In the wake of the Obama Administration’s nod towards greater transparency for its surveillance programs, some members of Congressional intelligence and judiciary committees now say that they have not had the proper opportunity to understand, much less challenge these programs.

“In terms of the oversight function, I feel inadequate most of the time,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the House Intelligence Committee. She spoke with The Washington Post on Saturday evening, admitting that while the programs were “approved” by Congress—"Was it approved by a fully knowing Congress? That is not the case."

Part of the problem is the mechanism by which lawmakers are granted access to intelligence officials and relevant classified material. During classified hearings, civil libertarians and others that may have an opposing or differing view are not in the room to present their case to House of Representatives members or senators. Further, House members and senators told The Post, “intelligence officials would not volunteer details if questions were not asked with absolute precision.”

Outside the specific hearings, House intelligence committee staff “must rely on the existing committee staff, many of whom used to work for the spy agencies they are tasked with overseeing” according to The Post. Senate intelligence committee staff, by contrast, can select whomever they like once they have adequate clearance. Those committee members and their staffers can only access classified documents in secure rooms and may not bring in outside notes.

“I am astounded that so many members of Congress could be informed about the specifics of the program and fail to see the urgent need for public discussions,” former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), a veteran of the House Intelligence Committee, told The Post. Hamilton also co-chaired the 9/11 Commission.

But not all members on the House Intelligence Committee see it this way.

“You may not like the program, but we were doing plenty of oversight to make sure it was legal and constitutional,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) also told the paper, noting that “very few members” accept invitations to come to additional counterterrorism operations briefings. “If you have individual members who say they don’t have time to be on the intelligence committee, then I say get off the intelligence committee.”

One of the most bizarre details in the Post’s latest coverage is the fact that intelligence agencies apparently have been “assertive in their efforts to ‘ingratiate’ themselves with intelligence committee members by letting them experience some tools of the spy trade.”

The Post did not elaborate, but Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-NJ) noted that on one occasion he “and several colleagues were invited to shoot high-caliber weapons at a CIA firing range.”