Did Rand Paul’s NSA Vote Fight Government Spying, or Protect It?

The libertarian says his opposition to a Senate bill protected Americans’ privacy. Privacy advocates disagree.

Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
Nov. 20, 2014, midnight

Sen. Rand Paul’s “no” vote ef­fect­ively doomed Demo­crats’ at­tempt to curb a do­mest­ic sur­veil­lance pro­gram Tues­day, but the Ken­tucky Re­pub­lic­an says he made the move in de­fense of liberty.

Paul’s one­time al­lies in the fight against gov­ern­ment spy­ing, however, say the sen­at­or got it wrong.

Fol­low­ing the vote, Paul’s of­fice said his vote “led the charge against the Pat­ri­ot Act ex­ten­sion,” a ref­er­ence to the post-9/11 bill that ex­pan­ded the gov­ern­ment’s spy­ing au­thor­ity. In­deed, the bill up for con­sid­er­a­tion Tues­day, the USA Free­dom Act, did con­tain two-year ex­ten­sions for core sec­tions of the Pat­ri­ot Act, in­clud­ing a con­tro­ver­sial pro­vi­sion that in­tel­li­gence agen­cies have used to jus­ti­fy their bulk sur­veil­lance activ­it­ies.

Those pro­vi­sions are due to ex­pire in 2015, which provides lever­age Paul hopes to use to make big­ger, bolder changes to the na­tion­al se­cur­ity ap­par­at­us.

But the Free­dom Act also made deep cuts to ex­ist­ing sur­veil­lance powers: Chiefly, the bill was de­signed to pro­hib­it the gov­ern­ment’s carte blanche ac­cess to U.S. phone metadata—the num­bers and time stamps of phone calls but not their ac­tu­al con­tent.

Des­pite the bill’s re­forms, Paul is ar­guing that he can get a bet­ter hand next year, with the Pat­ri­ot Act dead­line loom­ing closer. The le­gis­la­tion’s pro­ponents counter that by vot­ing against the bill, Paul did a dis­ser­vice to the cause, be­cause Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans may be un­will­ing to budge much from their pro-NSA stance when they take over the cham­ber next year.

Moreover, Paul’s ra­tionale may be fur­ther un­der­cut by an ap­par­ent little-no­ticed loop­hole that, as the New York Times re­por­ted late Wed­nes­day, would al­low Pres­id­ent Obama to con­tin­ue the bulk re­cords pro­gram in­def­in­itely even if Con­gress fails to act.

“I told Sen­at­or Paul what I thought of it,” said Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Chair­man Patrick Leahy, a Demo­crat and the bill’s chief au­thor, when asked about Paul’s vote. “I’m one of the people that wants real re­form, and you don’t get real re­form by vot­ing ‘no.’”

“Al­though we ap­pre­ci­ate his shared en­thu­si­asm for rein­ing in the NSA, many in the pri­vacy com­munity are deeply dis­ap­poin­ted by Sen­at­or Paul’s vote,” ad­ded Kev­in Bank­ston, policy dir­ect­or of the Open Tech­no­logy In­sti­tute. “By tak­ing what he seemed to think was the strongest pos­sible anti-sur­veil­lance stance, Sen­at­or Paul iron­ic­ally ended up shoot­ing the sur­veil­lance re­form move­ment in the foot.”

With Paul’s op­pos­i­tion, the Free­dom Act failed to clear a 60-vote threshold to ad­vance, com­ing up just two votes short. Sen. Bill Nel­son of Flor­ida was the lone Demo­crat to vote no, though con­fu­sion re­mains about wheth­er he in­ten­ded to break ranks, or if he would have done so had his vote been the de­cid­ing one.

The oth­er key vote, the bill’s back­ers say, was Paul. And every­one in the room knew it.

“He had his reas­ons,” said Sen. Dean Heller, one of the four Re­pub­lic­ans to sup­port the Free­dom Act. “I’m not go­ing to second-guess any­body’s vote on any bill, but I wish he had been with us.”

Paul’s op­pos­i­tion is es­pe­cially puzz­ling, ob­serv­ers say, be­cause Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id had prom­ised an open amend­ment pro­cess if the Free­dom Act ad­vanced. A frenzy of amend­ments was ex­pec­ted from both pri­vacy and de­fense hawks, and Paul would have been able to of­fer his own ad­dress­ing his Pat­ri­ot Act con­cerns. That agree­ment shored up sup­port from oth­er vo­cal NSA crit­ics, in­clud­ing Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Ud­all, who wor­ried that the meas­ure may not have been strong enough.

Des­pite his ap­par­ent mis­giv­ings, Paul, a likely pres­id­en­tial con­tender in 2016, did not rise to speak dur­ing de­bate lead­ing up the bill. He quietly watched from a chair near the middle of the cham­ber as mem­bers of his party, in­clud­ing Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell and Sen. Marco Ru­bio, warned that re­du­cing the NSA’s au­thor­ity could aid ter­ror­ists around the world, in­clud­ing the Is­lam­ic State.

Some close to the bill who were un­happy with Paul’s vote sug­ges­ted it may have been the product of cold polit­ic­al cal­cu­lus. By vot­ing no, Paul gets to re­main in good stand­ing with GOP lead­ers, in­clud­ing fel­low Ken­tucki­an Mc­Con­nell, while pre­serving a repu­ta­tion as a staunch sur­veil­lance re­former.

If bulk data col­lec­tion is not fixed by 2016, Paul will be able to cam­paign on end­ing it en­tirely, and dis­tance him­self from Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, also a likely pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate, who crossed the aisle to vote for the Free­dom Act.

Sarah Mimms contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
Administration Pressing Senate for Rules Changes
7 minutes ago

"The Trump administration is putting pressure on Senate Republicans to crack down on Democratic efforts to delay its agenda, fueling talk about the need for rules reform among Republicans on Capitol Hill. Republicans are in discussions with Democrats about bipartisan changes to Senate rules to speed up consideration of President Trump’s judicial and executive branch nominees, but if that effort flounders — as similar ones have in the past — they’re not ruling out unilateral action."

Trump Had Staff Sign Nondisclosure Agreements
7 minutes ago

During his campaign, Donald Trump indicated to Washington Post reporters that he'd like to have White House employees sign nondisclosure agreements. That is, in fact, what he's done, according to a scoop by the Post's Ruth Marcus. "Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel’s Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event." The administration intended the agreements to remain in force beyond Trump's tenure. An early draft included penalties of up to $10 million.

Rubio Says McCabe Should Have Been Allowed to Retire
10 hours ago
Trump Asking for Bill to “Break the WTO”
11 hours ago

"Trump is asking for a bill" that would effectively break the WTO. One of the core WTO principles — which has underpinned globalization and trade for 70 years — is an idea called 'most favored nation status.' Countries that belong to the WTO have all agreed to charge the same tariff rate for imports from all other WTO members." But Trump covets reciprocal tariffs "nation-by-nation, product-by-product." The GOP free-traders in Congress are unlikely to support such an effort.

Barry McCaffrey Calls Trump “Serious Threat to National Security”
1 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.