国会记录：2007年1月24日（楼）页面H922，H923，国会应该灰尘监督计划30年前扬声器临时（格鲁吉亚的约翰逊先生）。在众议院的以前的订单，来自加利福尼亚州的绅士（席夫先生），被认定为5分钟。希夫先生。议长先生，2005年12月，我们了解到，布什政府用的是美国国家安全局，国家安全局，对在美国土壤美国人窃听没有逮捕证或司法监督，违反了外国情报监视法案。过了一年之后，美国国会还没有解决这个问题，美国国家安全局的秘密监视计划继续有增无减。就在上周的政府继续其单边主义做法，宣布尽管其抗议去年，它不可能允许外国情报监视法庭监督NSA程序;现在将提交给法院的管辖范围，但不告诉国会外国情报监视法庭将如何监督程序或为什么它的政策发生了变化。当国会议员质疑总检察长和国家情报总监对此转变政策，这两个官员拒绝提供有关政府的新政策在这方面的性质的信息。事实上，我们不知道，政府是否正寻求从外国情报监视法庭作出个别或整体方案批准认股权证。在这方面和其他国会的沉默已经有其他的反响。 Earlier this month Congress was again caught by surprise when we learned that the President has claimed potentially sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a court warrant. Again, the administration could obtain a warrant, and quickly, from a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge, but has chosen not to submit this effort to court supervision. Interestingly, the developments over the last year bear a striking resemblance to events that occurred some 30 years ago, when a series of troubling reports [[Page H923]] began appearing in the press concerning domestic intelligence activities and surveillance of political activities of U.S. citizens. These revelations and others revealed by the Watergate scandal convinced lawmakers that Congress had been too permissive and trusting, failing to carry out its oversight responsibilities over the executive branch. In response, a U.S. Senate committee was formed to investigate intelligence activities by the government. The United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly referred to as the Church committee, after its Senate chairman, issued more than 50,000 pages of reports in what is considered the most comprehensive review of intelligence activities in the country. Ironically, the reports included sections on mail opening as well as the National Security Agency and fourth amendment rights. In rebuffing recent congressional requests for information on the current NSA program, the administration has made the argument that the NSA surveillance program is too sensitive to be shared with Congress, even to Members in the classified setting. When these same concerns were weighed by the Church committee in 1975, the opposite result was reached, with the committee refusing to neglect its oversight responsibility merely because their work would be harder. In fact, the extensive oversight and the substantial record generated by the Church committee inspired the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Both have worked effectively to ensure that the President has the tools necessary to thwart attacks while ensuring respect for the civil liberties of Americans and the adherence to the rule of law. FISA, as it is called, has provided a measure of oversight over foreign intelligence activities on U.S. soil, and with it the confidence of the American people. This administration, however, has undermined that trust by circumventing FISA. Congress should follow the example of the Church committee, by vigorously examining the NSA surveillance program and determining what legislative action is necessary. The administration should cooperate and work with Congress as we engage in our oversight responsibilities, and make the case for statutory change if revisions are required to meet new challenges in the war on terror. If, however, the administration rejects congressional oversight in this area and continues to defy requests for information, Congress should seek other means of redress. I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Representative Jeff Flake that can serve as a basis for examining these issues and restoring the rule of law. The NSA Oversight Act, H.R. 11, would reiterate existing law requiring court approval for the surveillance of Americans on American soil, and would provide greater oversight of NSA's surveillance activity. Our legislation also makes some key changes to FISA in order to streamline and expedite the process in response to the administration's argument that the current framework was too cumbersome. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Congress to fully examine this issue, step up its oversight responsibility, and take legislative action if necessary. ____________________