Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing on “Continued Oversight of U.S. Government Surveillance Authorities”
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing on the continued oversight of the government’s surveillance authorities. This topic has been the subject of ongoing media attention and constituent interest.
We last held a hearing on this important topic in early October. Since then, reports have continued to surface in the media about possible overreach on the part of the government. Some of these reports may be more accurate than others. But I continue to believe that many of them call into serious question whether the law and other safeguards currently in place strike the right balance between protecting our civil liberties and our national security.
This is especially so concerning the public revelation that under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the government is collecting Americans’ phone metadata in bulk.
Why are many Americans so concerned? Well, it isn’t hard to find an example of what can happen to Americans’ personal information when the government overreaches, mismanages, and fails the American people.
It’s been over two months since the Administration tried to bring the Obamacare website on-line. And the American people are suffering under Obamacare. Many are finding they can’t keep the insurance plans they liked. Their premiums are rising. And uncertainty is growing about which parts of the law the President will decide to uphold.
But in just these few months, we have already seen reports of incidents where Obamacare hasn’t adequately protected Americans’ personal data. In one reported instance in Minnesota, an insurance broker was accidentally provided the personal information of 2,400 people. Moreover, there are many unanswered questions about the Obamacare website’s ability to protect privacy going forward.
Now, I expect that the standards of the dedicated professionals in our intelligence community do not compare to those of the contractors who failed to set up the Obamacare website properly.
But it’s easy to see why many Americans are skeptical that the government can adequately maintain their privacy when it collects vast amounts of information.
The President’s disengagement on these important matters doesn’t help. He claims he was unaware of the problems with the Obamacare website before it launched. Now reports say he was unaware of the reported surveillance of many world leaders.
As I did back in October, I call on the President to lead. Many of these programs are critical to our national security. The President needs to contribute to the national debate by publicly explaining and defending them.
It’s good that there are numerous reform proposals that this committee will have the opportunity to consider going forward. I am convinced there is a role for greater transparency, oversight, and accountability in the FISA process. The public trust in our intelligence community must be rebuilt. And of course we must ensure that intelligence authorities are exercised in a manner consistent with our laws and the Constitution.
These proposals should be subject to the same rigorous and critical examination to which we are subjecting the surveillance programs themselves.
These proposals should address the specific concerns that have been brought to light, not re-litigate old and irrelevant legislative battles.
These proposals shouldn’t provide a terrorist abroad with rights similar to those of a U.S. citizen here at home.
These proposals shouldn’t make it more burdensome for authorities to investigate a terrorist than it is to investigate a common criminal.
And these proposals shouldn’t return us to a pre-September 11th posture. Then, we didn’t adequately weigh the dedication, intelligence and lethality of our foreign enemies, who are undoubtedly watching this debate closely.
The balance between protecting individual liberties and our national security is a delicate one. And reasonable people can disagree about precisely where that balance is best struck.
Our witnesses on both panels today represent a wide range of views. I’m sure I don’t either agree or disagree with any of them completely. But I welcome hearing each of their perspectives as we consider these various reforms.
Thank you.