Unanimous Consent Requests

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. I would say to the Senator from South Carolina the answer to that is yes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. The answer is yes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Yes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, let me just reiterate what the Senator from South Carolina said, and that is that this measure that we passed does, indeed, give important protections to Members. I think it is an important defense of the separation of powers. It protects Democrats, and it protects Republicans, alike, from a weaponized Department of Justice that is pursuing political enemies.

The measure was never meant to enrich Senators. It has always been true, under our rules, that Members wouldn't keep damages they recover under this measure.

I would hope that we can work together to pass a resolution to reflect what has always been true and what I have been saying all along, and that is that this measure is about accountability and not profit.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, what this would simply do is it would preserve the important elements of this, which I think are critical to the protection of the article I branch of the government, constitutionally, but address the question that has been raised about personal enrichment, which I have said, again, is not the case here. This would clarify that any damages awarded under this law would be forfeited to the U.S. Treasury. No individual Senator could benefit.

That was the case before, but this would clarify that. And it seems to me, at least, if you want to address the concern that has been raised by the Senator from New Mexico about Senators trying to get hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the Justice Department and the Federal Government--taxpayers--this would address that by simply saying anything that is awarded--a settlement that is awarded under this statute--would be forfeited to the U.S. Treasury. But it would preserve the important protections that are in place under the statute when it comes to Members' personal information.

I happen to think--and that was what animated this--that individual Senators, Members of the article I branch of our government, should not be subject to a weaponized Department of Justice or prosecutors who go around the law. So this strengthens the law and ensures that, in the future, that doesn't happen.

It is, in my view, again, something that protects this institution, something that protects individual Senators. The unanimous consent request that I am offering here would clarify, in the form of a resolution, that it would apply to the Senate.

By the way, this only applies to the Senate. Frankly, there is a good argument that, if I am a Member of the House of Representatives, I would want the same protections included here. That wasn't the case. When we drafted this, it was in response to a statute that covered the Senate only. So this specifically applies to Senators.

And this resolution that I am offering here and asking unanimous consent for would clarify--make crystal clear--that any damages awarded as a result of claims brought under this statute would be forfeited to the U.S. Treasury and not be allowed for an individual Member to take advantage of.

Just to be clear, no personal enrichment, accountability, and, I think, protection for the article I branch of our government, which, in my view, based on what we saw and what we are seeing as the facts continue to come in from the Arctic Frost investigation, there was clearly a violation of the law and a law that needs to be strengthened and clarified so protections are in place for future Members of the U.S. Senate.

Again, I would argue, someday, probably, Members of the House would want that same protection.

So that is my request, Mr. President; that the resolution be agreed to--the resolution at the desk makes that clear--and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening objection or debate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would simply respond by saying again, in clarifying this question of personal enrichment, I am not sure exactly what that is predicated on. Clearly, the attempt being made here was to give standing to Members whose personal, private information was collected by a prosecutor who went around the law.

The law requires notification when a U.S. Senator's personal information is acquired. What happened was that the prosecutor threatened legal action if the carriers that were collecting this data on individual Senators provided the notice that was required under the law. The prosecutor clearly went around the law.

I just believe, for the future protection not only of this institution but of individual U.S. Senators, it is going to be critical that we codify some of these protections in ways that aren't currently covered in the law.

As I said before, if there is some question about the monetary judgment that might come or of the damages that might be awarded, this is what we are attempting to clarify right now, and that is that no individual Member--and frankly, that is already true under our rules, but this would further clarify that.

But if the Senator from New Mexico is interested in amending or modifying this in some fashion that preserves or retains the protections on an individual Member's data--which, frankly, again, as I said before, I think is a really important protection not just for this U.S. Senate but for U.S. Senators in the future--I think there is a willingness to be able to address that.

But I think, again, the suggestion that this is a bunch of U.S. Senators who are trying to figure out a way to enrich themselves at taxpayers' expense just is completely, completely unfounded and is inconsistent with the facts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source