The Administration's obligation to provide sufficient information to the Judiciary Committee to allow the COmmittee to perform its constitutional oversight is not satisfied by the briefings to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. On that subject, it should be noted that this Administration, as well as previous Administrations, has failed to comply with the requirements of the National Security Act of 1947 to keep the House and Senate Intelligence Committees fully informed. That statute has been ignored for decades when Presidents have only informed the so-called "Gang of Eight," the Leaders of both Houses and the Chairmen and Ranking on the Intelligence Committees. From my experience as a member of the "Gang of Eight" when I chaired the Intelligence Committee of the 104th Congress, even that group gets very little information.

This appears to be a difference of opinion between the executive and legislative branches as to the what constitutes proper notification. Notice was given, to select members, but is that enough? If this has been occurring for "decades" then Congress has either been negligent in upholding its authority under Article I or they have accepted that this limited notification is sufficient.

It could be that Specter is using this high profile circumstance to re-assert congressional authority.

>>"Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them."
>>
>>Notice was clearly given, whether it was legally required of the CIC during a time of war or not.
>
>Clearly, the The Republican Chairman of the United States Senate Committee of the Judiciary - writing for the Committee - does not believe the administration duely informed them.
>
>The Administration's continuing position on the NSA electronic surveillance program rejects the historical constitutional practice of judicial approval of warrants before wiretapping and denigrates the constitutional authority and responsibility of the Congress and specifically the Judiciary Committee to conduct oversight on constitutional issues.
>
>The Administration's obligation to provide sufficient information to the Judiciary Committee to allow the Committee to perform its constitutional oversight is not satisfied by the briefings to the Congressional Intelligence Committees.
>
>There is no doubt that the NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACt which sets forth the exclusive procedure for domestic wiretaps whcih requires the approval of the FISA Court.
>
>We press this issue in the context of repeated stances by the Administration on expansion of Article II power, freqently at the expense of Congress's Article I authority. There are Presidential signing statements where the President seeks to cherry-pick which parts of the statute he will follow.
>
>All of this is occurring in the context where the Administration is continuing warrantless wiretaps in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is preventing the Senate Judiciary Committee from carrying out its constitutional responsibility for Congressional oversight on constitutional issues.
>
>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/06/07/cheney.pdf