House Adopts Rule for Five Measures, Passes Budget Resolution and FISA Reauthorization, and Begins Debate on Farm Bill with Key Amendments

The case for

Proponents, including Rep. Crawford, Jordan, LaHood, Hill, Jackson, and Tenney, argued that FISA Section 702 is an indispensable national security tool, vital for collecting foreign intelligence on overseas terrorists, hackers, and spies to prevent attacks on the homeland. They emphasized that the bill, as amended, incorporates 56 reforms from the 2024 RISAA legislation, which led to a 94% drop in FBI U.S. person queries and a 99% compliance rate. They highlighted additional safeguards in the current bill, such as monthly civil liberties reviews by the ODNI Civil Liberties Protection Officer, criminal penalties for intentional abuse, FBI attorney preapproval for U.S. person queries, and a GAO audit. They warned that allowing the authority to expire would be a massive intelligence failure, especially given current global threats and military operations.

The case against

Opponents, including Rep. Raskin, Lofgren, Nadler, and Jayapal, argued that the bill fails to include a warrant requirement for U.S. person queries, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment and allowing warrantless surveillance of American citizens' private communications. They cited a history of FBI abuses, including queries on protesters, political donors, and personal contacts, and recent warnings from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about ongoing abuses. They expressed distrust in internal watchdogs and self-reporting mechanisms, especially under the current administration, and insisted that judicial oversight is necessary to protect civil liberties.

The case for

Proponents, including Rep. Arrington, Smucker, Moore (UT), McDowell, and Jordan, argued that the resolution is a crucial step to end the 74-day Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shutdown and fully fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). They asserted that Democrats had held DHS funding hostage with unreasonable demands, such as requiring judicial warrants for expelling criminal aliens, and accused them of wanting to defund ICE. They emphasized the resolution's role in securing the border, supporting law enforcement, and putting the national deficit on a responsible path.

The case against

Opponents, including Rep. Boyle, Panetta, Scott (VA), Doggett, Amo, and Jayapal, criticized the resolution for failing to address rising costs for American families (gas, groceries, healthcare) and instead allocating an additional $70 billion to ICE and CBP, on top of previous record funding, without demanding reforms or accountability for alleged abuses. They accused the administration of economic mismanagement, causing inflation, and using DHS funding to create a 'personal police force' that has engaged in lawless actions and terrorized communities.

The case for

Rep. Luna and Pingree argued that the sections proposed to be struck would provide a liability shield for pesticide manufacturers and preempt states' rights to regulate pesticide usage or labeling. They cited studies linking pesticides to childhood cancers and emphasized that the amendment would preserve the status quo, allowing states to set additional warnings and protecting public health over corporate profits. They highlighted the bipartisan opposition to federal preemption on this issue.

The case against

Rep. Austin Scott and Thompson argued that the sections in the bill are about ensuring uniformity of pesticide labeling nationwide, not about the safety of the pesticide itself. They contended that allowing individual states or municipalities to impose different labeling requirements would create an unfeasible patchwork of regulations, raising costs for farmers and consumers. They asserted that the EPA is the authoritative voice for pesticide safety findings and that states retain the authority to not register a product within their jurisdiction.

The case for

Rep. Crawford argued that his amendment would allow SNAP recipients to purchase hot rotisserie chicken, providing a high-quality, nutrient-dense protein source that aligns with dietary guidelines and offers good value. He noted that it would address the lack of reheating methods for some recipients and would not impose any financial burden on taxpayers. He highlighted that cold rotisserie chicken is already eligible, making the distinction for hot chicken illogical.

The case against

Rep. Hayes and Thompson expressed concerns about the amendment's narrow scope, arguing that it would pick winners and losers among hot foods and could lead to unintended consequences for program integrity. They suggested that a broader approach, such as the Hot Foods Act, would be more appropriate to address the issue comprehensively for all hot prepared foods, rather than singling out one item.

The case for

Rep. Grothman (for Hageman) argued that the EID ear tag rule is an unnecessary and flawed government mandate that burdens ranchers and producers. He stated that it was implemented despite overwhelming opposition, lacked adequate small business and federalism analyses, and undercounted costs. He raised privacy concerns regarding data collection and noted tag shortages. He asserted that a functional animal disease traceability system already exists and that producers should voluntarily adopt best practices.

The case against

Rep. Thompson and Tokuda argued that electronic identification (EID) ear tags are critical for animal disease traceability, essential for protecting domestic livestock herds and maintaining foreign trade markets. They cited the ongoing highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak in dairy cattle and the threat of the New World screwworm as examples of why robust traceability is needed. They noted that USDA provides free tags to mitigate economic burden and that the rule has been effective since its implementation.

The case for

Rep. Moore (WV) and Thompson argued that the amendment is necessary to protect the pension funds of police and firefighters in West Virginia, which receive 40% of their revenue from greyhound racing tracks. They highlighted the potential loss of nearly 2,000 jobs and framed the issue as a matter of States' rights, noting that West Virginia voters have affirmed the activity. They presented the amendment as a fair compromise, allowing existing tracks to continue while prohibiting new ones nationwide.

The case against

Rep. Carbajal argued that commercial greyhound racing is cruel and inhumane, leading to injuries and deaths of dogs. He emphasized that the nationwide ban, supported by a bipartisan coalition and over 250 animal protection groups, is necessary because simulcast betting props up the industry even in its limited presence. He contended that no pension solvency should depend on an inhumane industry and that states can adjust revenue frameworks to phase out such activities.