative groups, individuals, and former President Trump-related election matters, which had previously involved former FBI Director Christopher Wray and ex-Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Senate Uncertainty
Despite the House’s unanimous decision, the Senate’s next steps remain uncertain. Thune has expressed hesitancy about repealing the payout clause. Senators who might have benefited, including Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), have criticized the provision. Hagerty called for accountability for special counsel Jack Smith and others but opposed taxpayer-funded compensation.
Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) expressed doubts that the Senate would bring the repeal bill forward, while Sen. Mullin hinted that the chamber might consider alternative legislation, potentially applying only to future violations. Any new measure would still require House approval.
Conclusion
The House’s overwhelming vote to eliminate the controversial clause highlights rare bipartisan unity amid a deeply divided Congress. Yet with the Senate divided and the provision’s origins unclear, questions linger. As the dispute moves to the upper chamber, the ultimate resolution of the clause—and its implications for government oversight and accountability—remains uncertain.