119-HR-8352 DC Insider Whip Count Analysis

Bill basics and status

What’s moving: a narrow statutory tweak to 28 U.S.C. §534 adding explicit authority for FBI to share criminal history record information with state peace officer standards and training (POST) agencies, plus a 180‑day DOJ rulemaking. Reported from House Judiciary by voice vote and placed on the Union Calendar (No. 553) on May 4, 2026. Sponsors: Rep. Derek Schmidt (R‑KS‑02) with Rep. Deborah Ross (D‑NC‑02). (govinfo.gov)

• House action: Reported (amended) by Judiciary on April 22, 2026; ANS adopted by voice vote; advanced to the Committee of the Whole and Union Calendar. (docs.house.gov)
• Core change: Clarifies FBI exchange authority under §534 to include POST agencies; directs AG to update 28 CFR Part 20 within 180 days. (govinfo.gov)
• Messaging: Bipartisan introduction framed as improving officer vetting/background checks for certification and decertification. (ross.house.gov)

Breakdown: expected support and opposition by party and caucus

Read this as a whip‑team starting point—anchored in public positions and committee action, not wish‑casting.

• House GOP (baseline: lean yes). Pro‑law‑enforcement posture + committee voice vote signal broad conference comfort. Leadership control (Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Scalise) means floor time is available if counts pencil. Expect friction from a privacy‑libertarian subset aligned with recent FISA fights. (speaker.gov)
• House Democrats (baseline: split). Presence of a Democratic co‑sponsor (Ross) and committee voice vote point to a sizable Yes bloc among moderates; Progressive/CPC privacy cohort may resist absent accuracy/limitations language tied to FBI data dissemination. (ross.house.gov)
• Senate Republicans (baseline: lean yes). GOP controls the chamber; Judiciary Chair Grassley runs the gate. Companion/related Senate bill from Sen. Moran with bipartisan co‑sponsors (Whitehouse, Tillis) suggests cross‑party receptivity. (senate.gov)
• Senate Democrats (baseline: mixed but workable). Institutional privacy critics likely to seek amendments, but prior bipartisan interest in POST‑related vetting and the narrow scope make a negotiated markup plausible. Whitehouse’s co‑sponsorship on the Senate version is a useful signal. (congress.gov)
• Interest groups: professional policing orgs (IADLEST/IACP) have longstanding guidance urging state and national criminal‑record checks and use of the National Decertification Index—aligned with the bill’s goal; civil‑liberties groups (ACLU and allies) have a paper trail warning about FBI record accuracy/Privacy Act exemptions, implying pressure for tighter safeguards. (iadlest.org)

Key legislators and potential swing votes

Who can move—or sink—the bill.

• House floor control: Speaker Mike Johnson; Majority Leader Steve Scalise; Majority Whip Tom Emmer. Their buy‑in determines rule vs. suspension and timing (Police Week is a natural window). (speaker.gov)
• House managers: Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (sets conference posture) and lead sponsors Rep. Schmidt and Rep. Ross. Jordan ran the April 22 markup to a voice vote; sponsors supply bipartisan cover. (en.wikipedia.org)
• Privacy‑libertarian GOP swing: Rep. Thomas Massie—recently pressing for stricter warrant rules and limits on government data access—could rally a small bloc against a clean bill on suspension. (military.com)
• Progressive/CPC swing: Rep. Pramila Jayapal—public leader on surveillance/privacy curbs—signals conditions for support; her lane may demand explicit accuracy, minimization, and accountability language before a floor Yes. (jayapal.house.gov)
• Senate gatekeepers: Majority Leader John Thune (floor time) and Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (markup path). Bipartisan Senate interest via S.1712 (Moran–Whitehouse–Tillis) is the glidepath if House sends a tight bill. (senate.gov)

Leadership influence and procedural dynamics

Path to the floor and across the Rotunda.

• House procedure: After placement on the Union Calendar, leadership can run a structured rule or try suspension (2/3 required). Given the privacy crosscurrents, a rule with a narrow amendment tree to bolt on accuracy/minimization language may be safer than suspension. (govinfo.gov)
• Timing: Ross’s shop flagged a potential May floor window; slotting during National Police Week amplifies optics and member incentives. (ross.house.gov)
• Senate: With GOP control and Grassley at Judiciary, a low‑controversy House‑passed bill can advance via executive business meeting and UC time agreements; bipartisan Senate sponsors reduce friction, but privacy amendments are likely bargaining chips. (senate.gov)

Assessment: vote outlook and confidence

Bottom line for the whip board.

• House: Moderate likelihood to pass. Committee voice vote + bipartisan sponsorship + pro‑law‑enforcement optics are tailwinds; privacy bloc is the main variable. A manager’s amendment codifying accuracy, audit logs, and purpose limitations should lock down enough Ds and tamp down R‑libertarian defections. (docs.house.gov)
• Senate: Moderate likelihood if House sends a tight bill. GOP‑run Judiciary, bipartisan companion (S.1712), and limited fiscal/Byrd exposure argue for movement; expect at least a colloquy or technical amendment to memorialize privacy safeguards. (judiciary.senate.gov)
• Overall confidence: Moderate. Leadership alignment exists in both chambers; success hinges on threading privacy guardrails without reopening scope. (speaker.gov)

Sourcing notes (selected)

Core sources used for status, leadership, committee control, and stakeholder posture.

1. Official bill status and text: GPO govinfo H.R. 8352 (Reported in House), including Union Calendar No. 553 and §534/28 CFR Part 20 directives. (govinfo.gov)
2. House Judiciary markup: committee repository showing voice vote and ANS. (docs.house.gov)
3. Sponsor communications: Rep. Ross press notice outlining intent and likely May timing. (ross.house.gov)
4. Chamber leadership control: Speaker (speaker.gov), House Majority Leader (majorityleader.gov), House Majority Whip (majoritywhip.gov), and Senate leadership (senate.gov). (speaker.gov)
5. Senate committee gatekeeping and companion measure: Judiciary Chair Grassley’s role and S.1712 (Moran–Whitehouse–Tillis). (judiciary.senate.gov)
6. Stakeholder posture: IADLEST/IACP guidance backing robust criminal‑record checks/NDI for officer vetting; ACLU record on FBI data accuracy/privacy exemptions. (iadlest.org)
7. Privacy headwinds context: Cross‑party friction on surveillance authorities this spring (Massie/Jayapal lanes; House FISA turbulence). (military.com)