Are they talking about the same FISA bill? Sadly, yes

And speaking of marginally-competent telephone companies -- as Dustin was in the previous post -- let us take note of Congress' action today, retroactively granting the phone companies a free Get Out of Jail card for cooperating with dozens of warrantless surveillance projects conducted by the government after 9/11.

OK, it was for a good cause, but still... Or, as the bumper sticker asks, "Feel Safer Now?"

Passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments of 2008 (FISA) basically enables the government to intercept the international communications of Americans without a court order. A case can, of course, be made in wartime that this is a good thing. Or maybe not, since it's been prohibited until now (but done anyway; go figger).

The House passed FISA today by 293-129. Senate approval is expected next week.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has been a strong and vocal opponent of FISA. Here's what he said about the measure yesterday:

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.

"Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration."

Today, however, Feingold is in the minority. Here's what Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, 1st District, had to say after voting in the majority today:

“While we should have closed the gaps in our intelligence laws a long time ago, today’s bipartisan compromise will serve as a significant blow to radical terrorist networks seeking to do us harm. This bill protects telecom companies that stepped forward in the days following 9/11 to assist the government in keeping us safe. Those acts deserve admiration – not lawsuits.

“Congress has repeatedly failed in its attempts to modernize the tools to combat terrorism. Since the expiration of the Protect America Act over four months ago, America has been fighting terrorism with pre-9/11 intelligence capabilities. Today, Congress has taken a significant step forward in giving our intelligence community the tools they need to keep America safe, while upholding the treasured freedoms and civil liberties that we hold dear.”

Ryan noted that under the original 1978 law, the U.S. Constitution and the FISA Court, the monitoring of suspected foreign terrorists still must gain approval ... after the fact. As his press release notes, "Rather than waiting for court approval before taking action – a delay that would put American lives at risk in the post-9/11 world – intelligence officials can seek court approval within a week of emergency eavesdropping on foreigners. To be clear, this bill strengthens current protections for U.S. citizens against unlawful monitoring by U.S. intelligence agencies."

Not to put too fine a point on it: the eavesdropping is not just on "foreigners;" telephone calls have people at both ends of the line, and in the U.S., most likely, at one end of the call is an "American."

As Feingold said: "Under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power."

The bill sunsets in 2012, unless renewed by Congress.

Further details on the bill can be found HERE, as written by Sen. Kit Bond, R-MO, ranking Republican member on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and printed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

Read More...

Summary only...

Feingold for VP?

OK, we've had lots of fun with the Paul Ryan for VP movement (?) on the Republican side of the aisle, if only John McCain would listen to the chattering pundits.

Now here's a suggestion that's equally not gonna fly: Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, for VP on the Barack Obama ticket.

Here it is verbatim from Kay's Blue Racine blog:

"Don't you think that Feingold would be the perfect VP? After eight years he would still be young and vital enough to run for President. He actually read the Patriot Act. He would be no doubt the most popular among Obama's base. He's Jewish so that would really toss the whole Muslim crappola out the window for the Swiftboaters. I hope Obama doesn't take some woman just because she is a woman -- ye, Gods: Phyllis Shlafly is a woman and look at what she is like! No Pelosi: not after her famous 'impeachment is off the table speech.' "

So far, just three comments -- but they're all favorable! Can we classify it as a groundswell?

Read More...

Summary only...

GM announcement is 'gut-wrenching,' says Ryan

Update:Tuesday night, Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl and Rep. Paul Ryan sent a letter to GM CEO Rick Wagoner asking him to reconsider the decision to close the Janesville SUV plant and requested a meeting to discuss the possible retooling of the plant for different production lines. A copy of the letter is HERE.

Original post: Congressman Paul Ryan, R-WI, 1st District, a fifth-generation Janesville native, made the following statement in response to today’s announcement that General Motors will close it Janesville SUV plant by 2010:

“Today’s news is downright gut-wrenching for Janesville. Growing up and living in Janesville, this is something we’ve always feared. First of all, my thoughts and prayers are with the workers and their families, many of whom I’ve grown up with and am still close friends with. If GM’s plans are fully carried out, this would be a big psychological and economic blow to our community and our state; but Janesville will survive this, because we simply have to survive this. As I have witnessed time and again, I have faith that our community will pull together to support one another in the difficult days ahead. It is my hope that as this 2010 shutdown date approaches, Janesville will be in a better position to reverse this decision.”

Ryan said he will work closely with union leaders, GM officials, and members of the Janesville community to support those hit hardest by the closure.

Sen. Herb Kohl, D-WI, issued the following statement:

“It’s a tragedy that General Motors plans to close its plant in Janesville, leaving behind thousands of skilled and dedicated employees. The community of Janesville depends on these jobs, and I will do everything in my power to convince General Motors to reconsider their decision or help their employees find new work.

“Today I’m urging officials at the Labor Department to make job training and transitional assistance for GM’s employees readily available. The people at the Janesville GM plant are second to none, and I hope that GM supports these employees with the same loyalty and commitment that these men and women have brought to the job everyday.”

And Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI:

“For generations, the people of Janesville have poured their heart and soul into General Motors and have proven to be an incredible asset for the company. GM should immediately take steps to ensure the continued success of the GM plant including retooling the plant for new production lines. I will continue to work with Governor Doyle, Senator Kohl, Congressman Ryan, state and local officials, related businesses, and the leadership of GM to do all I can to support an ongoing and vital GM presence in Janesville. The people of Janesville have worked too hard for too long to deserve anything less.”

And Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL:

"My heart goes out to the workers and families affected by the closing of these GM plants, including the Janesville plant that I visited a few months ago. Today's news is a painful reminder not only of the challenges America faces in our global economy, but of George Bush’s failed economic policies. For eight long years, we’ve had an energy policy that funds both sides in the war on terror without promoting fuel efficiency or helping make our auto companies more competitive. That’s part of the reason thousands of more Americans in Wisconsin and Ohio will no longer be able to count on a paycheck at a time when they’re already being pinched by rising costs. Unlike John McCain, I’m not in this race to extend the failed Bush economic policies; I’m in this race to end them. I’ve proposed investing $150 billion over ten years in green energy and creating up to five million new green jobs. We’ll finally provide domestic automakers with the funding they need to retool their factories and make fuel-efficient and alternative fuel cars. And we’ll invest in efforts to make sure that the cars of the future are made where they always have been -- in the United States. Because the fight for American manufacturing is the fight for America’s future – and I believe that’s a fight this country will win."

Gov. Jim Doyle:

“After all the years of work and everything the people of Janesville have given, it is tough to stomach what GM is doing here today. Families here have dedicated their working lives to this General Motors plant. The city of Janesville, the state of Wisconsin – we have all been committed to making this plant work.

“So many people here have put their hearts into building trucks at the Janesville assembly plant, and now they are left with a cold decision that casts them aside. We all feel it in our guts.

“GM made it clear that this was a plant that they were invested in. They brought Barack Obama here just months ago. It was clear that this plant was the pride of GM. It should have been obvious long ago that the future was not where GM was headed. Bad corporate decision kept these lines turning out gas guzzlers as fuel prices went from 2 dollars to 3 dollars and now to 4 dollars per gallon.

“Now we stand here, carrying the burden of those bad corporate decisions – failed leadership that culminated in a calculation that left out the very heart of this company, the workers who built it.

“I am inspired by the workers who in the face of all this – in these difficult times – are saying they will work to make the best of this. That’s the spirit that made this company worth something, and that’s the spirit that built Janesville. I want Wisconsin workers that the state will stand with you. We will work together to fight for Janesville and our future together.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate takes 'action' to lower gas prices. Yawn.

A barrel of crude oil now costs $124. A gallon of gasoline will set you back $4, or darn near that. (The price range around here right now is $3.82 - $4.05. Check HERE.) Why should you care that the Senate voted 97-1 to temporarily stop pumping crude oil into the underground caverns in Louisiana and Texas that serve as the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

Frankly, you shouldn't care.

Despite the high-fives senators (like our own Russ Feingold, see press release below) are giving themselves, this move will accomplish nothing. Releasing for sale the 70,000 barrels a day that would have gone underground won't make much difference to the nation's supply -- we use some 20 million barrels a day -- and therefore, despite what the bipartisan Senate vote would have you believe, won't make any appreciable difference in the price at the pump. None that you'll notice, anyway. (If the Gasoline Fairy waves her magic wand and transforms every bit of this frog into a price reduction, it will create a saving of less than two cents per gallon.)

Sorta like the federal gas tax "holiday" pushed by Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, and our own Rep. Paul Ryan. Eighteen-point-four cents per gallon. Mama, let's drive to California!

The vote is an example of economic naivete: It suspends pumping into the 700 million barrel strategic reserve until the price of oil falls below $75 a barrel. So, it's likely not to be very temporary at all. Hell may freeze over first... assuming the House goes along, and President Bush doesn't veto it, as he's threatened to do. (The one senator who voted with the White House in this election year was Sen. Wayne Allard, R-CO, who's not running for re-election.)

Anyway, now that you know the facts, here's Feingold's take:

FEINGOLD PRAISES SENATE EFFORT TO LOWER GAS PRICES

By Suspending Deposits into the Nearly-Full Strategic Petroleum Reserve, More Oil Will Be Available in the Marketplace to Help Bring Down Gas Prices

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Senate passed a measure co-sponsored by U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) that will help lower gas prices that have reached all-time highs. The Senate passed a Feingold-backed initiative to suspend the filling of the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) that was originally created to provide relief when oil and gasoline supply shortages caused economic hardships. While the average price of gas approaches four dollars per gallon in Wisconsin and across the country, the administration continues to divert oil into the SPR, pitting the government against the American consumer by taking more oil off the market and driving up the price of gas.

“I am pleased the Senate has taken a common-sense step toward easing the burden Americans are feeling at the gas pump by making more oil available in the marketplace,” Feingold said. “This move is not a cure-all but it should provide some relief without jeopardizing our oil reserves.”

The Senate also blocked an effort that would have endangered the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by allowing drilling in the pristine Alaskan wilderness. Feingold has been a Senate leader in opposing drilling in the Refuge and has led efforts in the Senate to prevent it. To help protect the Refuge, Feingold is a cosponsor of a bill that would designate the Refuge’s coastal plain as a federal wilderness area.

“Drilling in the Arctic Refuge would sacrifice one of America’s greatest natural treasures for a supply of oil that would not do anything to significantly enhance our energy security,” Feingold said. “The Senate has rejected efforts to drill in the Arctic Refuge time after time. It is time to move past this divisive debate and develop a new energy strategy that will protect our national security, economy, and environment.”

Read More...

Summary only...

On the 5th anniversary of 'Mission Accomplished'

That was then...

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, issued this statement today:

"Five years ago today, the President stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln beneath the now infamous “mission accomplished” banner. But five years later, with the image of the president under that banner etched into the memories of so many Americans, our brave men and women remain bogged down in Iraq in a war that is jeopardizing our national security, damaging our military, and provoking regional instability. This anniversary marks yet another year of the administration’s failure to address the global threat posed by al Qaeda.

"The State Department Country Terrorism report released yesterday serves as yet another reminder that al Qaeda continues to be the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. and is reconstituting its capabilities. Congress should not wait for the next anniversary before fixing the Administration’s mistaken priorities. For the good of our military and national security, and for the stake of stability in the Middle East, we must safely redeploy our troops from Iraq and refocus on those who attacked us on 9/11."

More on the Country Terrorism report HERE.

And a review of what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan since Bush declared, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," is HERE.

Read More...

Summary only...

Don't take this personally, General, but ...

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, D-WI, issued the following remarks prior to delivery this afternoon during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iraq with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker:

Thank you both for coming again to testify here today.

I’d also like to thank you both for your long and distinguished service to this country. While we may not see eye to eye on the current situation in Iraq or the way forward, I have great respect for the difficult work you’re undertaking – the outcome of which will be with us for many, many years.

I hope you won’t take it personally when I say that I wish we were also hearing today from those who could help us look at Iraq from a broader perspective. The participation at this hearing of those charged with regional and global responsibilities would have given us the chance to discuss how the war in Iraq is undermining our national security. It might have helped us answer the most important question we face – not “are we winning or losing in Iraq?” but “are we winning or losing in the global fight against al Qaeda?”

Like many Americans, I am gravely concerned by how bogged down we are in Iraq. Our huge, open-ended military presence there is not only undermining our ability to respond to the global threat posed by al Qaeda, but it is also creating greater regional instability, serving as a disincentive for Iraqis to reach political reconciliation, straining our military, and piling up debt for future generations to repay.

I am pleased that violence in parts of the country has declined, but as the increase in violence in Mosul and recent events in Basra and now Baghdad indicate, long-term prospects for reconciliation appear to be just as shaky as they were before the surge. In fact, the drop in violence could have serious costs, as it is partly attributable to the deals we have struck with local militias, all of which could make national reconciliation that much more difficult.

We need to redeploy our troops from Iraq and I am disappointed that you are calling for a halt in troop reductions, General Petraeus, because the presence of about 140,000 troops in Iraq will exacerbate the conflict, not stabilize it, and it will certainly not contribute to our overall national security. Some have suggested that we should stay in Iraq until reconciliation occurs. They have it backwards -- our departure is likely to force factions to the negotiating table in an attempt to finally create a viable power-sharing agreement.

If we redeploy, Iraq will no longer be the “‘cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world,” as the Intelligence Community so clearly stated. Iran, as well as Turkey, Syria, and other regional actors, will have to decide if Iraqi instability is really in their interests once we are no longer on the hook. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we will be able to adequately address what must be our top priority – the threat posed by al Qaeda around the globe, and particularly its safe haven in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Nothing could be clearer than the need to refocus all our instruments of national power to combat this threat.

Redeployment does not mean abandoning Iraq. We must work for a peaceful outcome in that country. But if we continue to leave our military caught up in the sectarian divisions that consume Iraq, we will be doing so at grave risk to Iraq’s progress, the region’s stability, and our own national security.

UPDATE: The NYTimes blog, The Lede, is live-blogging the hearing. Here, with a bit of background, is part of the exchange between Feingold and Petraeus:

The Elephant in the Room | 5:05 p.m. The title of this hearing is “Iraq After the Surge: What’s Next?” For several senators, the answer is Al Qaeda’s base on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Unfortunately, that’s outside the purview of the two American officials sitting before the Senate today.

After several colleagues failed to get very far on the subject today, Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, aired the grievance.

“I hope you won’t take it personally when I say that I wish we were also hearing today from those who are viewing Iraq from a broader perspective,” he told them. “They would’ve helped us answer the most important question we face, which is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq. Are we winning or losing in the global fight against Al Qaeda?”

Against his better judgment, he asked Gen. Petraeus anyway: “Do you think Al Qaeda is our top threat?” The general agreed, but his answer did not stray beyond his portfolio in Iraq. Inevitably, Mr. Feingold was served the reminder he wished to avoid: “Again, senator: I’m talking about Al Qaeda in Iraq.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Feingold rips Dems on Iraq

Sen. Russ Feingold ripped his fellow Democrats today for their stance on the Iraq war. Dems leaders laid out their position in a letter to President Bush. The leaders called on Bush not to send more troops to Iraq, change the mission of troops already there, and begin a phased redeployment within six months. Here's the relevant graph:

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Feingold's main contention seems to be Democrats are wavering on calling for a full withdrawal from Iraq. Here's his statement:

"I am deeply disappointed with the letter sent by Democratic leaders to the President regarding Iraq. Rather than calling on the President to redeploy our troops from Iraq, it endorses a plan put forward by General Petraeus that could entail leaving tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely. This would be dangerous for our troops, further the perception that we are occupying Iraq, provoke instability in the country and the region, and keep us from focusing on the global al Qaeda threat.

"Contrary to what the letter suggests, we should not be waiting around for a 'political accommodation which will allow us to reduce U.S. troop levels substantially.' We must redeploy our troops to break the paralysis that now grips U.S. strategy in the region."

Read More...

Summary only...

Who's the most Conservative of them all?

Mirror, mirror, on the wall,
Who's the most conservative of them all?

When it comes to Wisconsin's Congressional delegation, do you really have to ask?

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, 1st District, is the most Conservative member of the Wisconsin Congressional delegation. And pretty darn Conservative overall, compared to the rest of the House: He voted Conservative 79.7 percent of the time, and is the House's 94th most Conservative member (out of 435).

Click on table to enlarge.

When it comes to votes on foreign issues, Ryan is ranked "more liberal" than 0 percent of other House members.

This unstartling bit of information comes from the National Journal's ratings of all Congressmen, based on an analysis of how they voted on a variety of issues. By their count, Wisconsin Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, and Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, are the state's most Liberal, voting that way 95 percent of the time. (And tying for 1st place in the entire House of Representatives, a six-way tie.)

As the National Journal explains: Members are assigned separate scores for their roll-call votes on key economic, social, and foreign-policy issues during 2007. The members are rated in each of the three issue categories on both liberal and conservative scales, with the scores on each scale given as percentiles. An economic score of 72 on the conservative scale, for example, means that the member was more conservative than 72 percent of his or her House colleagues on the key votes in that issue area during 2007. An asterisk [*] means that the member missed more than half of the rated votes in an issue area. Composite scores are an average of the six issue-based scores. Members with the same composite scores are tied in rank.

Click on table to enlarge.

Meanwhile, Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl are among the Senate's most Liberal members. Feingold ranked as the Senate's 10th most Liberal member; Kohl as the 21st.

The complete HOUSE RANKINGS are here.

The complete SENATE RANKINGS are here.

(And just to save you the effort: Hillary Clinton is ranked 16th Liberal, more so than 82.8 percent of the Senate; Barack Obama is the Senate's No. 1 Liberal, more so than 95.5 percent of the Senate. John McCain? Well, he missed too many votes to be categorized.)

Read More...

Summary only...

What's behind Senate's decision to debate Feingold-Reid?

The Senate's decision Wednesday, by a 70-24 vote, to debate the two Feingold-Reid bills that would redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq and cut off combat funding within 120 days to focus the military and intelligence services on defeating Al Qaeda around the world is like an iceberg, with more of the story under water than visible to the naked eye.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, says, for example, that Senate Republicans finally agreed to have this debate "because they're under the false impression that Democrats may be embarrassed to debate the war in Iraq." (Actually, not so far-fetched, if you've watched the Clinton-Obama sniping over who said no to Iraq funding first, and who was wrong when. On the other hand, McCain is so far to the other side with his support of the war, that both parties should be uncomfortable.)

The Associated Press quoted Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, saying the debate "would give us a chance to talk about the extraordinary progress that's been made in Iraq over the last six months."

Feingold quoted a story on Politico.com: "One senator has called the Iraq debate 'a waste of time.' Another called the debate a 'diversion.' Yet another said that Feingold-Reid was 'too restrictive.' And all of these are quotes from Democratic members."

Regardless the political game-playing, there will now be up to 30 hours of debate on the bill.

During the debate Wednesday, Feingold defended his proposals:

"Sen. Inhofe said my bill demanding a strategy to defeat al Qaeda wasn’t needed because we already have a plan to defeat al Qaeda. He failed to explain why, if we already have a strategy to defeat al Qaeda, al Qaeda has regenerated and reconstituted itself and is planning more attacks on our homeland. Adm. Mullen has been quite clear that, under our current strategy, Afghanistan is a second priority where we only 'do what we can.' "

"Sens. Inhofe and Lieberman have claimed that we do have political reconciliation in Iraq… if Iraqis have agreed to political reconciliation, as Senator Inhofe suggests, well then, doesn’t that mean we’ve achieved the objectives of the surge and we can start bringing home the troops? When does the other side think we can bring our troops home – 5 years? 20? 100? What kind of ‘success’ is that?"

"Some members of this body seem to believe that the war in Iraq is between U.S. troops on the one side and al Qaeda on the other…The recent patterns of violence in Iraq actually confirm what the Intelligence Community has said all along: that the war in Iraq is sectarian and intra-sectarian, and far from the over-simplified “us versus them” that proponents of an endless military engagement in Iraq continue to describe."

"Iraq is not the central front on the war on terrorism. To the extent there is such a front in this global conflict, it is clearly Pakistan and Afghanistan. Early this month, the DNI testified before Congress that the central leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is al Qaeda’s most dangerous component."

Read More...

Summary only...

Feingold at White House for briefing from Bush on Africa

For those of you who think Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, should be in the White House -- well, tomorrow's the day! Alas, it's just for a briefing with President Bush...

Feingold, chairman of the Senate African Affairs Subcommittee, and other congressional leaders will meet with the President to hear about his recent five-nation tour of Africa, which included stops in Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia. Feingold has traveled to Africa eight times since joining the Senate in 1993.

"Africa faces serious challenges that affect not only the people of that continent but the international community as a whole," Feingold said. “I look forward to meeting with the president to hear about his trip and discuss issues like preventing disease, including HIV/AIDS, addressing human rights abuses, the importance of humanitarian assistance, and supporting democratic institutions. I am pleased that the president is recognizing the importance of Africa."

Prior to the president’s trip, Feingold sent him a letter encouraging him to emphasize the importance of continued democratic reform, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and peaceful conflict resolution. A copy of the letter is available here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kohl, Feingold concerned about our aphrodisiac

I must have led a sheltered life, because when I saw the news release today from Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl about their efforts to protect Wisconsin ginseng, my first reaction was: Whaaaaa? I grew up in New York, and everybody there knows ginseng comes from Chinatown.

Well, once again, I am wrong.

Feingold and Kohl report that 90 percent of the ginseng grown in the U.S. comes from Wisconsin. They further claim that Wisconsin ginseng "is widely heralded as the premier ginseng in the world," a claim I'll have to accept on their word, since I've never ginsenged.

The issue here is whether the Senate Agriculture Committee will keep a requirement in the Senate Farm Bill that raw ginseng root must be labeled to identify the country where it was harvested.

Kohl and Feingold say the high demand for ginseng has led smugglers from Canada and Asia to label their ginseng, "which often has traces of pesticides and other chemicals not approved in the U.S.," as Wisconsin-grown, misleading consumers and undercutting domestic ginseng growers. A country-of-harvest label would help consumers and producers by ensuring that consumers who pay a premium for Wisconsin-grown ginseng are getting what they pay for and that the higher prices find their way back to the pockets of hard-working American ginseng farmers, they say.

"This ginseng labeling provision is crucial for Wisconsin ginseng farmers and consumers who lose when foreign farmers free-load off of Wisconsin ginseng’s unparalleled reputation," Feingold said. “The final Farm Bill must maintain this simple provision to ensure that consumers looking for Wisconsin ginseng are getting the real thing and not a knock-off."

The ginseng provision in the Senate version of the Farm Bill was based on Kohl and Feingold's Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2007.

But what is ginseng, anyway, and what's it used for? And what's the difference between Wisconsin-grown and China-grown ginseng? Ah, so! Once again, we turn to the Internets for answers. All the smutty sex talk you were hoping for is after the break.

HowStuffWorks.com reports:

Ginseng is another long-touted aphrodisiac. Recently, the Journal of Urology reported, "the Mean International Index of Erectile Function scores were significantly higher in patients treated with Korean red ginseng than in those who received placebo." In animal studies, ingesting ginseng doesn't appear to have an immediate effect on testosterone levels, but the ginseng may trigger other mechanisms that lead to increased performance and libido.

(They also debunk the value of Rhino horn.)

WebMD says:

An herb very commonly associated with love is ginseng. Some say ginseng is an aphrodisiac because it actually looks like the human body. (The word ginseng even means "man root.") Studies have reported sexual response in animals who have been given ginseng, but there is no evidence to date of ginseng having any effect on humans.

(But at least it's better than Yohimbe and Spanish Fly, both of which have nasty side-effects like paralysis and death.)

The Food and Drug Administration is also less than encouraging:

Many ancient peoples believed in the so-called "law of similarity," reasoning that an object resembling genitalia may possess sexual powers. Ginseng, rhinoceros horn, and oysters are three classical examples.

The word ginseng means "man root," and the plant's reputation as an aphrodisiac probably arises from its marked similarity to the human body. Ginseng has been looked on as an invigorating and rejuvenating agent for centuries in China, Tibet, Korea, Indochina, and India. The root may have a mild stimulant action, like coffee. There have been some experiments reporting a sexual response in animals treated with ginseng, but there is no evidence that ginseng has an effect on human sexuality.

(Coffee?)

So, exactly what is the purpose of ginseng? We turn to the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin -- which makes clear the difference between our ginseng and Asia's, while at the same time ignoring totally any purported sexual side-effects. (Didn't they get the memo?) It's all about temperature, donchaknow:

"There are two types of ginseng. Often both types are taken for a health balancing effect. Consumers take American ginseng for a cooling effect and Asian ginseng for a heating effect."

Panax quinquefolius (American ginseng): This ginseng is white root and generally used to cool the body. It is an adaptogen (a substance that helps the body adapt to stress) that cools and soothes. American ginseng is produced in Wisconsin.

Panax ginseng (Asian ginseng): This warms the body. This root is red and is typically grown in China and Korea. It is used to increase stimulation and warm the body.

There you have it. Just be sure to check the label. And be careful out there. (One of these days, when they're least expecting it, we'll ask Kohl and Feingold what they use ginseng for...)

Read More...

Summary only...

Feingold still trying to get the President to listen...

As we reported Sunday, (If Feingold were Commander-in-Chief), Sen. Russ Feingold is pressing the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq and instead spend our military and intelligence resources on stopping al Qeada.

Today he made the point again, in the widely-read Huffington Post, in a piece entitled, The Warnings Are There, Will the President Listen?

Read More...

Summary only...

'Commendable' or 'Inexcusable'? You be the judge.

Actually, we can't figure it out either. All we know is that Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, is on one side of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act morass and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, 1st District, is on the other. Ryan said the bill updating FISA, ("to modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act, and for other purposes" as the Senate summary explains it.), "would provide the American intelligence community the tools and flexibility needed to quickly respond to terrorist threats."

To make matters even more confusing, it's also called the Protect America Act. Who could be against that?

We tried to keep up with the Senate's machinations on FISA, especially as Sen. Feingold tried mightily in recent weeks to get his colleagues to reign in government spying on Americans, and to eliminate retroactive immunity for telecom companies that have already helped the government spy on us, with or without warrants.

Feingold was unsuccessful with his amendments, as we already reported -- HERE, and HERE -- but the Senate passed FISA anyway. When the bill came up for final passage Tuesday, Feingold voted 'nay,' while Sen. Herb Kohl, D-WI, voted 'aye.' Neither Sens. Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama voted -- presumably because they were out campaigning for president rather than unable to decide one way or another. In any case, the Senate passed FISA, 68-29. Ryan, away from the fray in the House, called the bill "bi-partisan," but 28 of those 29 'nay' votes came from Democrats and the 29th from the Senate's lone independent, Bernie Sanders of Vermont. (Twenty of the 'aye' votes were from Democrats.) In any case, the bill went to the House.

That's when the fun began. House leadership -- Democrats, doncha know -- refused to allow a vote on the bill. Republicans stalked out of the House in protest. What all that sturm and drang comes down to is this: the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act remains in force, and all the changes, "modernizing" and "streamlining" crafted by the Senate disappear into the ether. Should we be happy or sad about this?

Well it depends upon whom you listen to. Feingold says it's "commendable" that House leadership refused to consider the bill. Ryan says it's "inexcusable."

Here's what they each had to say, after the break:

Sen. Russ Feingold: The bill is 'deeply flawed'

“Congress should pass a surveillance bill that gives the intelligence community the tools it needs to go after suspected terrorists without trampling on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. Unfortunately, the President is more interested in trying to scare the American people and score political points than he is in working with Congress to fix FISA. House Democrats should be commended for standing up to the President and refusing to ram through the deeply flawed bill that the Senate passed.

“The President cannot be taken seriously when he argues that letting the PAA expire or blocking retroactive immunity will render the government unable to gather information about terrorists. Existing orders issued under the PAA will remain in place for up to a year, and new wiretaps can be initiated with a FISA warrant. And I have no doubt that telecom companies will continue to cooperate with legal government requests as they did for 30 years before the administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. While many Democrats worked to fix the law before it expired, it is the President who was willing to let it expire if it didn’t include a bail-out of the telecom companies. It is unfortunate that the President’s brinksmanship has brought us to this point, but make no mistake - critical foreign intelligence surveillance will continue even if the PAA expires.”

Rep. Paul Ryan: This could have 'disastrous consequences'

“I am extremely disappointed that the House Democratic leadership has chosen to allow the Protect America Act to expire rather than take the necessary steps to safeguard America. This legislation offers a badly needed modernization of FISA, and without it, the ability of our intelligence community to gather information will be significantly weakened. It is an inexcusable choice that could have disastrous consequences. By refusing to allow a vote, Speaker Pelosi is ignoring the will of Congress. It seems plain to me that, at the very least, our national security is far too important to allow politics to circumvent good policy.

“Earlier this week, the Senate passed a bipartisan update to FISA that contains critical tools that protect our national security and help keep us safe at home. I believe that my colleagues in the House are capable of the same spirit of cooperation. It is absolutely essential that we update FISA for the long-term because, plain and simple, the jihadists will not rest. We must utilize each tool at our disposal to combat them at every turn, and match their resolve with equal measure.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Feingold responds to 'deeply-flawed' FISA passage

The U.S. Senate voted 67-31 against Sen. Russ Feingold's amendment to deny telecom companies retroactive immunity when involved in surveillance of U.S. citizens. Here's what Feingold, D-WI, had to say about the vote:

"The Senate passage of this FISA bill, while not surprising, is extremely disappointing. The Senate missed a golden opportunity to pass a bill that would give our intelligence officials the tools they need to go after suspected terrorists while also safeguarding the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

"Instead the Senate, with the help of too many Democrats, is yet again giving the administration sweeping new powers – and letting it off the hook for its illegal wiretapping program. I hope that our House colleagues will hold a stronger line, and refuse to accept the deeply flawed Senate bill.

"The calls from Americans tired of having their rights and their Constitution trampled on by this administration are only growing louder. Congress should stand up for the American people, and the Constitution, by opposing such a badly flawed bill."

The Washington Post's story is HERE.

Feingold's testimony before the Senate is HERE.

Our earlier story about the defeat of two other Feingold amendments to the FISA bill is HERE.

Read More...

Summary only...

Feingold's efforts to limit U.S. spying on us rejected

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, had a bad day last Thursday, as two of his amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) were rejected by the Senate. In debate on the Senate floor, Feingold took on some heavy hitters from the Administration -- and gave as good as he got, as you'll see on the video, HERE.

The legislation, which will overhaul electronic surveillance laws and determine how much spying the administration can do -- balancing the right of Americans to privacy against the government's ability to wiretap suspected terrorists -- comes up for Senate passage this week.

One of Feingold's amendments would have given the FISA court, which oversees government eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mail of people within the United States, the choice to block the government from using information about a U.S. citizen if that information had been collected illegally. That provision was rejected 56-40; Sen. Herb Kohl voted with Feingold in the minority.

Feingold's second amendment would have prevented "reverse targeting" -- stopping the government from wiretapping a foreigner communicating with someone in the United States when the real target is the person in the U.S. Feingold's amendment would have required a FISA court order whenever the intent of the surveillance is to monitor an American inside the U.S. This one failed 57-38, again with both Feingold and Kohl in the minority.

A complete story about the FISA debate appeared in Congressional Quarterly, and can be found HERE.

During the debate Thursday, Feingold took on what he called the "tired accusations" of Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Director of National Intelligence J.M. McConnell and Sen. Kit Bond, R-MO, vice chairman of the select committee on intelligence. "Let's worry less about the alleged feelings of a secret court and worry more about the rights and privacy of perfectly innocent Americans," Feingold said. Watch for yourself: Here's Feingold's response, on VIDEO

A transcript of what Feingold said about listening in on Osama bin Laden can be found on the Empty Wheel blog.

Read More...

Summary only...

Feingold/Ryan earmarks provision predated Bush's

(How the game is played in Washington. Sotto voce: "I love you, too, Senator, now buzz off.")

During a Senate Budget Committee hearing today, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, urged the administration to endorse legislation he introduced in April with Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, 1st District, to help cut wasteful spending.

During questioning of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Jim Nussle, Feingold suggested the Feingold-Ryan legislation falls in line with President Bush’s efforts to rein in unauthorized earmarks.

Here's a transcript of Senator Feingold’s exchange with Nussle.

FEINGOLD: Mr. Director, it may come as a surprise to some that on occasion I actually agree with the administration. For one, I strongly endorse your efforts to reign in unauthorized earmarks. I think it’s been a little late in coming, but I certainly welcome those efforts and along these lines I hope you’ll consider endorsing a bill I’ve introduced with my colleague from Wisconsin, and a former colleague of yours, Congressman Paul Ryan. Namely, a line-item veto measure that applies specifically to earmarks. It targets the abuse everyone says is the real reason a line-item veto is needed, namely to go after earmark spending. Have you had a chance to look at the proposal at all?

NUSSLE: I have not Senator, but I will and the president obviously continues to support the legislative line-item veto and would probably look favorably on anything that would provide some control on not only earmarks, but in general excessive spending.

FEINGOLD: Well, I appreciate that. I hope you’ll give it a good look. I know it may not be everything this president or any president would want. I voted for the previous line-item veto that was struck down by the Supreme Court. What we’re trying to do here is find something that would pass muster with the Supreme Court and still give the President the ability to help us get rid of some of these unfortunate provisions.

More information on the Feingold-Ryan bill is available HERE. Audio of the exchange is available HERE.

Read More...

Summary only...

Feingold's call for Kenya peace passes Senate

The U.S. Senate this morning passed a resolution by U.S. Senators Russ Feingold, D-WI, and John Sununu, R-NH, condemning the recent violence in Kenya and calling on both of Kenya’s leading presidential candidates to support a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The resolution calls for an international audit of the 2007 election results. In the month since the elections took place, violence has claimed hundreds of Kenyan lives and displaced hundreds of thousands from their homes.

Feingold said today, “I am very pleased the Senate has acknowledged that the crisis in Kenya must be resolved peacefully, with the first step being internationally brokered negotiations. The U.S. Senate is also now on record in support of an independent and transparent review of the entire electoral process and its outcome. I hope President Bush joins us in calling on Kenya’s political leaders to refrain from igniting violence and remain engaged in the U.N.-led international effort to bring peace to a troubled nation.”

The full resolution is HERE.

Read More...

Summary only...

Three Congressional reactions ... to the same speech?

The reactions of our three Congressmen to President Bush's seventh -- and final! -- State of the Union address almost make one wonder whether they heard the same speech. At the very least, they targeted different aspects of it.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, focused on Bush's "attempt to bully Congress" into giving the Executive Branch more powers against terrorists; Rep. Paul Ryan, R-1st District -- who didn't mention war, terrorism or even the word Iraq in his response -- is "pleased the president focused on the economy;" and Sen. Herb Kohl, D-WI, says the president "should heed calls from Congress to responsibly end the war."

The contrast between Feingold and Ryan was stark. Feingold used words like, "unfortunately," "bully," "myopic," "most troubling;" while Ryan's reaction was peppered with "pleased," "encouraged" and "support."

Decide for yourself who heard the speech you heard. All three reactions, complete as received, are after the break:

Russ Feingold:

“In his final state of the union address, President Bush unfortunately continued to advocate positions and policies that have been harmful to our nation. He once again attempted to bully Congress into giving broad powers to the executive branch far beyond what is necessary to protect the country from terrorists. Congress must stand up to these tactics and pass a law that allows our intelligence community to go after al Qaeda and other threats to our national security while protecting the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Americans.

“Perhaps most troubling was the President’s steadfast commitment to an Iraq policy that has led to the deaths of nearly 4,000 American troops, continues to cost this country billions of dollars per month, and fails to make us safer in the global fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates. The president’s policies are keeping nearly 160,000 American troops stuck in Iraq and sapping our ability to address the global terrorist threat presented by al Qaeda.

“As we continue to pay a tremendous price because of the administration’s myopic focus on Iraq, al Qaeda maintains its safe haven in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The recent bombings in Algeria also remind us that the enemy we face is global and that a narrow focus on Iraq is self-defeating. Our next commander-in-chief will face great challenges in this critical region of the world, made more difficult because of the lack of attention the Bush administration has given to it.

“It is important to note that this is the last state of the union this President will give. I look forward to working with whoever takes office as our next President to change course, and begin to undo the damage this Administration will leave behind. We need to reform our broken health care system, and move away from a one-size-fits-all education policy. We need a real commitment to protecting our environment, and to moving away from the flawed trade policies that have led to so many American workers watching their jobs leave this country. I join many Americans in looking forward to addressing these challenges as the country prepares to move beyond the failed policies of this administration.”

Paul Ryan:

“I am pleased the President focused on the economy and the need for bipartisan action to create jobs. While I am encouraged that the stimulus package did not include a congressional wish list of new spending, I am doubtful this package will do much to actually create sustainable job growth. I believe it should have included more immediate tax reform to create more jobs in our country and provide more growth to our nation’s economy.

"Earmark reform is also critical to restoring accountability and fiscal responsibility to the federal budget. While I am pleased that the President is committed to reducing earmark spending, I do not believe the President went far enough. Congress should immediately impose a moratorium on earmarks and reform the spending process to end this pork barrel spending as we know it. The President also needs the Legislative Line Item Veto to stop earmarks like the “Bridge to Nowhere” from becoming law. I, along with Senator Russ Feingold, introduced the Congressional Accountability and Line Item Veto Act to provide this tool to the President to stop wasteful government spending.

"In addition, I support the President’s call to balance the budget by 2012 without raising taxes. As the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, I look forward to working with the other side of the aisle to ensure that taxpayers are not overburdened with tax increases and that taxpayer dollars are not spent on wasteful government programs.”

Herb Kohl:

“Tonight, President Bush rightfully commended Congress for working in a bipartisan way to achieve a short-term plan to get our stalling economy back on track and provide timely relief for millions of working families. As part of a larger stimulus package, I believe we should also consider temporary measures to extend unemployment coverage for Americans out of work, address the housing foreclosure crisis, and expand food stamps and home heating assistance for families struggling to make ends meet.

“On Iraq, though there has been a reduction in violence in recent months, little progress – if any – has been made on achieving a long term political solution that puts the responsibility of leadership back into the hands of the Iraqis. The President should heed calls from Congress to responsibly end the war and redeploy our combat troops out of harm’s way.

“I look forward to debating these issues in the Senate, and taking a closer look at the specifics of the President’s plan when he unveils his budget proposal next week.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Somewhere, Woody Allen is smiling...

As the great political sage, Woody Allen, once said: "Ninety per cent of life is showing up." *

Nobody can fault Wisconsin's two senators, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, on that count: Both showed up for every one of the Senate's 442 votes in 2007. Wisconsin and Maine are the only two states where both senators had perfect voting attendance records.

(OK, you Republican nay-sayers with your cavils about a do-nothing Congress: how they voted is important, too. But at the very least our guys showed up, giving us at the minimum what we paid for.)

Feingold and Kohl were two of only ten U.S. Senators who did not miss a single vote during the first session of the 110th Congress. The average senator made about 420 of the 442 votes cast in 2007.

“Wisconsinites depend on the people they elect to show up and represent Wisconsin in the Senate to the best of their ability,” said Feingold, who has only missed ten votes in his 15 years as a senator, an attendance record of 99.81 percent.

“I take my responsibilities as a Senator seriously and know Wisconsinites expect me to ensure their voice be consistently heard in our nation’s capital,” Kohl said.

The other eight senators with nothing better to do than show up and vote (not a presidential candidate among 'em) were: Max Baucus (D-MT), Bob Casey (D-PA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Harry Reid (D-NV), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

* OK, maybe Woody said, “Eighty percent of success is showing up.” The mighty internet waffles. but the point is the same.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Surge, after one year: Russ Feingold's response

“One year ago today, the President announced he would escalate ou