In admirably-dogged fashion, at 2:16 into the hearing Levin returns to the issue, wisely sensing that wires got crossed somewhere along the way:

Levin: "Let me clarify one point with Mr. Powell about FISA." ... In any event, "a significant purpose" relates to the purpose being to acquire conversations of U.S. persons. Is that correct?

Powell: "Correct."

Levin: "Now, in Senator Graham's statement - this had to do with adversaries in Iraq talking to adversaries in Iraq. Is that correct?"

Powell: "In the Iraq soldier situation? Yeah, I believe that's how he referred to it. Yes, sir."

Levin: "In that circumstance, it's our Iraqi adversaries talking to Iraqi adversaries, is that not correct?"

Powell: "Correct. But if they're talking to a - certainly it would be, one of our significant purposes would be to find out if they're contacting a U.S.person - which would not just be a specific U.S. person in terms of a human being - but also, of course that includes companies and others also."

Levin: "In other words you think that he was referring to communications that were targeting U.S. persons? That's what you understood from his description?"

Powell: "No, Senator, not at all. The question would be is when we go up on somebody overseas and surveil them - in this case Iraqi insurgents..."

Levin: "Iraqi insurgents to Iraqi insurgents..."

Powell: "Well we don't know who they're going to talk to when we go up on them - that's the problem..."

Levin: "That was just a hypothetical."

Powell: "Well, when we cover our adversaries we don't know who they're going to call - and that's of course one of the key problems. ...We can only really do one end... It's foreign to someplace."

[McConnell attempts to intercede.]

Levin (to McConnell): "You understood from Senator Graham's fact situation that that was "a significant purpose?"

McConnell: "No sir...In this case the way we discussed it, it was all about Iraqi foreigners in Iraq [talking to foreigners], but their communications pass through the United States."

Levin: "You understood that, Mr. Powell, also? You got into the significant purpose test - you understood that in [Graham's] hypothetical that it was Iraqi persons talking to Iraqi persons? You understood that when you gave me that answer about significant purpose? Did you understand that?"

Powell: "I didn't see it as limited to that situation. I was thinking of it as what would we do presented with that situation under the House bill - and could I certify, cause I wouldn't know who they're talking to [thus, of course, apparently there's no "specific U.S. person" involved under the meaning of RESTORE] - and there's a lot of baggage with the "significant purpose" test that goes back to the pre-2001 amendments to FISA."

McConnell: "Mr. Chairman, in fairness now, you're very good at this, as you know..."

Levin: "No, I don't know. I'm not at all satisfied with the way you handled that question. ... I was very clear that that was the factual situation..."

[McConnell pretends he's confused about what law is being discussed. How can anyone, especially the DNI possibly keep track, etc., etc.]

Levin: "The question was absolutely specific, Director. It was whether or not the Senate version fixed that problem."

McConnell: "It does."

Levin: "It does. And then I asked you does the House version do it?"

McConnell: "It does not."

Levin: "No, it depends - your counsel says it depends!"

McConnell: "Well I believe it sets up a situation where it would not in all cases."

Levin: "It might or might not. Well that's what your counsel says, you call on your counsel, he finally acknowledges it depends on something."

McConnell: "My worry is it sets up a situation where we're debating it - so if we're debating it, we're not collecting it. That's the point."

[Levin then states that everyone wants to collect, and the one real issue that remains that's significant (between House and Senate bills) is retroactive immunity being given to telephone companies who have allegedly violated the privacy rights of Americans.] And ends with:

Levin: "But you have here it seemed to me attempted to make another matter..."

McConnell: "I was making no other point. I would agree with what you just said."

Before the hearing closed out there was one more round, where Levin got McConnell to confirm that "targets" in the U.S. require a FISA Court probable cause warrant under both the Senate bill (if a U.S. person's private communications are "the" significant purpose of the acquisition) and the House bill (if a U.S. person's private communications are "a" significant purpose of the acquisition). And that foreign targets abroad still do not require FISA Court probable cause warrants, contrary to the fevered dreams of Alabama's corrupt Senator Sessions (who admitted conducting a grand total of two criminal wiretaps in twelve years as a United States Attorney).

Http://c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&Page=6

It seems clear that the vast majority of the Members of Congress simply have no idea what the FISA legislation they've "passed" means. What the hell do they think they're doing?