Republicans broke 134-94 against the amendment. | REUTERS NSA vote splits parties, jars leaders

A $512.5 billion Pentagon appropriations bill cleared the House Wednesday evening after the leadership narrowly beat back efforts to curb the National Security Agency’s authority to collect private call records and metadata on telephone customers in the U.S.

The pivotal 217-205 vote was the first real test of political sentiment since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents that revealed the secret program.


The compressed, often emotional debate badly split Republicans, many of whom had championed the PATRIOT Act in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington in 2001.

( PHOTOS: Pols, pundits weigh in on NSA report)

“Have 12 years gone by and our memories faded so badly that we forgot what happened on September 11,” asked House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.). But former House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), answered as bluntly: “The time has come to stop and the way we do [that] is to approve this amendment.”

Republicans broke 134-94 against the amendment, while Democrats split 111-82 in favor of the proposal.

The pattern among members fit no simple ideological or generational divide. But with the White House and NSA brass weighing in, both parties’ top leaders—who enjoy more access to intelligence matters—tended to vote in opposition to the amendment.

As chairman, Rogers promised that he would come back and address privacy concerns when his panel writes its annual authorization for intelligence agencies this fall. For both he and his ranking Democrat, Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the narrowness of the vote was a jolting reminder of the emotions stirred by the issue.

It “goes too far, too fast on the wrong legislative vehicle,” Ruppersberger said of the proposed changes. But he conceded that new ways had to be found to address the concerns raised by members.

To try to siphon off this anger — and provide political cover for wavering lawmakers — the Intelligence panel effectively took over a second, less threatening amendment that had been crafted initially by Rep. Richard Nugent (R-Fla.).

Nugent told POLITICO that he had abandoned the proposal because he didn’t think it achieved the purpose he wanted. But with the leadership’s blessing, Rep. Mike Pompeo, a member of the Intelligence Committee, brought it to a vote in his name, winning easily 409-12.

Critics contended it was a “fig leaf” and only restated current law. But it also gave members a vote to express their concerns without jeopardizing the NSA’s ability to continue as it has.

The underlying defense bill, approved 315-109, lacked the same drama as the NSA fight. But the two days of debate reflected a clear and growing impatience in Congress with the cost of U.S. entanglements overseas.

Lawmakers complained bitterly that assistance is still flowing to Afghanistan while civilian defense employees are being furloughed at home. Without even a recorded vote, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) won an amendment to cut $2.6 billion from Afghan aid to try to address this personnel problem.

In the Mideast, the Republican leadership successfully structured the debate to a point where the few amendments allowed will have limited impact.

The passions are real, especially regarding military aid to anti-government forces in Syria.

“We don’t know who is who among the Syrian rebel movement,” Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) told the House. “We do not have control over the Syrian battle place Americans must not be complicit in this killing field.”

But the confusion was also evident.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), given a chance to offer an amendment on military relations with Egypt, spent most of his time on the floor clarifying what his language didn’t intend to do—not what it did.

“My amendment is to prevent the U.S, military from engaging in offensive operations in Egypt and to prevent the Defense Department from providing assistance to Egyptian paramilitary or terrorist groups,” Massie said finally. It passed on a voice vote.

The $512.5 billion in the bill represents a nearly $3.4 billion reduction from the Pentagon’s 2014 request for its base budget. About $1.1 billion or a third of these savings would come from within research and development accounts. Among major aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program would be cut by almost $618 million and an estimated $443 million in savings is attributed to rescinding funds for C-27 J aircraft.

Republicans had hoped to soften these reductions by laying claim to an extra $5 billion in overseas contingency funds not in the Defense Department’s request. But these accounts took a beating in the course of floor debate, and by the time the dust cleared, between $4 billion to $6 billion had been pared back from this account.

Historically, the bill still represents a downward path for defense spending but nothing like what is demanded under the automatic spending cuts dictated by the Budget Control Act.

In a candid moment during the floor debate, Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) freely admitted the bill will be decimated come January if no agreement is reached on sequestration.

“Some will complain that the bill breaks the cap placed on defense spending under the sequester level for fiscal 2014 put into place by the Budget Control Act,” Rogers said. “To this I say of course it does.”

“If nothing is done to cancel the next round of sequestration cuts that are scheduled to take effect when this Congress adjourns, this bill would be cut to a total of $468 billion.”