{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043329/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47558", "Q&A on FISA", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Q: What is FISA?  \nA: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is more commonly known by its acronym FISA.\u00a0 The law sets the parameters by which America\u2019s intelligence community may conduct physical and electronic surveillance of those suspected of espionage or terrorism.\u00a0 Until the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many Americans likely were largely unaware of surveillance powers authorized by this federal law that was designed to protect U.S. national security and economic interests.\u00a0 More recently, FISA has made headlines due to controversial activities conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) over the last decade.\u00a0 Since 9/11 the NSA has cast a wide surveillance net that calls into question privacy protections and Fourth Amendment rights related to search and seizure, including a program through which it collects information about the telephone calls of Americans but not the content of the calls themselves.  \n\u00a0  \nQ: What is at stake?  \nA: An abundance of skepticism exists today among Americans about the size and scope of the federal government.\u00a0 The $17 trillion national debt represents unbridled tax and spending policies that allow the government to grow at the expense of the taxpaying public.\u00a0 The bungled rollout of the Affordable Care Act is arguably circus peanuts compared to the intrusive impact that the sweeping health care law\u2019s mandates, penalties and taxes will have on job creation, economic growth and the taxpaying public.\u00a0 Likewise, the revelations leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden this summer have triggered considerable public debate and civil lawsuits that challenge the government\u2019s authority to deploy sweeping surveillance measures at the expense of individual privacy.\u00a0 Our system of self-government counts upon the fundamental functions of checks and balances to make the government work of, by and for the people.\u00a0 The government\u2019s fundamental mission to protect public safety, secure the homeland and uphold national security does not come with a license to ignore constitutional boundaries, legal precedents and rule of law that governs our nation.\u00a0 Americans expect their government to leave no stone unturned to protect national security interests.\u00a0 The citizenry also expects its government to protect the freedoms and civil liberty set in stone by the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0 Americans from across the political spectrum are unsettled about the NSA\u2019s activities.\u00a0 Technology is transforming the way the federal government is able to conduct surveillance and intelligence activities.\u00a0 Similarly, debates about privacy are building in local communities around the country as law enforcement authorities use surveillance cameras to issue citations for traffic violations.\u00a0 Both raise complicated issues involving public safety and personal privacy.\u00a0 Just because 21st century capabilities exist to collect mass surveillance does not mean government gets unchecked authority to ignore the founding principles established centuries ago to protect \u201cwe the people\u201d from government intrusion.  \n\u00a0  \nQ: What are next steps in the unfolding debate on U.S. surveillance policy?  \nA: From my leadership position on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, I\u2019m scrutinizing the scope of the federal government\u2019s surveillance activities through congressional oversight hearings and analyzing bipartisan proposals to address flaws in the system.\u00a0 Legislative reforms may be needed to rein in surveillance overreach, foster transparency and enforce accountability among the U.S. intelligence community, including possible disclosure reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).\u00a0 The architecture of our republic\u2019s system of checks and balances authorizes the three branches of the federal government to keep an eye on each other to prevent authoritarianism from intruding on individual rights.\u00a0 Congress is obligated to ensure the U.S. intelligence apparatus does not overstep constitutionally protected rights of individuals while fulfilling its core mission to protect national security.\u00a0 After 9/11, policymakers zeroed in on the failure of the federal government to \u201cconnect the dots\u201d and thwart terrorism on U.S. soil.\u00a0 Moving forward, policymakers can help rebuild the public\u2019s trust in the government\u2019s ability to \u201cconnect the dots\u201d and strike a better balance between intelligence-gathering activities and individual rights.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221043329/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47558"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.1952698696404696, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}