House Republicans aren’t too happy with Speaker Mike Johnson’s plan for addressing the contentious issue of government surveillance. Disagreements over how the issue should be handled have threatened to stall progress in fixing the system in a way that does not grant the state more power to spy on Americans without a warrant.

At the heart of the issue is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which enables federal agencies to spy on non-citizens in other countries. However, despite the supposed intention of the provision, it has been abused by federal agencies to also surveil Americans without a warrant, bringing up Constitutional concerns.

The debate centers on two bills coming from the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. House Speaker Johnson’s plan was to have a showdown on the floor in which both bills would be debated with one of them emerging as the measure Republican lawmakers would get behind. But at least a few House Republicans aren’t on board with the idea.

The House Rules Committee pulled consideration of the two bills after a GOP conference meeting that was staged as a debate over reforming Section 702 of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), which allows the government to spy on foreigners overseas.

But the differences between the two pieces of legislation took a backseat to Johnson’s plan for resolving a months-long standoff over how to reconcile differences between the two bills, thwarting his plan for a “Queen of the Hill” battle that would bring both to the floor for a vote.

While the unusual process would allow consideration of both bills, it would not allow for amendments, alarming members who want to hash out differences between the two approaches.

Republicans have indicated that Johnson’s plan to disallow amendments is a major sticking point.

“I don’t think that’s the way to do business. What we’re going to do is we’re gonna take two bills that we have strong disagreements on and say, ‘Sorry, take it or leave it. A or B?’” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said.

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), another Rules member, also dismissed the process, saying “It’s not a beauty pageant.”

“It’s not the best way, you don’t flip a coin,” he added.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) told the Washington Examiner that the House would not be voting on either bills this week due to disagreements related to how the issue is being handled. During a conference meeting, Republicans in both committees clashed over their respective bills.

But after a heated conference meeting where Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who sits on the Judiciary Committee and helped craft that version of the bill, accused Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH) of “f***ing lying” about the judiciary bill, the tides started to shift away from the “queen of the hill” scenario.

After the meeting, multiple members expressed dissatisfaction with the “queen of the hill” tactic and wanted Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to choose one bill and stick with it.

“I think the former speaker said it very well when he said we should take the time it takes to get one bill and take the time it takes to get it right,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Now, it appears the FISA issue will not be addressed until next year. The House will be voting on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Thursday. The measure includes an extension of FISA until April 19, 2024.

Speaker Johnson has come under fire for his perceived inability to make a decision on FISA:

First, he announced a short-term extension of the program, then he switched and said the House would not go through with that, then one day later, to many members' surprise, he announced they were attaching a clean short-term extension to the NDAA but would go through with voting on a final reauthorization bill before Congress left for the year.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that the FBI had severely abused Section 702 in 2022. The agency was found to have spied on almost 120,000 Americans without a warrant, which many viewed as an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. This development highlights the importance of reigning in government surveillance and preventing it from violating civil liberties. But it also shows that dealing with the issue isn’t as simple as it should be.