The House of Representatives will seek to overturn the last-minute Senate “Arctic Frost” provision in the short-term government funding bill following interparty upset and public backlash last week.
What’s in the ‘Arctic Frost’ provision?
The “Arctic Frost” provision, added to the bill to fund the government through Jan. 31, 2026, allows senators to sue the federal government for surveilling them without their knowledge in response to a Biden-era investigation by former special counsel Jack Smith into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in which eight GOP senators’ data were collected by the Justice Department.
The provision allows them to sue the federal government for at least $500,000 each.
A source familiar with the legislation told the Washington Examiner that the provision only applies to members of the upper chamber, meaning that representatives who also had their data collected without their knowledge are not privy to the same benefits.
Upon learning of the Senate language, House Republicans claimed that they had been intentionally left out of the surveillance protections and bristled at the fact that they had not been informed that it was being added.
Who are the ‘Arctic Frost’ senators?
Federal investigators collected phone data from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).
When asked if he would file a lawsuit, Graham replied, “Oh, definitely. And if you think I’m going to settle this thing for a million dollars? No.”
Many of the other senators have come out and said they would not take the money, with some even distancing themselves from the provision as a whole.
“I think the Senate provision is a bad idea,” Hawley said in a statement. “There needs to be accountability for the Biden DOJ’s outrageous abuse of the separation of powers, but the right way to do that is through public hearings, tough oversight, including of the complicit telecomm companies, and prosecution where warranted.”
Why did the speaker say he was blindsided by it?
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) openly expressed his frustration with the provision last week after it almost derailed the spending bill, as it enraged some of the House GOP caucus.
“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,” Johnson said Wednesday night.
The speaker said he and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) had an “honest conversation” about it after saying he was “very angry” about it.
“I think that was way out of line,” Johnson continued. “I don’t think it was a smart thing to do. I don’t think it was the right thing to do, and the House is going to reverse it.”
Some House GOP members claimed that the provision has “bad optics,” while others said it is “shady.”
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) shared her frustrations with the Washington Examiner last week but voted in favor of the legislation. Luna called the deal “shady” and a “fubar,” and when asked if it was a reflection on Thune, she responded, “Yeah, why would you do that?”
What’s Johnson saying now?
Johnson changed his tune from the frustration seen last Wednesday when he joined Fox News Sunday this week. Despite saying the motivation is “pure,” the speaker is still expected to pass legislation to repeal the provision to appease those in his caucus whom he promised a vote.
“I was kind of frustrated by it — I said that publicly — but I have since talked to Leader Thune and the senators who were involved, and their motivation was pure,” Johnson said on Fox News Sunday.
“They were trying to put teeth into the provision of law that prevents these abuses like Jack Smith and these rogue prosecutors who weaponize the DOJ and go after political enemies,” he continued. “There ought to be a penalty so we can deter further action like that in the future.”
What will be the fate of a vote on the provision?
Johnson has said he will bring up the measure under suspension of the rules, meaning it can pass immediately as long as it receives two-thirds of votes from the chamber, noting that he did not ask for Thune to commit to bringing the stand-alone bill to the floor in the upper chamber.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE ‘OK’ WITH TRUMP RIFT: ‘I’M AMERICA FIRST, AMERICA ONLY’
The repeal will most likely pass the House, but it is less likely that the upper chamber will vote on the repeal, as Thune has continued to back the provision.
“We probably will repeal that provision,” Johnson said on Fox. “That bill’s already been filed. I had to commit to my members that we would do that.”