House Passes Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567) and Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026 (H.R. 7147); Extends FISA 702 Authorities (S. 4465)

The case for

Mr. Jordan argued that the FISA 702 program is "incredibly important for protecting our national security and advancing our interests abroad." He stated that the temporary extension would "ensure that there is no disruption to the program while we work out our differences on a longer reauthorization."

The case against

Mr. Massie opposed the clean reauthorization, stating that "a short-term infringement of the Constitution is still an infringement of the Constitution." He highlighted past abuses of FISA databases to query political activists, journalists, Members of Congress, and romantic interests of FBI agents. Mr. Roy criticized the Senate for not taking up the House's bill with reforms and for punting with a short-term extension, arguing against "warrantless surveillance" and "spying on American citizens." Mr. Davidson warned about the program being "abused and corrupted" and emphasized the need for a warrant to protect civil liberties. Mr. Self reiterated that the FBI has abused 702 and called for both electronic and financial privacy.

The case for

Mr. Alford stated that the bill would "fully fund the Department of Homeland Security" and that "many of our dedicated DHS workers, heroes who show up each and every day to secure our borders, screen our passengers in our airports, and protect our homeland, will be unpaid yet again" if the bill did not pass. He urged colleagues to "get this done, and let's get back to work." Ms. DeLauro called it "a victory for the hardworking men and women whose lives were put on hold by Republicans for 76 days" and stated, "It is about damn time that you come forward and do this."

The case against

Mr. Roy stated that "the idea that we are isolating Border Patrol and isolating ICE is offensive to the men and women who serve in ICE and Border Patrol." He added that "it is absolutely ridiculous that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done this to those men and women." Ms. DeLauro, in response to Mr. Roy, stated that "those armed, masked agents marauding our streets are terrorizing people in our communities" and that Democrats "have from the outset wanted to negotiate how we deal with that in a separate way and fund everyone else in DHS."

The case for

Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, during debate on amendments, highlighted the bipartisan nature of the bill, stating it has "140 bipartisan, Republican and Democratic, markup bills in this" and "40 bills just led by Democrats that went into this." He emphasized that the bill corrects the lack of an agriculture presence in the CFIUS interagency group and that "food security is national security." During debate on the Spartz amendment, Mrs. Spartz argued that exempting farm equipment from emission standards would help American farmers struggling with high equipment costs and breakdowns, allowing them to compete with foreign producers not subject to such standards. For the Steube amendment on foreign land ownership, Mr. Steube argued it was essential for national security and food supply, preventing enemies from gaining control over strategic assets. For the Steube amendment on honey testing, Mr. Steube argued it would defend the integrity of honey, protect American producers from fraudulent imports, and ensure consumers are not deceived.

The case against

Ms. Craig criticized the bill for doing "nothing for our farmers, screws over poor people, and maintains the nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP." She argued it would "make hunger worse in this country." She also criticized the process, stating that "hundreds of amendments were offered, including many by Republican Members of Congress, and hundreds of those amendments were blocked by this Republican leadership." She called the process "lousy" and "terrible." During debate on the Spartz amendment, Ms. Craig argued it did nothing to address farmers' real issues and undermined the Clean Air Act's role in public health. For the Steube amendment on foreign land ownership, Ms. Tokuda argued it was an "overly broad" solution in search of a problem, risking "xenophobic and discriminatory practices against Asian Americans." For the Steube amendment on honey testing, Ms. Craig expressed concern about "complete exclusion of testing in some of our most reliable trade partners" but acknowledged the importance of supporting a regulated, safe honey supply.