As FISA Bill Implodes, Himes Boosted Version He Called ‘Unacceptable’
After briefly reconvening on Tuesday morning, the House Rules Committee indefinitely postponed its meeting, where members were planning to hammer out a rule to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) following House Speaker Mike Johnson’s previous push to extend the program.
Johnson still does not have the votes to reauthorize the warrantless spying program. Hard-line Republicans, a critical mass of whom sit on the Rules Committee, have refused to authorize an extension of Section 702 without requiring warrants for any accessing of personal communications of American citizens. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders have held firm in their efforts to prevent a committee rule vote rather than bailing out Republicans.
The Senate was slated to consider a clean three-year extension of Section 702 Tuesday afternoon, but that vote has since been postponed. Congressional authority for Section 702 wiretaps expires on Thursday, though the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has extended the program through next year and wiretaps can likely still be obtained through the court until then.
Amid this failure, the Prospect can confirm that one House Democrat was seeking to help Republican leaders get the FISA extension across the finish line: Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
According to emails seen by the Prospect, Himes’s office was whipping votes ahead of Johnson’s eleventh-hour dice roll to reauthorize Section 702.
Shortly after 12 a.m. on April 17, as Johnson put a bill on the floor, H.R. 8035, with minor changes to Section 702 and no meaningful warrant requirement, members of the ranking member’s staff emailed legislative directors and chiefs of staff for House Democrats outlining his recommendation. “If we proceed to a vote on final passage, Ranking Member Himes recommends a ‘yes’ vote on the revised version of H.R. 8035,” the email explains.
Himes went as far as to say that the “reforms themselves are not problematic and modestly and incrementally strengthen the bill,” adding that while “I oppose the process that led up to this vote … I respectfully ask that you join me in voting ‘yes’ to reauthorize this vital program.”
The revised version of that bill teed up a five-year extension of the 702 program. It also included bogus warrant language that would have merely codified existing law, and made it easier for Section 702–acquired data to be used against Americans in criminal proceedings. Three Democrats—Reps. Jared Golden (D-ME), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA)—voted in favor of the revised bill. A fourth Democrat, Rep. Tom Suozzi, later joined them in voting for a clean 18-month extension of Section 702. Both measures failed.
In a post on X following the impasse, Himes rejected claims that he was whipping votes among House Democrats in the run-up to floor consideration of both the amendment and the rule, which he described as “unacceptable.”
“Himes saying one thing publicly and one thing privately seems to be a bit of a pattern with him,” Daniel Schuman, executive director of the nonpartisan pro-democracy nonprofit American Governance Institute, said in an interview. “Him signaling that he would support the legislation even without the reforms is a way of signaling that he doesn’t really care about the reforms.”
A committee spokesperson told the Prospect: “As [Himes] has made clear, this critical national security program must be reauthorized, but that process should include a serious debate around proposed reforms, including the judicial process reform that Congressman Himes proposed in an amendment earlier this month.”
The spokesperson did not respond to follow-up questions from the Prospect about the email, and whether Himes believes his judicial process reform amounts to a meaningful warrant requirement. Critics say it does not.
“I think Mr. Himes is engaging in surveillance theater,” Schuman said. “It’s bare-faced hypocrisy, and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee knows better.”
During the 2024 FISA fight, Himes voted against what Schuman characterized as a “real reform” proposed by Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). The vote to pass that measure, which would have required FISA authorities to obtain a warrant for U.S. person queries, ended in a tie of 212-212.
“If Himes had voted for it, we would have had real reforms,” Schuman told the Prospect. “He and any Democrat were the deciding vote between real reform and the absence thereof.”
There are similar bipartisan reform efforts around this time, including the Government Surveillance Reform Act from Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), the SAFE Act from Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), and the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act from Biggs.
Warrants have been the sticking point for members of Congress seeking to reform the 702 program. Without meaningful Fourth Amendment protections, any proposed amendments are likely to face significant, bipartisan backlash in the House.
House Republican leadership “is hoping that they can punch their way through,” Schuman said. “If Johnson wants to actually move forward … one of the reform amendments needs to be made in order.”
In addition to a full warrant requirement, privacy advocates in Congress have proposed legislation to close the backdoor search and data broker loopholes, and add guardrails against AI-driven surveillance, among other reforms. But the House leadership’s intransigence on anything with a warrant requirement makes passage nearly impossible at this stage.
“House Republican leadership once again tried to sell fake reforms to members for a third time,” said Wyden in a Senate floor speech. “And once again, that body is in disarray, because members aren’t going to buy fake reforms.”
Staffers for Golden, Gottheimer, and Suozzi did not respond to the Prospect’s requests for comment. A spokesperson for Gluesenkamp Perez declined to comment.
The post As FISA Bill Implodes, Himes Boosted Version He Called ‘Unacceptable’ appeared first on The American Prospect.