Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I am once again asking my colleagues to do the right thing and to unanimously agree to repeal a provision that was included in the government funding legislation in November.

You will recall that the funding bill included a provision that many Senators were simply not made aware of. It came in at the last minute. It set up a special payday of $500,000, paid for by the taxpayers, for a select--a select--group of eight Senators. That policy is simply wrong. It goes against everything that we are supposed to be doing as elected representatives to make life better for the people who live in our States and in the country.

We have all heard a lot of excuses trying to justify why a handful of Senators deserves a big financial windfall. Let me remind you why they are wrong.

This all began when President Trump and his political allies cooked up a scheme to try to overturn the result of the 2020 Presidential election, all so he could stay in power. You will remember that he lost the election, but instead of respecting our Nation's nearly 250-year history of peaceful transfers of power, President Trump and his allies launched a pressure campaign to try to install slates of fake electors to overturn the election results in several key States.

While Senators were here in this Chamber pushing back on those false efforts, President Trump instigated a riot, urged his supporters to come here and try to stop Congress from carrying out our sworn democratic responsibilities.

We just observed the fifth anniversary of that attack last week, where so many Members came to the floor--I was here--and shared their memories of the horror and violence of that day.

Those actions, led by President Trump and his allies, were criminal-- simply criminal. Those crimes were exactly what the Department of Justice was investigating when subpoenas were issued for certain phone call logs. These logs weren't being targeted for political reasons; they were part of a legitimate and serious investigation into criminal activity. The Justice Department followed standard legal practice in seeking those phone logs. This should be just common sense.

But, unfortunately, there are those who believe a select group of Senators have the right to profit from being caught up in a legitimate criminal investigation, and they are OK with American taxpayers footing the bill.

They have claimed that this provision was never meant to enrich Senators, but the reality is, there is nothing in the law to prevent that from actually happening.

They have claimed that the special counsel and the judge overseeing this matter acted in bad faith, but in reality, there was no departure--absolutely no departure--from established Department of Justice and judicial practice.

I am not opposed to debating the merits of this matter and determining whether there needs to be forward-looking changes. In fact, I would support some of those forward-looking changes. But that is not what is happening right here. Instead, without any thoughtful consideration, this body approved a provision to retroactively rewrite the law and set up the opportunity for special financial payments to a select group of Senators.

When our House colleagues learned of this, they were as surprised as most all of us that were here in this Chamber. Our House colleagues did the right thing. They quickly and unanimously--that is right, the House unanimously--that doesn't happen a lot--the House unanimously, 426 to 0, passed a bipartisan bill to repeal this provision because they knew it was wrong.

We should be here working to lower costs for our constituents and not using taxpayer dollars irresponsibly. I hope my colleagues will join me in righting this wrong today.

6019, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. We received this last night, but I think it is against the most critical issue here, which is the retroactive rewarding or awarding of $500,000 per violation of damages to a handful of Senators. I very much appreciate Senator Graham for doing that, but I don't believe that it gets to the full bipartisan-bicameral solution that we need.

Senator Graham, I am sympathetic to the arguments you have made here. I can rebut some of them, but I don't want to get into that debate right now--back and forth--to do it. But I understand where you are coming from on a lot of those issues.

I think there are other concerns in this statute that were enacted in November that need to be addressed, including some potential for abuse for the target of a criminal investigation provision that is in the statute that remains retroactive. That could create a lot of problems for Senators here on the floor, to Senator Graham's point. Certainly, dealing with the damages provision, as my colleague proposes in this proposal that he put forward just now, is a significant part of the solution, but it is not the whole solution.

Senator Graham, I just hope that this can be a very positive starting point. Thank you for making this offer here today. I would ask if we could get together and try to find some common ground here to make sure that some of the concerns that you have are addressed because I think those are reasonable. As to the part that you are pulling out, which I think is unreasonable, I appreciate that you now agree that that, too, is unreasonable. But let's have an honest, frank discussion about the rest because, certainly, the points you have raised are ones that I want to have the opportunity to talk about. I understand where you are coming from, and I think we can find a solution that will work for this body and for the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, just in response to Senator Graham, I appreciate the offer.

As for the notification requirement that you bring up, I believe in that. I think it is absolutely critical that we have that for the reasons that you cite. There are some problems in the provision in that we think there are some glaring exceptions to that that would allow folks to say: No, we are not going to notify you. That is unacceptable. We should make sure that that notification requirement applies without the abuse of the administration, regardless of who is there, on what side, because you are right.

Ultimately, our job is to protect this institution as a coequal branch of government, and you and I share that sincere belief. I think these are just some technical aspects we could work out, and I look forward to that opportunity.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source