Thread by @LizaGoitein

Some jaw-dropping news: House intelligence committee (HPSCI) leaders forced Speaker Johnson to CANCEL THE FLOOR VOTE on Section 702 tomorrow, rather than allow members to vote on whether to prohibit warrantless access to Americans’ communications. 1/18

HPSCI leaders have been waging a propaganda campaign all week to try to tank this and other reforms… but it’s not working. They saw the writing on the wall. In HPSCI’s view, if members won’t vote the way HPSCI tells them to on Section 702, they shouldn’t get to vote at all. 2/18

Let’s back up and review how we got here. The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill that includes a warrant requirement and other key reforms to protect Americans’ civil liberties, while leaving untouched the core of Section 702: the ability to monitor *foreign* threats. 3/18

HPSCI, by contrast, passed a bill that’s designed to look like reform while doing nothing at all. It would allow the FBI to continue abusing Section 702, a warrantless surveillance authority that’s supposed to be targeted only at foreigners abroad, to spy on Americans. 4/18

(To save space, I’m using “HPSCI” in this thread as shorthand for HPSCI leaders, but not all HPSCI members oppose reform. @JoaquinCastrotx, for instance, spoke eloquently at the HPSCI bill’s markup about surveillance abuses and the flaws & deficiencies in the bill.) 5/18

The House Judiciary Committee is the committee of jurisdiction, and its bill passed through committee almost unanimously (35-2). As such, Johnson should have brought the HJC bill to the floor and allowed HPSCI members (and others) to offer amendments. 6/18

Instead, Johnson decided to deploy the rare “Queen of the Hill” procedure, where both bills get a vote and, if both get a majority, the one with more votes wins. This was presumably intended to give HPSCI a leg up, although it was far from clear it would turn out that way. 7/18

The Rules Committee, however, had to sign off on this ploy, and it refused to go along with it. At that point, Johnson had another chance to do the right thing and bring the HJC bill to the floor. But once again, that’s not what happened… 8/18

Instead, Johnson orchestrated a new bill, framed as a “compromise” but in fact closely tracking HPSCI’s bill minus some of that bill’s more overtly offensive provisions (i.e., those that actually expand Section 702 surveillance). 9/18

Under Johnson’s plan, both HJC and HPSCI would be allowed to offer amendments. HJC amendments would add a warrant requirement and other key protections, while HPSCI amendments would erode existing protections and expand warrantless surveillance. 10/18

Once again, HJC was getting the shaft. But HJC members were willing to move forward in the interest of giving the House something to vote on. At the Rules Committee meeting today, members who serve on HJC acknowledged that the HJC bill should be on the floor… 11/18

…but declared their willingness to support the Speaker’s plan and to move forward in good faith. HJC members duly filed their amendments before the Rules Committee meeting and spoke passionately about their importance. 12/18

Meanwhile, things were not going well for HPSCI. Their various Dear Colleague letters and hush-hush classified briefings weren’t doing the trick. Lawmakers were pushing back in the briefings and tweeting their support for reform. 13/18

The deadline for filing amendments came and went, and HPSCI didn’t file theirs. They had made up their minds: it was simply too risky to give members outside of HPSCI a say in whether and how Section 702 should be reauthorized. 14/18

With HPSCI opposing, the procedural vote to bring Section 702 to the floor (which is usually a straight party-line vote) would have failed. The Rules Committee adjourned halfway through its meeting and the Speaker announced that he was pulling the bill from the floor. 15/18

What can we learn from this sordid story? At least two things. First, most House members want a warrant requirement for backdoor searches. HPSCI is constantly taking members’ temperature, and if members weren’t supporting reform, HPSCI wouldn’t have stopped the vote. 16/18

Second, if HPSCI can’t win on an even playing field, it will look for another way. I strongly suspect we will see a HPSCI-driven effort to attach a straight reauthorization of Section 702 (or their own bill) into the upcoming continuing resolution. 17/18

If that happens, BE READY to make some serious noise. Members don’t need HPSCI’s permission to enact reforms. They must be given the opportunity to vote on a Section 702 bill and pass reforms that will rein in surveillance abuses and protect Americans’ civil liberties. 18/18