Johnson’s surveillance program strategy hits conservative hurdles

Johnson’s surveillance program strategy hits conservative hurdles

Conservatives are throwing a curveball into Speaker Mike Johnson’s strategy for navigating a bitter spy powers fight.

The Louisiana Republican had been expected to bring two competing bills — one each from the Judiciary and Intelligence committees — to the floor Tuesday, with an unusual procedural gambit where the proposal that got the most votes would ultimately be sent to the Senate.

But now he’s facing significant hurdles within his own conference that forced Republicans to scuttle plans to tee up the dueling votes on Monday evening — throwing the immediate fate of a long term reauthorization of Section 702 into temporary limbo. The authority is meant to target foreigners abroad but has come under scrutiny because of its ability to sweep in Americans.

Three aides involved in the debate are now privately predicting there will be no standalone votes on the competing surveillance bills this week — the last scheduled week in the House until it returns in January. And Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said Republicans should punt the debate into next year to try to work out a compromise between the two competing factions.

“We need one bill. We need more time,” Norman said in a brief interview, noting that lawmakers technically have more time with a short-term extension expected to be passed later this week as part of a sweeping defense bill.

Johnson hasn’t yet weighed in publicly about what his next steps are.

But some within his ranks are urging their leader to take a one he has been reluctant to so far: Picking one of the two bills to come to the floor, instead of both, a move that would likely alienate factions within his already narrow majority.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Monday that “of course” Johnson needs to decide which bill would be the starting point for the House’s surveillance debate.

“It’s chaotic,” he added about the current strategy of letting the bills face off in real time on the House floor.

Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), the chair of the business-oriented Main Street Caucus, credited Johnson with being willing to listen to his members, but “I think we’re getting close to the time when the speaker is going to need to make a decision.”

The standoff comes after both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees passed competing bills last week, after Republicans on the two panels talked behind the scenes for months attempting to figure out a path forward.

Both bills propose changes to the shadowy surveillance court, new auditing and reporting requirements aimed at increasing transparency and new penalties for surveillance violations. But the two bills are starkly different on what was long expected to be the major point of contention: When a warrant should be required for searching 702-collected data for Americans’ information.

The Judiciary bill would require a warrant for nearly all U.S. person searches, though it has some built-in exceptions, in addition to making sweeping changes that stretch well beyond just the 702 authority. Meanwhile, the Intelligence Committee bill forbids the FBI from conducting “evidence of a crime” searches, which aren’t related to foreign intelligence and are a small subset of searches involving Americans.

Republicans had expected Johnson to bring the bills up under what is known as “Queen of the Hill” on Tuesday, meaning that both bills would get a vote, without the ability to change them on the floor, and whichever got the most support would ultimately head to the Senate.

But there were signs of trouble earlier Monday when conservatives poured cold water on the plan, suggesting they could prevent the bills from getting to the floor at all. One potential alternative could be bringing the surveillance bills up under suspension, which would require a higher threshold to pass.

But Johnson’s right flank is already signaling it’s not supportive of that step.

“If we keep suspending the rules, then why and the hell are we even here?” asked Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).