Congress Must Improve Oversight of Agencies

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I've read your latest newsletter and am only interested in the item involving the National Security Agency (NSA).
    You say that you were initially in full support of the NSA operations, but subsequently have received additional information such that you have established questions in your own mind and have written a letter to the NSA. You say that letter was posted on your website. I spent about 10 minutes trying to find it and was unsuccessful. This leads me to my usual complaint that most times important matters are sandwiched in with so much trash that it is difficult to find them.
    Even in the absence of reading your letter to the NSA, I can comment on your position. First, let me congratulate you that you are not so tied up with your own ego that you are not willing to change your mind when faced with additional facts.
    What you will learn from your additional investigations involving the NSA is obviously as yet undetermined, but is clearly a step in the right direction.    However, I am more concerned with the overall aspects of the relationship between Congress and the various federal agencies to which Congress gives birth. The record clearly shows that when Representatives and Senators come together with an agreed-on Bill, and it is signed by the President into law, Congress takes the attitude that the appropriate Administrative Agency will handle the details of application according to the terms covered by the law. However, we know from continuing releases of abuse on the part of federal agencies that such Congressional position is untenable.
    A system has been developed within the Congress to control this by use of Congressional Committees on Oversight. For example, Darrell Issa (CA) is Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The associated Subcommittee on Homeland Security is chaired by Jason Chaffetz (UT). These are the people who have been paying close attention to the activities of the NSA. Since they are members of the federal government, and in high positions, there should be little question about their qualifications for top security clearance, which would then allow them access to full detail of what the NSA was doing. If they did know that the NSA was collecting telephone information which has no bearing on the finding of potential terrorists, it is because they were not paying attention. More succinctly, they were not doing their jobs.
    But as I have said previously, this is only one instance of a recurrent theme. Rather than your pinning the NSA to the wall with your letter, it should have been established earlier by the Committee and Subcommittee that the general collection of data on average citizens having nothing to do with homeland security was no fraction of Fourth Amendment rights.
    May I respectfully suggest that you try to establish some procedure by which congressional committee and subcommittee chairmen can be more attentive to doing their jobs?