HRES-1175-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Austin Scott (R-GA)
What it does
H. Res. 1175 is a procedural "rule" resolution from the House Rules Committee that would set the terms for debating H.R. 8035 on the House floor. It would waive all points of order against the bill and its provisions, deem the bill as already read, limit debate to one hour divided equally among the chairs and ranking members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, and allow one motion to recommit. It does not itself change surveillance law — it only governs how the House would consider H.R. 8035, which would extend Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) through October 20, 2027.
Who benefits
The majority party in the House, which gains tighter control over the floor debate and amendment process. Intelligence and national security agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA) whose surveillance authorities under FISA Title VII would be extended if H.R. 8035 passes. Members who support a clean reauthorization without amendments benefit from the structured, limited debate this rule provides.
Who is hurt
Members of Congress — from either party — who wish to offer amendments to H.R. 8035 (e.g., to add privacy protections or modify surveillance procedures) are effectively blocked by this closed rule. Civil liberties advocacy groups and their congressional allies who seek to attach reforms to the reauthorization lose their primary legislative opportunity to do so. The minority party loses procedural leverage to shape the underlying bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a structured rule is necessary to ensure timely reauthorization of critical national security tools before they lapse, preventing a gap in intelligence collection that could harm U.S. security. They contend that FISA Title VII authorities — including Section 702, which the intelligence community describes as among its most valuable collection tools — require certainty and continuity, and that open amendment processes risk attaching provisions that could complicate or delay passage.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a closed rule bypasses the normal legislative process and prevents meaningful debate on surveillance authorities that directly affect the privacy rights of Americans. They contend that Section 702 has a documented history of compliance violations — including FBI queries of Americans' communications — and that blocking amendments forecloses the only realistic opportunity to attach accountability or privacy reforms to a must-pass reauthorization.