The Senate has continued its efforts to establish some level of oversight of the National Security Administration (NSA) warrantless spying program. The Senate Judiciary Committee held another hearing on the program, while three Senate bills have been introduced to establish congressional control over the program.

The Senate Judiciary Committee's third hearing on the NSA program marked a historic occasion in which four former members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court of Review testified. The March 28 hearing consisted of the judges dodging questions regarding the legality of the program, while encouraging the committee to give the FISA court a role in determining the constitutionality of the NSA program. The judges also endorsed Judiciary Committee Chair Arlen Specter's (R-PA) position that the FISA court should exercise oversight of the program.

In addition to the testimony, the committee received a March 23 letter from Judge James Robertson, who resigned from the FISA court over the NSA program's circumvention of FISA procedures. Robertson stated that the FISA court is "best situated to review the surveillance program" and suggested a few changes to strengthen Specter's bill, The National Security Surveillance Act of 2006.

Another bill, the Terrorist Surveillance Act, was introduced by Sens. Mike DeWine (R-OH), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snow (R-MW). The bill would provide the judicial and legislative framework for the NSA spying program by, among other things, allowing the NSA to monitor emails and telephone conversations of suspected terrorists for 45 days without receiving judicial approval. After 45 days, the government would have to receive a court order from the FISA court. If the NSA had insufficient evidence to receive a FISA order, the agency would have to notify new House and Senate Terrorist Surveillance subcommittees of the surveillance.

Morton Halperin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, criticized the two bills in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee as "sweeping proposals" that should be "deferred unless and until a clear showing has been made to Congress as to why they are necessary." Others who did not testify also are critical of the two bills. For example, calling the bills "premature," the Center for Democracy and Technology offers detailed analysis of the shortcomings of the two bills.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) also introduced legislation to jettison court cases challenging the NSA program to the Supreme Court. Upon their appeal at the district court level, the cases would immediately move to the Supreme Court. Schumer stated that the "most logical place for this to be settled is in the U.S. Supreme Court" and argued that without the bill it could take three or four years for the cases to reach the Supreme Court for final resolution.

The cases currently making their way through the judicial system include a Michigan case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which claims that the NSA program violates the First and Fourth Amendments and a case in Oregon that may offer concrete evidence of NSA's warrantless domestic spying.

In a more political news, Capitol Hill was abuzz with Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) proposal to censure President Bush who, Feingold asserts, "so plainly broke the law and violated the trust of the American people." The Senate Judiciary Committee held a March 31 hearing to consider the possibility of a censure.