This contact. Or if you go to the special need inquiry approach, if you look at the program as a result, not just the fact that fifth has information on robust control. Maybe done with the rumt of the queries, very elaborately set out in primary order. That is not, respectfully, and it is now declassified. Not just accepting whatever the government offered but making determinations according to its own statement. That, with these proceeder us, that with a going in this order that improess more restrictions than the government thought at the time. I dont know the ons that t. O. That question. My miept was, if you look at several of the recent opinions im nervous of there bees a rubber stamp. It is different from District Court and congress. Having a robust consideration. Not just the government said with you of what the judge could be to their and dezefb her own experience. But to a real depate. Right. What i can say, even though these are not permanent, among the declassified materials from the fisc are reflections to reactions for compliance issues and the fisc taking testeps in report. That is a general election. You seem to allow in part and properly so, in the next year and a half or so, declassified. She served to assure us that there is not a special needs problem or Fourth Amendment reports. Thats what you let us know. What else havent you let us know . Push it, pull it. More than respect pch. Im not saying that a bad thing but all this stuff that we now know. And we dont know. All the stuff we now know is part of the political reaction to the understanding that this program is in effect. Isnt that so . You argue a good point from a material that was classified until june ago and made the public as reaction to that. I mean, certainly that is true. That there is now information public in the public realm that had not been puckly before. But this program, and i think this is the aspect of the congressional design, what a subject to article 3 review from the beginning. By operation of the fisc which was a body that congress set up specifically to respond to that. Just as the joef sight of the executive brafrmg from the congressional on. To finding the necessity of classified information. This is entirely useless. I cant say this. But the whole system is truly would be a much warmer feeling inside. If it wasnt all ex party. But there is some representative of the other size. Even if there was a pro bono amikas or not pro bono. Bring gerald out from chicago and have him argue the other side of these. I, for one, would find what you say. I find this reassuring if it was an adversary process. As your morn may be aware, among proposals pending with change to the program. Allow more than one option on the table, the kind of reproach that youre talking about. But in fact, i think that you know, if you look at the reasonableness inquery for example, i this i that, you know, and balance the factors that each court said should be balanced. There is an overriding importance and preventing future terrorist attacks. Here the intrusion, if any, the privacy ever individual is carefully cabined to allow the examination of the data. So allow connections, only on finding reasonable and articulate. So the safe guards limit the use for tension and dissem nation of record collected. There is also an oversight sift many by the fifth and congress. All of this, i submit, or we submit, should leave the court before concluding that it is reasonable because constitutionally reasonable whether or not it gives us a warm feeling. Absolutely true. And the reasonable effective means. There is no less restrictive means. I think we all understand that. Looks like youve said, and i think we have given you the same time. I think we understand your argument, unless you think you havent gotten to that critical. Anything about the First Amendment dont mention it either. Well consider that based on the brief. He wont be able to pick it up and rebuttal. Mr. Dellry hasnt talked about it. Mr. Upton. Initialling a arguments other than the but i dont know that we need to hear more about those things. I dont want to cut you off because there is something critical that you vpt gotten to. Probably more time you will get in the Supreme Court. I can also assure you, if and when you get to the Supreme Court, you wont see two of these things. Thank you. We will hear you on rebuttal. I dont know that youre limited to 2 minutes in light all thats been said. At the same time, weve add very thorough discussion of the issue i believe. So i hope you can be relatively brief and speak only to point you havent had an opportunity to address so far. With that, go ahead. Of course. Just a few point. That doctrine is not a game of gotcha with congressional intent. There is always an official interpret talgs of statute congress was aware of and on the basis of. That. The case here. Many members of congress did not know of the program. They werent allowed to discuss it with colleagues or c constituen constituents. The second point to go back to an exchange that you have with the guj relating to the efficiency, a question of efficiency, and quite clearly, the government could use targeted demand in a nearly instantaneously way if it was in a certain way and government could provide with the mechanism. There is no bar that it must. That is the case in cats. When Supreme Court ruled that a government could not wiretap individual without a warpt. That is precisely the case when Supreme Court ruled that for an intelligence surveillance, even though justified by the need gather intelligence has to be individualized. Third quick point, smith is different than a lot of other cases. Not that the it was acquiring under the smith, just that government is acquiring information about millions of individuals and not just one. Also that the government is restricting that information. For an indefinite. When they scale off, the balance is different and need to be addressed differently. You are right with cats now require this court to assess the expectations of privacy on other than this property. A quickrelated point is that minimization procedure that government heavily relies on is sue perve louse. They could suspend them all indefendant natalie. For no reason at all. They can build what they do in a final restriction. The government tried to explain why it is only asking for a narrow ruling for this court. But the legal advances are a roadmap to which the government routinely collects vast parties of information. I dont think thats the world that congress had in mind. And certainly not the world. We appreciate both sides, which were extremely careful, thorough and learned and we will take them under advisement. And nrlly, render a decision. Thank you all very much. Thats the last case on the calendar. We will adjourn court. Court stands adjourned. Thursday night on cspan 3, sports at school. We will show you a house on head injuries and other safety issues. Also, academic standard for student athletes. That gets under way at 8 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan 3. Cspans 2015 student cam competition is under way. This competition for might el and High School Students will have prizes totaling 150,000. Create a 5 to 7minute documentary on the topic, the three braksgs and pup videos need to include cspan programming, show varying point of view and be submitted by january 20, 2015. Go to student. Org for more information. Grab a camera, and get started today. North carolina senator is running for reelection. And polling shows the first term democrat is in a dead haet against republican challenges. State House Speaker tom tillis. They debated tuesday night. Heres a look. The problem that we have with washington is its broke. The people are not communicating across the aisle. Senator haguen over six years hasnt offered a single bill thats gone to the president s desk. Thats a problem. We need people that are going to bring people together. In areas where we cant agree, take the time and move into areas where with can agree. Obamacare, 200,000 jobs equivalent. Lets reduce regulations and create jobs. Thats something ive got to believe we can all agree on. Let me ask the question again. On which issue would you take on your partys leadership. I dmoept at this point, it is hard to say. I will speak for the senate. Not for the house . Harry reid hasnt allowed anything to be passed. George you know this bet are than most people. When have you the house and 3 a bills to the senate, and only a few dozen votes in the house and few dozen votes in the senate, it is hard to know where the difference will be. Senator haguen rubber stamped reids policy. To shut down the senate. Save the tough vote until after the election. You need to understand delaying the mandate and delaying amnesty are all election issues that are on the ballot. And have you the you want to ask your question again . Thats against the rules. Go ahead. The keystone pipeline. I disagree with the president. I think we need build the keystone pipeline. Trade deals. They sent too many North Carolina jobs overseas. He voted gns my own partys judgment because it has too deep of cuts to our military. On the other hand, will it support a budget that will turn medicare no a voucher program. He would have supported sequestration. He would have supported a government shut doup. When he supports a government shut doun, in north care loina