NSA ruling puts lawmakers on edge Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell spar over the future of the National Security Agency's phone-data collection program after it was ruled illegal.

A court ruling Thursday against the National Security Agency’s phone data collection sparked a war of words between the Senate’s leaders over the future of the program — with little hope of a quick breakthrough.

With lawmakers facing a May 31 deadline to extend or reform parts of the PATRIOT Act, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Harry Reid both refused to cede ground.


“According to the CIA, had these authorities been in place more than a decade ago, they would have likely prevented 9/11,” McConnell said on the floor of the chamber. He called soon-to-expire provisions of the PATRIOT Act “ideally suited for the terrorist threat we face in 2015.”

Reid, meantime, called for an immediate vote on the USA Freedom Act, a surveillance reform bill advancing in the House that would end the telephone metadata program.

“Instead of bringing the bipartisan NSA reform bill up for a vote, Sen. McConnell is trying to force the Senate to extend the bulk data collection practices that were ruled illegal today,” he said. “It would be the height of irresponsibility to extend these illegal spying powers when we could pass bipartisan reform into law instead.”

The court decision injected a new element of uncertainty into the already rancorous debate in Congress over whether to extend the PATRIOT Act provisions, including Section 215, used to justify the NSA’s bulk data collection, first revealed by Edward Snowden’s leaks. If Congress doesn’t act by May 31, the provisions will expire.

While McConnell, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina and other Republicans took to the Senate floor to defend the PATRIOT Act, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) indicated GOP leadership had not yet made up its mind about how to proceed given the court ruling.

“There have been discussions but no decisions. We know time is running out,” Cornyn said. “This court decision that came down today is obviously an additional factor that we need to take into account.”

He pointed to the possibility of a short-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, which would give lawmakers more time to reconcile the differences between surveillance reform advocates and national security hawks.

“I’m not sure we have enough time to [reconcile those differences] on the long-term basis, so there may be a need for a short-term resolution while we look at the larger issues,” he said.

But Reid’s office threw cold water on the idea of a short-term solution, saying he “will use the tools at my disposal to stop any attempt to extend these powers for any length of time without reforming them.”

Privacy zealots from both parties on Thursday applauded the court decision, saying it should grease the skids for lawmakers to approve the USA Freedom Act.

“Today’s federal appeals court ruling confirms what we’ve been saying all along: Bulk collection of data is not authorized under the law and is not accepted by the American people,” said Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who are all sponsors of the USA Freedom Act in the House.

The White House said it’s reviewing the court decision but reiterated its support for the USA Freedom Act. President Barack Obama has called for restructuring the bulk collection program along the lines of the reform bill, so that telephone companies, rather than the government, would retain the data — but with the information readily accessible and searchable in terrorism investigations.

“POTUS believes we must be vigilant on terror threat; also said surveillance needed reform & he meant it. Congress shld pass USA Freedom Act,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest tweeted.

But there seemed to be little consensus on how the court ruling will shape the congressional debate.

National security hawks were quick to question the ruling’s durability, citing the potential for other courts to weigh in and the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

“It would be pretty hard to diminish this program right now based on a court ruling that’s not binding,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), a co-sponsor of the USA Freedom Act, said the court’s decision could “complicate” — but not necessarily ease — lawmakers’ deliberations.

“I think the senators will be very thoughtful as they weigh their decision on it,” he said. “I’m not sure that really will necessarily sway people one way or the other.”

With just two legislative weeks before the PATRIOT Act provisions are slated to sunset, the politics of surveillance appear as scrambled as ever.

“We haven’t made much progress, but we’re still talking,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “I think there’s a realization that there’s not 60 votes to go any one direction at this time and there may be more time needed.”

Referring to USA Freedom Act supporters, he said, “I don’t think there’s much leeway they’re willing to give, but maybe a little bit.”