Tag

Featured

Browsing

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent chatted Wednesday with a group of House Republicans about how voters will judge the GOP’s tax and trade moves heading into the 2026 midterm elections, according to House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington.

During the private meeting Arrington hosted on Capitol Hill, Bessent discussed President Donald Trump’s economic policy strategy with Republican members of the budget panel, including steps to spurring economic growth and reducing the amount of red ink the federal government racks up each year as the national debt tops $38 trillion.

Bessent mentioned the “acid test of the midterms,” Arrington said, which is, “Am I doing better today than I did when we first elected this new unified Republican leadership in our nation’s capital?”

When tax refunds roll in this spring, U.S. voters are going to “see historic refunds” that put “more money in their pockets” thanks to the GOP megabill Trump signed into law in July, Arrington said. “And that was all part of the plan — of not just bringing prices down and growing the economy but making life more affordable for the American people.”

The group also discussed Trump’s proposal to send $2,000 rebate checks to Americans by tapping into the hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue generated by the president’s tariffs. Arrington is not a fan of the idea, like many other Republican lawmakers.

“The best way to put money in people’s pockets is to have good pro-growth policies, and to believe and trust that those policies will work to the end of more jobs and bigger paychecks,” Arrington told reporters after the meeting.

Two House Republicans vowed Wednesday to pressure Speaker Mike Johnson and GOP leaders to advance a bill banning congressional stock trading in the coming weeks, not content to settle for a mere hearing on the topic.

“A bill will come to the floor,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said at a press conference outside the House Administration Committee hearing room, where academics were preparing to testify about the ins and outs of current stock trade ethics enforcement.

“This is a fist fight, folks,” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) chimed in.

The lawmakers, appearing alongside Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island, have been pushing for Congress to crack down on member stock trading.

They got a modest win with Johnson’s willingness to let a committee convene a hearing on the politically divisive topic. But they are now doubling down in their efforts to make sure the chamber also holds a markup and floor vote on actual legislation — either the compromise bill requiring members to divest from individual stocks, which the four lawmakers co-sponsored with a bipartisan coalition in September, or another version with similarly strong restrictions.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who is also advocating for the bipartisan stock trading legislation, said in an interview Tuesday she plans to unleash a discharge petition to end-run Johnson and try to force a floor vote on if GOP leaders fail to notice a markup on a congressional stock trading ban bill by the end of Wednesday.

But House GOP leaders are wary that a bipartisan bill or a similar measure will trigger blowback from a swath of Republicans, including some who say stock trading is an important source of income for themselves and their families.

Burchett disagreed, saying that if the House votes to ban congressional stock trading, members who are currently skeptical of the idea of a ban behind the scenes are “going to be our biggest cheerleaders[s]” on the chamber floor.

Political pressure to embrace a ban on stock trading, though, could run up against lawmakers who are protective of their activities in this space.

Fitzpatrick also warned that members’ individual stock performance will be discussed in hearings on any stock trading bill.

“Part of the fact finding is what members have done in terms of trading, sometimes on a daily basis,” Fitzpatrick said.

Virgin Islands Del. Stacey Plaskett on Wednesday expressed no regret for her prior contact with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 House Oversight Committee hearing.

In an interview with CNN’s “The Situation Room,” the Democrat acknowledged that she initiated contact with the disgraced financier on the day she was set to question President Donald Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen but refused to say if she regretted the communication.

“I believe that Jeffrey Epstein had information, and I was going to get information to get at the truth,” Plaskett said. “I’m moving forward, and I think that that’s what we as American people should do.”

Plaskett, who drew scrutiny recently following the release of documents from the Epstein estate that revealed her texts with him, argued that Epstein was a constituent and that “lots of people were texting me. Lots of people were giving me information.”

“I’ve been a prosecutor for many years, and there are a lot of people who have information that are not your friends that you use to get information,” she added.

Still, she admitted that she “probably” would not have asked Cohen about former Trump executive assistant Rhona Graff if Epstein had not mentioned it to her first in their texts.

During the hearing, Cohen accused Trump of financial fraud, mentioning Graff in his testimony. Epstein appeared to flag the name to Plaskett.

“Cohen brought up RONA – keeper of the secrets,” Epstein texted, according to The Washington Post. The person believed to be Plaskett asked who — or what — RONA was, adding “Quick I’m up next is that an acronym.”

Epstein replied “RONA” was actually Trump’s former assistant. Plaskett then questioned Cohen about Graff, who said she was “involved in a lot that went on.”

Plaskett narrowly avoided a censure in the House on Tuesday, with lawmakers voting 209-214 against formally reprimanding the delegate and removing her from the House Intelligence Committee.

Both the House and Senate have officially passed legislation forcing the Justice Department to release more information about the federal case it built against Epstein. It now heads to Trump’s desk for his signature.

The Senate has officially passed legislation forcing the Justice Department to release more information about the case it built against the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Senators had locked in an agreement to automatically pass the bill as soon as it was received from the House, which overwhelmingly passed it on Tuesday.

It now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk, where he has said he will sign it. That comes despite the fact that Speaker Mike Johnson sought eleventh-hour changes to the House-passed bill and didn’t rule out the possibility he would encourage Trump to veto it.

Assuming Trump follows through, the Justice Department will have 30 days to release the materials with redactions to protect Epstein’s victims.

House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) referred a top aide to former special counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution over obstruction of a congressional investigation.

Thomas Windom, who was senior assistant special counsel under Smith, sat for an interview with congressional investigators in June and a deposition in September.

In a Wednesday letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Jordan wrote that Windom declined to answer questions by citing a lack of authorization from her department, along with other justifications. But the DOJ had authorized his testimony before he sat for an interview with congressional investigators, Jordan argued.

“The Committee on the Judiciary writes to refer significant evidence that Thomas Windom, former Senior Assistant Special Counsel to Jack Smith, has, by his conduct during a deposition before the Committee, obstructed a congressional investigation,” Jordan wrote in the letter.

This letter is part of a wide-ranging effort from Republicans across both chambers of Congress to target Smith and his office for their investigations into Donald Trump. Republicans have repeatedly argued that Smith’s work constituted a kind of politicization of federal law enforcement, even as Trump has broken with modern precedent by publicly calling on his attorney general to prosecute his political adversaries.

In July, Jordan subpoenaed Windom to compel his cooperation after the voluntary transcribed interview. At the September deposition, Jordan recalled that Windom’s attorney cited “an unspecified First Amendment privilege, attorney-client privilege, a misguided belief that the Committee had no legitimate legislative purpose for the inquiry, and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.”

Jordan argued that Windom’s justifications were unpersuasive.

“We have received the letter from Chairman Jordan,” a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. “Consistent with longstanding policy, the Department does not comment on active or potential investigations. We share the Chairman’s concerns and will continue to ensure that justice is applied fairly and equally to all Americans.”

A lawyer for Windom did not immediately return a request for comment.

The White House’s hopes for big legislative wins in the coming months are about to crash into the reality of the congressional GOP.

Deep divisions remain among Republicans over how to address spiking health care costs — and whether they should jam through a potential solution with a party-line vote in the Senate. And, of course, Democrats have little interest in helping them out.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s willingness to go to war against Republicans isn’t helping party unity.

The GOP rift is playing out ahead of the end-of-year expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. While vulnerable moderates want GOP leaders to extend the tax credits, Trump and some conservatives are calling for an entirely new framework, like an overhaul of health savings accounts.

Trump’s top political aide, James Blair, on Tuesday raised the possibility of a megabill sequel — pursuing GOP health care priorities through the party-line reconciliation process, which lets Republicans skirt a Democratic filibuster. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Tuesday that Republican leaders are talking to members about the possibility to see if “consensus forms.”

That pitch is being rejected by Republicans who remember how excruciating it was to pass the megabill this summer. They worry another attempt could undermine efforts to work across the aisle on matters like government funding.

“I don’t want another one-sided, partisan reconciliation bill right now — I want us to legislate,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who cast a decisive vote in the first package. “Let’s be legislators here. Reconciliation is, yes, it’s a tool for us, but it’s a partisan tool and look at how divided we are right now. … That’s not the way to go.”

Any attempt at partisan legislation will be complicated by the fact that Republicans are increasingly willing to break from Trump. (Case in point: Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.)

Speaker Mike Johnson, for his part, acknowledged a lesson that could be crucial for the president to grasp: Today’s enemy could be tomorrow’s indispensable ally.

“I work on unity in the party, and my encouragement of everybody is to get together,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to do all that in order to deliver for the people.”

What else we’re watching:   

— House floor action: The House is expected to vote Wednesday to repeal a provision in the shutdown-ending deal that could allow eight GOP senators to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation for having their electronic records seized during the Biden administration. And while there’s bipartisan support in both chambers to roll back the provision, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who secured the language, is standing by it.

— Notable Wednesday hearings: Paragon Health Institute’s Brian Blase, one of the fiercest critics of extending the enhanced ACA subsidies, will testify at a 10 a.m. Senate Finance hearing on rising health care costs. There’s also a 10 a.m. House Administration hearing on congressional insider trading, which is happening as pressure builds for House GOP leadership to take up a bipartisan bill banning the practice.

— What’s next for appropriations: Talks are set to ramp up on the other nine spending bills that weren’t included in last week’s shutdown-ending minibus deal. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) has meetings teed up Wednesday morning to huddle with his subcommittee chairs, then with all House Republican appropriators.

Jordain Carney, Meredith Lee Hill, Hailey Fuchs and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

The White House’s dream of clinching major new Republican victories on Capitol Hill before the midterms is crashing into the reality of a bitterly divided Congress.

Tackling major GOP priorities on the economy and health care was already going to be a heavy lift: There are deep divisions among Republicans about their strategy ahead of the end-of-year expiration of some Affordable Care Act subsidies, and President Donald Trump is showing little appetite to cut a deal with Democrats.

Trump’s top political aide raised the possibility Tuesday of pursuing another go-it-alone bill, a sequel to the sweeping tax-focused megabill the GOP passed this summer, but going down that road would require building almost complete unity among congressional Republicans.

And that would have been a tall order even before Trump went to war inside his own party this past week, effectively excommunicating longtime ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) over her criticism of his policies, as well as her support for the release of Justice Department records related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The rift comes amid other signs that Republicans in and out of Washington are growing less willing to follow Trump’s lead, whether on congressional redistricting or overhauling the Senate’s rules. And, with Trump already sketching out red lines on health care, skepticism is growing inside the GOP about burning months of political capital in an election year without a clear path forward.

Asked this week about the ugly standoff between Greene and Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged a fact of political life that Trump has often struggled to grasp: Today’s enemy could be tomorrow’s indispensable ally.

“I work on unity in the party, and my encouragement of everybody is to get together,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to do all that in order to deliver for the people.”

Johnson’s peacemaker stance comes as House Republicans privately plot a health care overhaul, with GOP leaders pitching their members on policy options during a closed-door conference meeting Tuesday. One slide shared by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise during the meeting knocked the expiring Obamacare subsidies, calling them part of the “Unaffordable Care Act.”

Around the same time, White House deputy chief of staff James Blair at a Bloomberg News event sketched out a major “affordability” bill that could include $2,000 checks that Trump has pitched as tariff “dividends” as well as health care legislation along the lines of what House Republicans are discussing.

Those ideas are not likely to get Democratic buy-in — especially with less than a year before the midterms. That means the GOP would have to explore party-line approaches to passing any policy agenda. But Senate Republicans have spurned Trump’s demands that they eliminate the filibuster that requires bipartisan buy-in for most legislation, leaving the convoluted reconciliation process, which was used to pass this summer’s megabill, as their only viable choice.

Talk of another reconciliation bill has been hanging around Hill GOP circles for months, ever since House leaders dangled the promise of a second bite at party-line legislation to conservative hard-liners earlier this year in exchange for their votes to pass the “big, beautiful bill.”

But that push appeared to fizzle earlier this fall. And just two weeks ago, during a meeting with Senate Republicans, Trump himself expressed skepticism about how much another reconciliation bill could accomplish. Some Republicans still want to try and revive the idea for the spring, but they are facing a hard sell with many members who remember the political trauma their party suffered amid attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in an interview that she did not want to pursue a GOP-only health care bill, arguing that it would undermine efforts to work with Democrats on other issues like funding the government

“I don’t want another one-sided, partisan reconciliation bill right now — I want us to legislate,” Murkowski said. “Let’s be legislators here. Reconciliation is, yes, it’s a tool for us, but it’s a partisan tool and look at how divided we are right now. … That’s not the way to go.”

Republicans have barely any room for error if they are going to launch another party-line policy bill. Murkowski, notably, was a decisive vote in getting the first GOP megabill through the Senate over the summer — after helping to sink the 2017 partisan health care bill.

To get another reconciliation bill passed now, Republicans would need to lean on their most vulnerable members during a time in the election cycle when party leaders typically become shy about making their front-liners take politically tough votes that could negatively ricochet in swing districts.

Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who voted against the reconciliation bill in July, left the door open to pursuing a new party-line bill. But underscoring the headache waiting for GOP leaders and the administration, he floated using it to at least partially address some of what he called the “problematic” policies from the first Republican megabill.

He also voiced a concern that has taken root with many of his House and GOP Senate colleagues — that if they are going to make a second run at reconciliation, they need to be unified at the outset about the nature of the end product rather than figuring it out along the way.

“It could go sideways real quick if the scope changes much, so we’d have to have a lot of agreement up front to make sure it was going to be successful,” he said in an interview.

Inside the closed-door conference meeting across the Capitol Tuesday morning, GOP leaders got pushback to their ambitious health care agenda from Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas), who asked why they had waited until just weeks before the expiration deadline for the Obamacare subsidies.

House Republicans, Moran countered in the meeting, should have been working on alternatives months ago, according to four people granted anonymity to share the private exchange.

GOP leadership aides and senior Republicans on Capitol Hill say they have been waiting for months for Trump to outline what he wants on health care. But the president only started weighing in publicly on policy options in recent days.

The president on Tuesday warned that the only thing he would support would be a bill that sends “THE MONEY DIRECTLY BACK TO THE PEOPLE,” adding that Congress should “not waste your time and energy on anything else” and “GET IT DONE, NOW.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) added that Trump’s proposal — to essentially restructure the subsidies to give them directly to Americans — was a “welcome discussion … but we’re not going to get that done before Dec. 31. That’s unlikely.”

Asked about Trump’s comments, Senate Majority Leader John Thune didn’t close the door Tuesday night to the chances lawmakers could reach a bipartisan health care deal, but he said that would be up to what Democrats would be willing to accept. They have been cool to the health savings account ideas favored by the GOP.

“We’ve got members who are very interested in addressing the affordability of health care,” Thune added. “The question is, what’s the best way to do it.”

Senate Budget Committee Republicans are keen to advance a budget resolution that would unlock the filibuster-skirting power of a second reconciliation bill, but they are tentatively looking at early next year to do that. And they are getting pushback from their colleagues behind the scenes.

When Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana pitched fellow Senate Republicans during a caucus lunch about using the fast-track procedure to pass a health care plan, a colleague pointed out that many of the GOP’s favorite policies wouldn’t comply with the strict rules governing the budget reconciliation process, according to an attendee who was granted anonymity to describe the private discussion.

Kennedy acknowledged in an interview he can’t guarantee a bill will ever make it to the floor, but he suggested there was a pent-up feeling among some Republicans that Congress, despite being in GOP hands, has little to show for their majority.

“That’s the problem — nothing’s happened. We’re not doing anything. I think some of that was reflected in the [off-year] elections” earlier this month, Kennedy said.

“Everybody says, what about the One Big Beautiful Bill? That was yesterday — I mean what have we done since then?” he continued. “We haven’t done anything for months, and a lot of people — you are talking to one — are sick of it.”

Calen Razor contributed to this report. 

Speaker Mike Johnson said he voted for the Jeffrey Epstein disclosure bill Tuesday based on his hope that the Senate would make changes he’s been demanding. Senate Majority Leader John Thune shot that down.

Thune said Tuesday evening that, while he had talked with the speaker about the bill, he and Senate GOP legal counsel decided the legislation was “sufficient.” The Senate effectively approved the legislation by unanimous consent mere hours after House passage Tuesday afternoon without provisions sought by Johnson, including additional victim and whistleblower name protections.

“I talked with the speaker a bit, and we’ve been in consultation obviously with the White House on this for some time,” Thune told reporters. “The conclusion was when it came out of the House 427-1 that, you know, it was going to pass in the Senate.”

Thune’s refusal to amend the bill was just the latest setback Johnson has faced in the Epstein saga, where the Louisiana Republican saw a rank-and-file member of his own party, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), pull off a stunning legislative end-run despite the speaker’s months-long opposition campaign.

Johnson said after House passage Tuesday that he would “insist upon” changes.

“I talked to John Thune over the weekend. I just texted him. We’re going to get together. We’ll talk about this,” Johnson told reporters as he left the floor. “There’s an easy way to amend the legislation to make sure that we don’t do permanent damage to the justice system. And I’m going to insist upon that.”

Asked if he would press Trump to veto the bill if the Senate didn’t amend it, Johnson said he would “cross that bridge” if necessary. He also raised “national security” concerns about the bill Tuesday.

Thune said Senate Republican lawyers examined the legislation and determined it could go forward without being amended.

“Our lawyers obviously had looked closely at some of the issues and had concluded that the bill I think was, you know, sufficient to accomplish what needed to be done here, and that is to get the information out there as quickly as possible,” Thune said.

Earlier this week, Johnson told reporters he had received “some comfort” from the Senate that the chamber would make the changes. But Thune never publicly indicated he expected the Senate to revise the bill and even warned earlier Tuesday that changes were unlikely.

The only short-lived whiff of resistance that appeared in the Senate Tuesday came from Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who appeared to raise concerns at the last minute but did not block the effort.

“We were trying to see if we needed to change language to protect the victims,” Mullin said to reporters.

Shortly before Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sought unanimous consent to greenlight the bill, Mullin said that there had been a “conversation” with the administration about what the Oklahoma Republican characterized as “technical changes,” which ultimately didn’t get made.

The House voted 209-214 Tuesday night against formally reprimanding Del. Stacey Plaskett for communicating with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 Oversight Committee hearing.

Three House Republicans — Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska, Lance Gooden of Texas and Dave Joyce of Ohio — voted with all Democrats against the measure. Three Republicans voted present: Reps. Andrew Garbarino of New York, Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania and Jay Obernolte of California.

Plaskett drew scrutiny after documents released from the Epstein estate revealed her texts with him. She’s denied wrongdoing, saying on the House floor Tuesday that Epstein was a constituent, that her contact was limited to information-gathering and that it was not public information at the time that Epstein had been under federal investigation.

“I know how to question individuals. I know how to seek information. I have sought information from confidential informants, from murderers, from other individuals because I want the truth,” she said on the House floor.

Republicans contend Plaskett’s contact with Epstein was more substantive and shaped her questioning during the hearing, which Plaskett denies.

“Standing against a convicted predator’s influence in our proceedings is not partisan. It’s basic decency,” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who brought the measure to the House floor through a fast-track process bypassing committees and Hill leadership.

But the measure rejected Tuesday by the House would have also removed Plaskett from the House Intelligence Committee, a step too far for some lawmakers. She would have been the latest House Democrats to be removed from a committee position by Hill Republicans after Republicans voted last Congress to remove Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from the House Foreign Affairs Committee for her past comments on Israel.

The failed vote to reprimand Plaskett comes on the same day the House voted almost unanimously to force the Department of Justice to release more files about its case against Epstein. The controversy has roiled Congress and split the MAGA base for months.

In retaliation for the move against Plaskett, Democrats introduced a measure to censure Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) and to remove him from the House Armed Services Committee. He’s faced a spate of ethical issues including an since-withdrawn allegation of assault and an ongoing legal dispute over a previous relationship. But that measure is likely to be withdrawn now that the Plaskett effort has failed.

The failure of the Plaskett measure prompted an outcry from conservative Republicans who had pushed for it, with some accusing leaders of cutting deals to avoid a vote on the Mills resolution.

“They’re brokering back end deals to avoid bringing forward justice in both Democrat and Republican chambers,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.). “So it’s literally covering up public corruption.”

Calen Razor contributed to this report.

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.