With 535 of them not including staff, they really shouldn't. And clearance isn't enough, you also have to have a need to know. We just need a system of oversight that works well.
NSA staffers have defined roles and are given information on a need-to-know basis. Obviously the Snowden leaks proved that at least for a sysad, the technical component of the need-to-know restriction was broken, but that's how it's supposed to work.
For Congressional oversight to be useful, Congress (or a subset) need a higher level of access than that given to the NSA themselves - the ability to ask for any information and have it given to them.
That's a pretty powerful tool, so I don't think the "well NSA has lot of people" counter is valid.
If i did, then your parent seems to want the same thing. He means that "there are 535 people in congress" is a bad defense.
Though i might have gotten you incorrectly and you might have meant that you cant say "but NSA employees have access! The congress should have it too!" Because giving access to congress is different to giving access to NSA employees as Congrees needs a VERY high level clearance to all 535 members, and that in the NSA itself, the actual number of people who have that kind of access would be very small.
We're talking about people we trust to spend trillions of our dollars, decide if we fight a war, and make decisions that affect the entire country and world. It's some kind of Tom Clancy dream to think that their should legitimately be a higher level of clearance than elected congress and senate.
Oversight without congress? What do you mean, just some executive appointees? Maybe a private contractor bound to secrecy? Can they just be fired if the oversight is not liked?
Please, elaborate.