Clashes on Syria, spying mark debate on U.S. defense funding bill

WASHINGTON Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:43pm EDT

The U.S. Capitol Building is pictured in Washington, February 27, 2013.REUTERS/Jason Reed

The U.S. Capitol Building is pictured in Washington, February 27, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers clashed over Syria, Afghanistan and government spying on Tuesday as the House of Representatives began debating a $598 billion defense spending bill for 2014, including a Pentagon base budget of $512 billion and $86 billion for the Afghan war.

The confrontations began even before the measure made it to the floor of the House after Republican leaders moved to restrict the number of permitted amendments to 100, with no more than 20 minutes of debate on divisive issues like Syria policy and spying by the National Security Agency.

A final vote on the bill, which includes about $3 billion more than requested by President Barack Obama, is not expected until Wednesday at the earliest. Debate on the thorniest amendments, including on Syria, funding for Egypt and NSA spying, was not likely to begin until Wednesday.

The White House has threatened a presidential veto of the overall bill unless it is part of a broader budget that supports U.S. economic recovery efforts, saying current House proposals cut too much from education, infrastructure and innovation.

The White House joined senior House Republicans in urging lawmakers to oppose an amendment by Michigan Republican Justin Amash, a favorite of the conservative Tea Party movement, that would bar the NSA from collecting telephone call records and other data from people in the United States not specifically under investigation.

The proposed amendment comes after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of an agency surveillance program that collects and stores vast amounts of electronic communications like phone call records and emails.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama welcomed a debate on safeguarding privacy, but opposed Amash's amendment, saying it would "hastily dismantle one of our intelligence community's counterterrorism tools."

Senior House Republicans, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, circulated a letter to colleagues urging them to oppose the amendment.

"While many members have legitimate questions about the NSA metadata program, including whether there are sufficient protections for Americans' civil liberties, eliminating this program altogether without careful deliberation would not reflect our duty ... to provide for the common defense," they said.


As debate got under way, lawmakers expressed concern over the constraints placed on their ability to discuss contentious issues.

Representative Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, accused Republican leaders of ignoring the "real split" in Congress over the Syrian civil war and denying "any real substantive debate" over whether the United States should intervene in a conflict that has already killed 100,000.

U.S. involvement in Syria so far has been limited to providing humanitarian assistance to refugees and non-lethal aid to the Syrian opposition. But Obama is moving ahead with lethal aid after determining the government of President Bashar al-Assad has sometimes used chemical weapons.

"The Republican leadership ducked a real important debate when it comes to Syria," McGovern said. "I hope that ... a few years down the road we don't look back ... and express regret that somehow we got sucked into this war without a real debate."

Lawmakers also strongly condemned the Afghan government for trying to charge the U.S. military customs duties to remove American equipment from the country.

They debated a series of amendments aimed at stripping funding from military programs for the Afghans. The bill sets Afghan war funding at $86 billion.

(Reporting by David Alexander; Editing by Eric Beech)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (16)
usagadfly wrote:
So there is a lack of total uni-party unanimity in support of unconstitutional blanket searches of US citizens by the NSA. Of course, for “security” reasons. Security is always the reason given for trampling rights and imprisoning dissidents. Why do they (Congress) think they are not subject to the same standards as every other country?

It is a disgrace that it takes a Tea Party dissenter in the Republican Party to defend the Constitution from “all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Whatever happened to the ethics of the other politicians? Got lost somewhere obviously.

Jul 23, 2013 11:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:
The Administration, their computer and spy nuts should not have started this wholesale spying on Americans in the first place. It is the right thing to do, to completely, immediately, kill the program! And you can be darn sure that it is much more then metadata collection.

This spying program is to protect the present spying, waring, sold-out, corrupt government structure, the government of the monied elites.

“While many members have legitimate questions about the NSA metadata program…”. Legitimate questions??? What questions aren’t legitimate is such a clear violation of our American Constitution?

4th Amendement, Bill of Rights, US Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Jul 23, 2013 11:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
UScitizentoo wrote:
> would bar the NSA from collecting telephone call records and
> other data from people in the United States not specifically
> under investigation.
You mean to tell me in this country we have to vote for a clearly spelled out item that just happens to be an amendment to the constitution? You meant to tell me there are congressmen sworn to uphold the constitution that are voting against the constitution?

Jul 24, 2013 1:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.