mr. bradbury starts from a different assumes. his assumption is that everything that is classified is properly classified. that is not my view. my view is that a lot of -- well, some of the programs been disclosed over the last few weeks and few years, should never have been secret in the first place. they should have been disclosed to the public, at least the general parameters of the program should have been disclosed to the public. both because it's important that the political leaders who put these programs in place be held accountable, but also so that the judicial process can actually function in the way it's supposed to in an adversarial fashion. and then just to expand on something that judge robert sewn said earlier, if we're asking the question whether fisa -- whether the oversight of the fisa court is sufficient. i think it's important to keep in mind that there are structural limitations on what the fisa court can do. even apart from the questions about, is it appropriate that the chief justice of the supreme court ap

mr. bradberry just bradbury-- that mr. the granded, journey subpoenas a flight manifest, that is not anywhere near the scope of the program we are talking about here. i can say with confidence and i am sure that everyone on this panel will agree with me, there is no subpoena out there or case out there in which any court has approved surveillance on this scale. this takes us across a new frontier. this is orders of magnitude broader than any surveillance that has ever been approved under a civil or criminal subpoena. >> a quick follow-up. this panel is focused on the alleged legality of the programs. if your argument is not that each individual record collects itself to be relevant, what line drawing exercise would you engage in? >> i do not think it is possible to set out a line with any more clarity than to refer to relevance. the surprising thing is that the court does not surprise -- the surprising thing is not that the court is providing a relevant standard, the surprising thing is it isn't. the court has approved the

it was the first bradbury memo. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you.enator -- [inaudible] i'll yield her. then senator blooming that is on the way back. i'm going leave to vote. ly not be back as they finish up. it's not in our disinterest in your hearing. we have known each other for a long time. i have to go. i want to take a moment to compliment mrs. koa komey and all of your children. the senators can kind of go in and out check notes an whisper back and forth. they have to stay rivetted with interest on everything you're saying. and probably thinking, wait until we get them home and tell them when we really think. i do want to compliment your family, and i would say the same thing i said to director and to ann mueller, it does mean a big sacrifice on the part of the family. i want you to know that those of us who spend time in government realize that. and i compliment you on that too. the record will be kept open until noon on friday for further questions. so thank you for that. i also apologize some of the questions have been covered by my collea