The House of Representatives’ attempt to pass legislation on foreign surveillance, homeland security funding, and agricultural policy on a tight deadline has already screeched to a halt, with Republican intraparty disagreement on all fronts.
The House rules committee, a leadership-controlled panel which determines the conditions of debate for bills on the floor, went into recess Tuesday morning after failing to agree on a “rule” which would set up consideration of multiple bills.
The federal government’s authority to monitor foreigners without a warrant under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will expire Thursday. Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said that emergency funding to pay department staff will run out in early May, prompting congressional leadership to pass a funding measure this week.
Leadership and conservative hardliners had not settled on a framework for extending the government’s surveillance authority. A faction of conservatives has opposed the long-term extension of the FISA program without major reforms, citing past abuses that have resulted in the surveillance of American citizens.
However, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, have argued the program is vital for national security and already includes significant reforms to prevent its abuse.
Given the controversy that has surrounded FISA for several years, it could be an uphill battle to resolve Congress’s major disagreements this week.
Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., a House Freedom Caucus member, has offered an amendment to extend the program for three months, which would essentially punt on the debate.
The rules panel had hoped to advance other bills alongside FISA that are also the subject of controversy.
This bundle included a Senate-passed framework for a party line budget bill to fund immigration enforcement. Having failed to get Democrats on board, who requested reforms as a condition of funding, the Senate has opted to use a process known as “reconciliation” to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) without needing Democrat votes.
The House has yet to approve a separate Senate-passed bill which would fund the Department of Homeland Security while excluding immigration enforcement. Speaker Johnson has signaled he wants to tweak that bill, and the hardline conservative House Freedom Caucus has never fully bought into this piecemeal funding approach, with its members arguing it could jeopardize the future funding of deportations and border security.
On Monday, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a rules committee Republican, expressed concerns about a scenario “where ICE and Border Patrol are left unfunded” in the fall of 2029 if Congress has still not managed to fund immigration enforcement through the normal appropriations process.
Additionally, the rules committee was hoping to advance the annual “farm bill,” legislation affecting a myriad of agricultural issues and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The 2026 farm bill has been the subject of controversy, as it contains a provision protecting pesticide producers from certain lawsuits.
Some members have offered amendments to the farm bill, such as a proposed ban on the issuance of a central bank digital currency and the expansion of access to ethanol-blended gas, a priority for Midwestern representatives from districts with large corn output.
The bill would include grants and assistance that Republicans are eager to provide farmers ahead of midterm elections in November.
Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the rules committee who often accuses Republicans of dysfunction, slammed committee leadership.
“When we showed up, we were told there is still no deal,” McGovern wrote on X. “Their chaos is only matched by their incompetence.”
To be sure, Democrat opposition to FISA proposals has also greatly limited the options of House Republican leadership.
Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said on Tuesday that he would not back a rule to advance FISA if the rules committee reported it out.
“I’m certainly not going to vote yes on the rule and our leadership has been very clear about not voting yes on the rule,” Himes said, per a Semafor reporter.
