These are his words. If you have to pre-determine that it's foreign-to-foreign before you do it, it is impossible. That's the point. You can only target one. If you're going to target, you have to program some equipment to say, I'm going to look at number 1, 2, 3, so targeting, in this sense, if you are targeting a phone number that is foreign. So that's the target. The point is that you have no control over who that target might call or who might call that target.

Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield at this point?

Mr. LUNGREN. I'll be happy to yield in one second. I found that I did have the specific language to which I referred a moment ago. This is the proposed language in the bill: ``If electronic surveillance concerning foreign-to-foreign communications inadvertently collects a communication in which at least one party to the communication is located inside the United States or is a United States person, the contents of such communication shall be handled in accordance with minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General.'' If that's all it said, that would be fine. But then it says: ``That require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 7 days, unless a court order is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily injury.''

Reading that, as it is written, if Osama bin Laden, in a conversation, communication or whatever to someone who happens to be a U.S. person or is in the United States that is not then a target, under the regime that we have, doesn't implicate that individual whatsoever, but in the course of the conversation, reveals where he is, where he's going to be, we cannot act on that information under this specific language unless the Attorney General determines the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily injury. Telling where he is doesn't indicate a threat of death to anybody or serious bodily injury to anybody.

That's the language that your side has presented on the floor as a fait accompli. We could not amend it. We couldn't even discuss amending it on the floor because we had a gag rule.

And the gentleman is a distinguished attorney. He knows how to use words very, very well. You can't change the words that are on the printed page.

Let me yield to my friend from Missouri before I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. AKIN. Now, there was one procedure that the Republicans were allowed to do, and that's called the recommit; is that correct? We couldn't make any amendments. We couldn't discuss it.

Mr. LUNGREN. Motion to recommit, yes.

Mr. AKIN. And so on the motion to recommit, we did the best thing we could to try to fix this problem, which was going to basically muzzle 60 percent of our intelligence-gathering capability. And that, I guess, you could look at it as an amendment on the motion to recommit. It was merely a sentence or two. And that sentence said something to the effect that nothing in this bill will prevent us from trying to capture bin Laden or prevent us from gathering information on al Qaeda, and they're attacking this country, something to that effect.

Mr. LUNGREN. Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or other terrorist groups and prevent attacks on the United States or Americans. That was the language. And I might say to the gentleman, it was never offered, we never got to that point. But rather than have a gag rule or follow the leadership we got from the Democratic side, of a gag rule, we also showed it to the other side way ahead of time. And the reaction was what? To pull the bill, or at least to stop in mid-debate on the bill, and we will bring it back.

Mr. AKIN. It was in such a hurry that we didn't have time for any amendments.

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, let me yield to the gentleman from New York. Perhaps the gentleman from New York can tell us when the bill is coming back to the floor.

Mr. NADLER. I can't because I don't know that. I don't know that. Presumably sometime in the next 2 weeks. But would you yield now?

Mr. LUNGREN. I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Two points. One, what was just said about that motion to recommit, the contents of the motion to recommit, that nothing shall be construed as barring, tapping or wiretapping, whatever the language was, bin Laden, Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, et cetera, was completely unobjectionable. Indeed, it was totally superfluous. Had that motion said the motion is to recommit the bill to committee to amend it to include these words, and to report the bill back forthwith so we could have continued the debate, we would have accepted that amendment. We would have said fine. It doesn't change anything. Fine.

But, as you know, the amendment said report back promptly, which would have entailed at least a 2-week delay. That's why the bill was pulled, not because of the subject matter, but because of the word ``promptly.''

Mr. LUNGREN. If I might take my time on that point. Promptly means it goes back to committee. It doesn't say it can't come back for 2 weeks. It goes back to committee.

Now, we have some rules here that require a few days. We also have something called waiver of rules that has happened virtually on every rule that we've had here, presenting a bill to the floor. And let me ask the gentleman, if, in fact, your concern was it would be a delay of a week or two, what are we doing now?

I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NADLER. I will answer to the best of my knowledge. I don't know what we're doing now. I'm not part of the leadership. And as I said, I just happened to be walking here. I don't know why the bill isn't back here now. But I know it will be in the next week or so.

Mr. LUNGREN. So it's the gentleman's statement that you're willing to accept the motion to recommit, and your side is the leadership.

Mr. NADLER. Yes. The language was unobjectionable.

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, that's good to hear. Then we will expect to see that language in the bill when it returns.

Mr. NADLER. Had it said forthwith, it would have been, and I shouldn't speak for the leadership but that's what they were saying at the time, we would have accepted it. But because it said promptly, which the Parliamentarians have told us would entail a considerable delay.

Mr. LUNGREN. I'm sure glad we're not delaying now. But go ahead.

Mr. NADLER. Well, we found out, by the way we thought the Senate was going to pass the bill the next day. It turns out they haven't got their act together, so we have a little more time.

Mr. LUNGREN. The Senate was going to pass a bill. Not that bill.

Mr. NADLER. Yes, it was going to pass a different bill. We wanted to pass a bill before they did, so that's why we were in a hurry.

But getting back to the point we said a few minutes ago, I don't have the benefit of the language. I know you have it there from the manager's amendment which I haven't seen, or the context. But I do know the following: The whole point, Admiral McConnell is quite correct when he says, obviously, if you're tapping whoever in a foreign country, you don't know who he's going to call. You're tapping that one point. You're tapping Mohammed in Karachi because you know that he, you suspect he's a terrorist that's involved. If he calls someone else abroad no one thinks you need a warrant or anything else. Under the bill, if he calls someone in the United States, either you hear it, you can't help hearing it. Either that conversation is innocent or it's involved with something that makes you suspicious of terrorism. If it's innocent, you have to engage in minimization procedures so you don't unduly and inadvertently violate the privacy of some American for an innocent conversation. If it's not innocent, then you, with that information, you can continue listening and if necessary you can get a warrant. And that's the general design of the amendment.