Farm Bill Wont Pass- Tension in Congress and Risk of War Impeding

Progress
New York times, 1/9/14 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/politics/farm-
bill-talks-hit-snag-on-dairy-and-catfish-programs.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

WASHINGTON Disagreements over a program to help dairy producers when
milk prices drop have emerged as a major sticking point in
negotiations on a new farm bill, which had been expected to be wrapped up this
week. But lawmakers appear to have reached an agreement on cuts to the food stamp program,
which is part of the farm bill and had been the most contentious issue in efforts to pass the
legislation. People close to the negotiations said on Thursday that a deal had been reached to cut
about $9 billion over 10 years from the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program. The cuts are more than twice the $4 billion approved by the
Democratic-led Senate in May, but far less than the nearly $40 billion in cuts passed by the
Republican-controlled House in its bill. The food stamp issue was expected to be the major
stumbling block in the farm bill negotiations, but long-simmering debates over the best way to
help dairy farmers when prices drop have come to the forefront. Speaker John A.
Boehner has voiced opposition to the dairy program and has
said he will not allow it to be part of a final House bill. The program,
which limits dairy supplies to help bolster the price of milk, is generally opposed by conservatives. Mr.
Boehner and Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of
Virginia, called it a Soviet style government bureaucracy that
distorts the market. The provision is supported by dairy producers and legislators
from large milk-producing states, including Representative Collin C. Peterson, Democrat of
Minnesota and a member of the House Agriculture Committee, who said it was important to
stabilize milk prices. Dean Norton, the president of the New York Farm Bureau and a dairy
farmer in Batavia, said the program was vital. This program keeps us from having these wild
fluctuations in milk prices, Mr. Norton said. Its just providing a safety net for producers. Its
not a direct subsidy, and its not a handout. Congressional aides in both parties said the food
stamps cuts would not force people out of the program, but anti-hunger groups and Democrats
like Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York have long said that any reductions would reduce
monthly food stamp benefits for nearly one million people. The willingness of some Senate
Democrats to double new cuts to the program while leaving the corporate welfare in the bill
mostly intact is unthinkable, said Joel Berg, the executive director of the New York City
Coalition Against Hunger. It was unclear how the new figure for the cuts would affect votes for a
final bill. Many Senate Democrats may be reluctant to support larger reductions to the program,
while House conservatives may see the cuts as too low. Lawmakers in both
chambers said they were taking a wait-and-see approach. A
plan to shift catfish inspections to the Agriculture Department from
the Food and Drug Administration also appears to be impeding a deal
on the farm bill. The $20 million Agriculture Department program has drawn
considerable criticism because it duplicates a much cheaper program at the Food and Drug
Administration. Despite the programs costs, the Agriculture Department has yet to inspect a
single catfish. Catfish farmers and Southern lawmakers say the program is needed to protect
consumers from catfish imported from countries such as Vietnam. But critics call it a trade
barrier designed to protect domestic catfish farmers. In a letter sent on Wednesday to those
working on the farm bill, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, called for a vote to
repeal approval of the new inspection office. Mr. McCain co-sponsored an amendment to repeal
approval of the office in the Senate version of the farm bill last year. The measure never came up
for a vote. In his letter, Mr. McCain said the United States risked a trade
war with Asian countries if the catfish office was not shut.
Vietnam has said in letters to the Obama administration that it
would retaliate against American businesses if language authorizing the
office remained in the farm bill. Another issue that appears to be hampering efforts to move
forward on the bill is a dispute over narrowing the eligibility criteria for individuals who receive
farm payments. A proposal by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, would tighten the
definition of those considered to be actively engaged in farming. A Government Accountability
Office report released last October found that numerous nonfarmers at large agriculture
partnerships were able to qualify for farm subsidies by claiming to provide management for
farming operations, even though they could not show that they had a hand in running the
operation and had no knowledge of farming. Mr. Grassley said language was needed to ensure
that nonfarmers did not receive agriculture subsidies. Several members of
Congress oppose the measure, saying it would create unnecessary
paperwork burdens for farms.

Republicans Wont allow Debt Ceiling Talks to Pass, Leading to another Govt
shutdown
MSNBC, 1/6/14
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-leader-debt-ceiling-
im-afraid
On Face the Nation yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry (D-Nev.) was asked about the
need for Congress to raise the debt ceiling within a month or so. Im afraid, Reid
conceded, adding, I am really concerned about whats going on with Republicans in
Congress. Hes not the only one. In an interesting twist, Republican strategists are
concerned, too. GOP strategists are urging restraint in the upcoming debt-
ceiling fight. They are excited by the prospect of reclaiming the Senate in Novembers
midterms elections but anxious about the partys capacity to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory, as amply illustrated in recent campaign cycles. [] The only way you lose the
House is if Dems intercept a Hail Mary pass on the debt ceiling, another GOP strategist
said. As party strategists reportedly see it, Republicans are well positioned for the 2014
midterms. All they have to do now is not screw things up royally for themselves if they
tread water for 10 months, the argument goes, voters probably wont punish GOP candidates
for having shut down the government and accomplishing nothing. But causing a deliberate
sovereign debt crisis holding the nation hostage and threatening to crash the economy on
purpose unless their demands are met is pretty much the opposite of what constitutes
treading water. The question then becomes who GOP lawmakers are inclined to listen to
more: the party strategists working on keeping them in power or Tea Party extremists who
see unprecedented extortion as normal, even if it means deliberately creating a global
recession. Over the last month or so, a variety of prominent Republican
officials said theyre prepared to side with the latter, vowing not to raise the
debt limit unless Democrats agree to give GOP lawmakers some kind of
right-wing treat. No one should believe them. Republicans made similar noises a few
months ago, before making clear they had no intention of actually following through on their
threats. When push comes to shove, the GOP does not actually want to trash the full faith
and credit of the United States making all threats to the contrary rather meaningless.
President Obama has said he will not negotiate with those who claim theyll hurt
Americans on purpose, and since hes not bluffing, the fight is over before it starts. Reids
fears are understandable, and Republican strategists advice is sound, but GOP officials only
have one smart move: skipping this fight, rather than picking the fight and having to back
down later.
CIR Wont pass- GOP distrust of Obama is too great
Miami Herald, 1/9/14
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/09/3861255/rubio-distrust-of-
obama-hurts.html
Sen. Marco Rubio was blunt Thursday: A single comprehensive immigration-reform bill
wont pass Congress and a pathway to citizenship for those illegally in this country is no
guarantee, either. Rubio indicated hes prepared to vote for a series of immigration bills
from the U.S. House even if none has a citizenship pathway. Just because it doesnt do
everything doesnt mean we shouldnt do something, Rubio said. Ultimately, you dont solve
the immigration problem unless you address the people who are here illegally. The Florida
Republican said a major hurdle is GOP mistrust of President Obama, whose
administration has selectively enforced some immigration laws and unilaterally
delayed aspects of Obamacare. As a result, he said, House Republicans worry that
passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill would give Obama the chance to
legalize the status of up to 11 million undocumented immigrants while slow-walking
and delaying border-security efforts dear to conservatives. We have tried the one-big-
bill approach. I do not believe that it is feasible given the current political climate and the
distrust of government, Rubio said. But if Congress passes other immigration-reform efforts
pass, Rubio said, it would create momentum and build confidence that would make it easier
to pass, for instance, a pathway to citizenship. A citizenship path has proved to be a major
fault-line among conservatives who control the House, where leaders say theyll try to tackle
immigration reform this year. Republicans have demanded that the borders be made far
more secure before immigrants unlawfully in this country get a shot at citizenship. Five
immigration-reform bills passed at least one House committee last year. None contained a
citizenship path. Instead, the bills targeted various aspects of the immigration system, from
agriculture to border security to worker verification. The House refused to take up a
version of the Democratic-controlled Senates bipartisan comprehensive bill, passed in
the spring with Rubios help. Immigration reform advocates like Frank Sharry, executive director
of Americas Voice, said he expects House leadership to propose some type of legislation to
legalize the status of the undocumented. As for Rubios comments, Sharry said hes pleasantly
surprised that the Florida Republican is still backing a citizenship pathway. A possible 2016 GOP
White House hopeful, Rubio was pilloried by tea party conservatives for supporting what they said
was amnesty for illegal immigrants. I think Rubio is trying to sink back into the pack, Sharry
said, pointing out that Rubio initially supporting piecemeal immigration-reform legislation before
signing on to the Senates comprehensive bill. I had a decision to make: I could either give
speeches about immigration reform or I could try to actually influence what it is the Senate
passed, Rubio said Thursday. Rubio indicated he would have continued to advocate for the
Senates legislation. But its a nonstarter in the House. Why would we continue to push
forward with an approach that has zero chance of passing? he asked one reporter. Unless
someone really believes that were just going to go in and force the House by just sheer pressure
of overwhelming press conferences, were just going to twist their arms. Rubio also took a
measure of umbrage with the criticisms in the news media. Im actually perplexed, he said. I
read these editorials and these write-ups that criticize political leaders for not taking on big issues.
And then they take on big issues and they all focus on, Oh, what a mistake. Look at the political
price hes paying. I dont get it. I thought thats what you wanted us to do. I thought thats what
were supposed to be doing. But after the immigration bill passed the Senate last year, Rubio
said little about the issue as it stalled in the House. Rubio began focusing on more-orthodox
conservative issues that he spoke about on the campaign trail in 2010: Obamacare, debt, taxes
and the federal budget. This week, Rubio issued a call to apply conservative principles to fight
poverty, an issue he spoke about Thursday. Rubio also mentioned hed support legislation to
lower flood-insurance rates, expressed general disapproval with a proposed Florida medical-
marijuana initiative that voters could decide and criticized a whistleblower who leaked national
security documents. Edward Snowdens a traitor, Rubio said. Still, the majority of Rubios
time with the press revolved around immigration reform and his call to not have a take-it-or-leave-
it approach. That approach has now been tried for almost a decade, Rubio said, and it has led
to nothing.

Iran Sanctions Wont Pass- Obama will veto bill to regain needed PC
WSJ, 12/19/13.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023048669045792
68611658114286
WASHINGTONThe White House issued a rare veto threat in response to a
bipartisan Senate bill that would slap Iran with new sanctions if it violates an
interim deal reached last month to curb its nuclear program. The threat sets up a
standoff in the new year between President Barack Obama and more than two dozen
Senate Democrats and Republicans who introduced the legislation on Thursday.
The challenge to Mr. Obama is particularly stark because half of the lawmakers
sponsoring the new bill are from his own party. The bill could also imperil Mr.
Obama's efforts to reach a diplomatic end to the decadelong standoff over
Iran's nuclear program, which administration officials hope will be a signature
achievement of his second term. Iranian officials have repeatedly threatened in
recent days to back out of negotiations with the U.S. and other global powers
over Tehran's nuclear program if Washington enacts new sanctions. White
House Press Secretary Jay Carney criticized the Senate move, saying such
sanctions would undermine Mr. Obama's diplomatic efforts "no matter how
they're structured." "We don't think it will be enacted. We certainly don't think it
should be enacted," Mr. Carney said. "If it were to pass, the president would veto
it." Iranian officials didn't comment Thursday on the introduction of the legislation. But in recent days they
have described Iranian President Hasan Rouhani as in a power struggle with hard-liners in Iran's military
and clergy over the November agreement with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council and Germany, a bloc called the P5+1. Any moves by the U.S. to impose new sanctions on Tehran,
said these officials, could weaken Mr. Rouhani's hand. "Naturally, there is opposition to this agreement,
both inside Iran and elsewhere," said Iran's Ambassador to France Ali Ahani, at a conference last weekend.
"There are people who say you can't trust the Americans." In Washington, Mr. Obama has little
political capital with a divided Congress that has given him few recent
victories. He is already bracing for tough legislative battles next year. Republicans are weighing a fight
over the need to raise the debt limit early next year, and Mr. Obama is set to give a speech in January
outlining potentially sweeping changes to the government's contested spying programs. The programs, like
Iran diplomacy, have prompted some members of the president's own Democratic Party to criticize his
administration. A presidential veto, while unusual for Mr. Obamaparticularly on Democratic-backed
legislationcould appease all sides. Mr. Obama may strengthen his hand in negotiations
by keeping Congress at bay, while lawmakers who are under pressure over Iran get to vote for
additional sanctions. And a veto threat by Mr. Obama could provide American diplomats with a way to
assure Iran that they are earnest about the diplomacy. Iran last week objected to U.S. moves to enforce
existing U.S. sanctions against alleged violations by more than a dozen Iranian individuals and businesses.
But the White House also risks seeing Mr. Obama's veto overridden, if Republicans in the Senate remain
unified and Democrats continue to feel emboldened to challenge the party line. Mr. Obama,
Secretary of State John Kerry and other top administration officials have worked
vigorously to keep Congress from enacting new sanctions against Iran while the
U.S. and other world powers negotiate a long-term diplomatic agreement with Tehran to curb its nuclear
program. Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes only. Negotiators now are working on details of an
interim six-month deal, reached last month in Geneva, which would remain in place during talks over a
comprehensive agreement. Administration officials succeeded in delaying Senate and House action this
year. Under the interim agreement, Iran has committed to freezing elements of its nuclear program most
objectionable to the West, including the production of near weapons-grade fuel, in return for an easing of
some sanctions and the release of more than $4 billion in Iranian oil revenue. But both congressional
chambers appear poised to take up new sanctions legislation after the holiday break. The new sanctions in
the Senate bill seek to enforce a total embargo on Iran's oil exports over the next two years and to choke off
Tehran's ability to access any of its revenue held in foreign bank accounts. They also seek to curtail Iran's
ability to gain revenue from economic sectors so far not significantly hit by sanctions, such as the mining,
engineering and real estate industries. Sanctions imposed on Iran by the U.S. and European Union over
the past two years have decimated the Iranian economy, cutting its oil exports to less than one million
barrels a day from around 2.5 million just a few years ago. The Senate bill would enact the sanctions on
Iran if the country cheats on the interim agreement or if a comprehensive deal isn't achieved within a year.
Iran's testing of a ballistic missile or its connection to a terrorist act on the U.S. would also put in place the
new sanctions. The House passed a similar bill in July. "The burden rests with Iran to negotiate in good
faith and verifiably terminate its nuclear weapons program," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.).
"Prospective sanctions will influence Iran's calculus and accelerate that process toward achieving a
meaningful diplomatic resolution." Under the current deal, the suspended sanctions would be reimposed if
a comprehensive agreement isn't reached. But the international powers have the leeway to extend the six-
month negotiating time frame. Mr. Kirk urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) to bring the
legislation up for a vote next year, saying, "This is a responsible, bipartisan bill to protect the American
people from Iranian deception." Other sponsors include Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Sen. Chuck
Schumer (D., N.Y.), a White House ally who has been a vocal skeptic of Mr. Obama's diplomatic overtures
to Iran. Congressional staff and analysts estimate that the new sanctions, if imposed, could cost Iran has
much as $50 billion annually in lost revenue. The bill specifically would aim to force Iran's major remaining
oil buyers, including China, India and Turkey, to cut their purchases to zero over the next two years, or risk
facing U.S. sanctions themselves. "Iran cannot walk away from negotiations without paying a heavy
economic price," said Mark Dubowitz, who advised Congress on the new sanctions as an expert at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative Washington think tank. "Unless Iranian leaders
believe that they can rescue their failing economy through nuclear escalation, which is always possible given
the Supreme Leader's intransigence, their best alternative remains a diplomatic deal."


Thumper- NSA Scandal Damaged Obamas Cred., and used his PC on
damage control
Politico, 9/4/13
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/barack-obama-nsa-96293.html
A European outcry over U.S. government surveillance is
overshadowing trans-Atlantic talks about tech policy and the
Obama administration, fearing new trade setbacks and penalties,
has launched into damage-control mode. Through speeches in
Washington and trips to Brussels, top U.S. officials have spent the
summer trying to calm leaders of the European Union and some of
its member states, many of whom have called for new restrictions on U.S. Internet companies
in the wake of stinging reports about their role in the National Security Agencys programs.
President Barack Obama, himself, even addressed the matter
Wednesday while in Stockholm en route to the G-20 summit in
Russia a sign that the U.S. is taking European privacy fears seriously. I can give
assurances to the publics in Europe and around the world that were not going around
snooping at peoples emails or listening to their phone calls, Obama said at his news
conference. The president offered his thoughts in response to a Swedish reporters question
a query, Obama later explained, that hes received in previous visits to Europe, and one
he expects hell continue to get as I travel through Europe and around the world. EU
leaders lambasted the United States almost immediately after Edward Snowden began leaking
classified documents this summer to The Guardian and others about the scope of U.S.
surveillance. As the revelations continue, so have Europes threats. For example, Viviane
Reding, a vice president for the European Commission and the EUs justice commissioner,
slammed Washington in June for its so-called PRISM program, through which the NSA
obtains emails and other Internet communications. She even excoriated the U.S. in an op-ed
published that same week in The New York Times. A collection of the regions top privacy
regulators, meanwhile, commenced their own investigation in August following Snowdens
disclosure of XKeyscore, which allows the NSA to analyze Web content. Individual EU member
states, including Germany and France, questioned the U.S. governments practices ahead of
key international trade talks. Still others are asking if U.S. Internet providers can be trusted in
light of the NSA revelations. It all amounts to a major policy headache
for the White House, which is simultaneously grappling with a
domestic furor surrounding the NSAs conduct. Some of Europes
criticisms may prove to be bluster, but the Obama administration is still paying close
attention. The president, while in Sweden, affirmed Wednesday that the U.S. government is
consulting with the EU and other world leaders on the matter. The White House did not
immediately comment for this story. Other top U.S. officials are carrying a similar message.
Cameron Kerry, the outgoing general counsel of the Commerce Department, turned his final
public speech in office into a defense of U.S. privacy and digital trade at the German Marshall
Fund last week. Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder has convened meetings with his
European counterparts this summer to discuss NSA surveillance issues. The Federal Trade
Commission is an independent agency, but Commissioner Julie Brill has touched on the topic
repeatedly as she prepares to meet with her European counterparts. Brill, whos headed to
Warsaw later this month for an event scheduled before the Snowden debacle, stressed this
week the importance of separating the commercial privacy and government surveillance
debates. I think the NSA issues are coloring a lot of the conversation now around privacy
and data protection, she told POLITICO on Wednesday. Brill said shed emphasize the FTCs
enforcement activities while in Europe this month. The State Department, also at the center
of the digital trade debate, declined comment for this story. The U.S. governments new
outreach reflects the high stakes: U.S. Internet companies have global reach, and any attempt
by the EU to penalize those businesses or alter their practices could could create new
commercial or legal hurdles. It could further complicate the Obama
administrations work on a new trade pact with its European
partners an agreement known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,
or TTIP, as well as longstanding negotiations about international online privacy regulation.

Obama is already burning tons of pol-cap to keep NSA programs running
Politico, 12/19/13
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/barack-obama-national-security-agency-101317.html

An independent panels call for major changes to the nations surveillance programs ups the pressure on President
Barack Obama to back serious reforms. But the big changes the committee is calling for may be less vexing for Obama
than one painful, half-buried conclusion: Vacuuming up all that data the National Security Agency collects in its call-tracking
database, the panel says, hasnt actually done much to protect the country from terrorism. And so the panels report raises a
pointed question: If collecting huge volumes of metadata on telephone calls from, to and within the United States doesnt
bring much benefit, just how much political capital is Obama willing to spend to keep the program going? The review
groups finding that the much-debated metadata program hasnt really accomplished much isnt mentioned in the reports
executive summary or any of the 46 recommendations, but it appears, in an understated tone, about a third of the way into
the 300-plus-page document released by the White House on Wednesday. Our review suggests that the information
contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks
and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders, the report says. In a
footnote a few pages later, the panel members are even more blunt: The section 215 telephony meta-data program has
made only a modest contribution to the nations security and there has been no instance in which NSA could say with
confidence that the outcome would have been different without the section 215 telephony meta-data program. Under the
current program, the NSA gets daily updates with information on calls made or received in the United States. That info is
placed for five years in a database that authorities can search to try to establish with which numbers a terror suspect has
been in contact. Authorities say they authorized fewer than 300 numbers last year for searches in that database. The review
groups report became part of a one-two punch delivered against the administration and the call-tracking program. The
report was made public just two days after a federal judge issued a ruling that found the program was likely
unconstitutional. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leons legal conclusions grabbed the headlines, but his opinion was also
highly skeptical about what the phone data program had accomplished. I have significant doubts about the efficacy of the
metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of
terrorism, Leon wrote. The government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSAs bulk metadata
collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-
sensitive in nature. But the panels conclusion about the telephone metadata is potentially more weighty than the judges,
since the panel members had ample access to classified information about the governments surveillance program while the
judge had only the information the Justice Department filed with the court. Asked at a briefing for reporters Wednesday
whether the group had any trouble getting information it needed for its review, committee members said flatly that they had
not. The panels skeptical take on the effectiveness of the metadata program is in some tension with Obamas past
characterization of the program and with the way the efforts backers in Congress continue to promote it. My assessment
and my teams assessment was that [these programs] help us prevent terrorist attacks, the president said in June,
shortly after the call database was disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. What I can say is that in evaluating
these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity. This program
is an important tool in our effort to disrupt terrorist plots, Obama insisted in August. In an interview Tuesday, Senate
Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the call database is important, but added that if the
Supreme Court eventually struck it down as unconstitutional, the republic would survive. This program, in conjunction with
other programs, helps keep this nation safe, she told MSNBC. Im not saying its indispensable, but Im saying that it is
important and it is a major tool in ferreting out a potential terrorist attack. Critics of the NSAs call-tracking program
hailed the review panels conclusion that the much-debated database hadnt contributed much to the fight against
terrorism. I have been arguing for two years that the programs effectiveness has been overstated. This panel of
surveillance experts came to the same conclusion, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement Wednesday night. As the
panel expressed doubts about the programs usefulness, the report also suggested the call-data program may be less
sweeping than previously thought. While many news accounts have described the current system as capturing information
on virtually every call with at least one party in the United States, the review groups report suggests the current system is far
from comprehensive. The meta-data captured by the program covers only a portion of the records of only a few telephone
service providers, the report says. So far, U.S. intelligence officials have publicly identified only one terrorism-related case in
which the phone data was critical: the prosecution of a San Diego man and several accomplices for transferring money to
the Al-Shabaab terror group in Somalia. Theyve also said it contributed to finding a suspect in an investigation of a plot to
bomb the New York subway. There was one unique case under 215 where the metadata helped. There were seven others
where it contributed, and four where it didnt find anything of value and we were able to tell the FBI that, NSA Director
Keith Alexander said at a Senate hearing last week. Without many headline-grabbing successes to tout, officials have turned
in recent weeks to another line of defense for the program: It contributes to peace of mind when officials can quickly get
indications that plotters abroad dont have U.S. ties. Of course, Obama is under no obligation to heed the review panel.
White House aides have repeatedly signaled that he shouldnt be expected to adopt all of its recommendations. But its
conclusion about the programs effectiveness isnt a proposed fix. Its an assessment of the facts. Obama could take a
different view, but it would prompt questions about how a panel he handpicked and that supposedly got free rein to
examine U.S. government surveillance practices so misjudged the value of the metadata program. The downside to backing
away from the so-called bulk collection program is also more acute for Obama than it is for the panel members. If a
significant terrorist attack does happen during his remaining years in office, he and not the blue-ribbon panel he
appointed will shoulder the blame for any changes that might have made the attack harder to detect. While taking such
a risk might seem politically unthinkable, similar surveillance programs have been snuffed out before. In 2009, the NSA
began collecting metadata on email traffic in the United States on a very large scale, according to a recently declassified
letter to Congress. Surveillance critics such as Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) privately but vigorously protested the
program, saying its usefulness was being exaggerated. Although the email metadata program had been repeatedly
authorized by the courts, it was shut down by the government in 2011. The reason: It wasnt producing much of value. In a
statement last month, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence defended the email programs legality, but
acknowledged it was eventually deep-sixed by the intelligence community. It was no longer meeting the operational
expectations that NSA had for it, the ODNI said.