This week I released a report by the Government Accountability Office.  I asked for this analysis of what are known as "actively engaged" regulations for eligibility in the federal farm program.

The report clearly shows that some people are exploiting the farm program for personal gain.  This hurts the case for keeping a safety net to ensure a safe and affordable food supply.

The findings of the report are important as the House and Senate look to hammer out a deal on the farm bill which expired on October 1^st.  In fact, after I released the report, members of Congress representing Southern agriculture were quick to say that they planned to pull out the common sense farm payment reforms that are included in both the House and Senate bills.  That's bad news for people who want to maintain a safety net for farmers who need it most.

The legislative language in the pending farm bill that I authored substantially limits farm program payments and makes it easier for the Farm Service Agency to enforce eligibility rules.

It's the kind of reform that should strengthen support for the farm program by keeping the program focused and working as intended.

I'm fighting for reforms and pressing the conference committee to keep their hands off these common sense provisions.

Click here to see video.

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is pressing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for further explanation as to why employees who are needed to ensure the national security of the United States were furloughed.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week, Clapper said that the partial shutdown of the federal government will increasingly jeopardize the safety and security of the country.

Grassley said that the law allows flexibility for the intelligence community to "except" employees from furloughs who are needed to ensure national security.

In the letter to Clapper, Grassley wrote, "There appears to be no reason why the fundamental national security of the Nation should be compromised during the partial government shutdown."

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley's letter to Clapper.  A signed copy can be found here.

 

October 4, 2013

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable James R. Clapper

Director of National Intelligence

Washington, DC 20511

 

Dear Director Clapper:

I write today to follow up on your recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the effects of the partial government shutdown on the Intelligence Community ("IC").

During your testimony, you asserted that the legal standard governing whether personnel are engaged in excepted activities under the Antideficiency Act, and therefore may continue to work in the absence of appropriations, is whether their activity is "necessary to protect against imminent threat to life or property."[1] As a result of the furloughs affecting the IC, you stated that you could not guarantee that the Nation remains as safe as it was before the shutdown began.  "As each day goes by," you maintained, "the impact and jeopardy to the safety and security of this country will increase."

Respectfully, for the reasons stated below, your testimony appears to reflect both a misreading of the law and a failure of leadership.

There is longstanding authority for the proposition that the necessary national security functions of the federal government are excepted under the Antideficiency Act as "authorized by law," [2] even if their suspension does not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.[3] Indeed, a previous Attorney General concluded that the President has the inherent authority to obligate funds to carry out specific powers granted to him by the Constitution, such as those related to national security, on this basis.[4] As far back as 1981, executive departments and agencies were advised that excepted activities include those that "[p]rovide for the national security."[5] The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has concluded that "[n]ational security-related activities, may, then, be among those for which obligations in advance of appropriations are considered to be 'authorized by law' . . . and are permitted independently of

. . . whether or not they protect [against imminent threats to] life or property."[6]

Guidance documents prepared by the Administration relating to the current shutdown appear to reflect this common sense interpretation of the law.  The furlough notice reportedly received by NSA employees on October 1, 2013 listed as excepted functions "[a]ctivities required for national security," including - but not limited to - those involving "the safety of human life or the protection of property."[7] In addition, the contingency plan guidance issued in September 2013 by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, on which you were copied, lists the following as excepted activities: "[c]ommand, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities required to support national or military requirements necessary for national security."[8]

In light of the above authority and guidance, there appears to be no reason why the fundamental national security of the Nation should be compromised during the partial government shutdown.[9] In fact, it is your role as Director of National Intelligence to ensure that the work the IC performs that is necessary for the Nation's security continues uninterrupted.  You asserted during your testimony that you were considering recalling certain employees from furlough status.  However, under the law, those IC employees necessary to maintain our national security should never have been furloughed in the first place.

In any event, if for whatever reason you believe that the shutdown is interfering with the necessary national security functions of the IC, it is incumbent upon you, as the leader of the IC, to press the President and Congress to work together to pass emergency legislation to adequately fund the IC during the shutdown without delay.

 

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Hearing on "Continued Oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on the continued oversight of the FISA intelligence gathering programs that have been the subject of ongoing media attention.

Although the government has been partially shut down due to partisan differences over various issues, we are continuing our bipartisan oversight of this important matter here today.

We last held a hearing on this topic a few months ago, in late July.  At that time, I expressed the view that the reports in the media had called into serious question whether the law and other regulations currently in place strike the right balance between protecting our civil liberties and our national security.  This was especially so concerning the public revelation that under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the government is collecting Americans' phone records in bulk.

Additional public disclosures since our last hearing have underscored my concern.

Indeed, since that time, the Administration has declassified legal opinions reflecting significant errors by the government before the FISA court in implementing both the Section 215 and 702 authorities.  The good news is that these appear to have been, for the most part, unintentional mistakes that the government brought to the court's attention on its own accord.  The bad news is that, even with all the checks and balances built into the system, these kinds of errors can still occur.

Even more unsettling, other reports since July have suggested that there have been cases of intentional and willful misuse of intelligence authorities by NSA employees to spy on their spouses and neighbors.

These disclosures have created a broader crisis of trust in the legitimacy of our intelligence gathering methods generally.  In my view, had these programs been more transparent from the start, this trust deficit wouldn't be as severe as it is now.

This brings me to the President's response to this crisis, which has been baffling.  The President held a news conference in early August in which he defended the bulk collection of phone records as "an important tool in our effort to disrupt terrorist plots," and suggested some areas for reform.  Since then, as far as I know, he hasn't said a word in public about these issues.  If the President truly believes in the importance of these programs, he should be publicly defending them as part of our national debate.  He shouldn't be contracting out that job solely to the intelligence community.  Simply put, as in so many other areas, the President is failing to lead where he wants others to follow.

In any event, I'm pleased that we've taken a number of steps to follow up on some of these disturbing reports since July.  A bipartisan group of members of this committee requested that the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community conduct a thorough review of the implementation of these authorities.

Additionally, I wrote to the NSA Inspector General and received a public accounting of the handful of documented instances where NSA employees intentionally abused their authorities.  It was heartening to see how few cases of intentional misconduct exist.  But on the other hand, it is alarming to know that the possibility of employees engaging such behavior is very real.

The NSA Inspector General's response to my letter reflected that many of these cases were referred to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution.  I was planning on following up about how those referrals were handled with Deputy Attorney General Cole at this hearing.  However, the Chairman chose not to invite an Administration witness to provide a legal perspective on these matters.  Therefore, I will be following up with the Department of Justice about these cases with a letter to the Attorney General today.

The balance between protecting individual liberties and our national security is a delicate one.  Reasonable people can disagree about precisely where that balance is best struck.  I probably don't agree one hundred percent with any member of the two panels of witnesses we have with us today, including Professor Cordero, whom I have invited to share her valuable perspective as a lawyer with hands-on experience in the intelligence community.  But I welcome them all, and I'm pleased to hear their views as we consider various reforms to FISA and related surveillance authorities.

Thank you.

-30-

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement on the response he received from the National Security Agency Inspector General to his August 27 letter.  Grassley asked the Inspector General to provide additional information about the intentional and willful misuse of surveillance authorities by NSA employees, while providing as much unclassified information as possible.  The Inspector General's response can be found here.  Grassley's original letter can be found here.

"I appreciate the transparency that the Inspector General has provided to the American people.  We shouldn't tolerate even one instance of misuse of this program.  Robust oversight of the program must be completed to ensure that both national security and the Constitution are protected."