2008 Fed Legislators

On July 30, 2008, Calvin Leman asks Mike Crapo, Larry Craig, and Mike Simpson about inequality:

The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, according to the Stanford Center (inequality.com), the Congressional Budget office (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib239) and other sources.

Since 1980, the House and Senate Democrats and Republicans have been removing the government regulations on financial institutions. William Greider explains this at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07182008/watch2.html.

Now the president has signed a sweeping housing bill. The authority for the Treasury Department to help Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is limited only by the debt ceiling. “The way this is structured,” David Walker said. “It’s only a matter of how much the taxpayers are going to lose.”

William Greider has explained that the government should apply regulations or promise that congress is going to apply regulations to these banking institutions.

Ordinary people know that something is wrong with the United States economy, because we are losing our houses and our jobs. People may not know that this inequality between rich and poor has been developing for 25 years. We only know that our legislators must fix this problem or we will change legislators.

How are you going to solve this problem of inequality and the banking industry? Are you going to regulate these financial institutions?

Mike,

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested yesterday that engaging in a lengthy debate over impeaching Bush in the waning days of his administration is not a productive use of the House's time.

If the president did break the law, should we not prove or disprove it anytime.

Cal

MIke,

Thank you for responding to my impeach question. Please read it again. I did not ask what the Democrats say, which is what you answered.

Cal

June 21, 2008 message to Mike Crapo, Larry Craig, and Mike Crapo about our energy problems.

We want real change in congress. Stop party rancor. Find solutions to our energy problems.

Department of Energy budget cuts to withdraw from ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is stopping our country from investigating whether nuclear fusion is a potential source of energy.

More than 2,700 workers at the DOE's national laboratories already have been laid off and 200 planned university research programs have been canceled, according to City College of New York professor Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society.

Also in danger is U.S. participation in an international high-energy physics project based in Geneva, Switzerland, and development of work in U.S. labs on high-intensity X-rays useful for biomedical research, nanotechnology and computer-chip design -- all keys to competitiveness and solutions to our energy problems.

TIME \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" June 9, 2008

Mr Calvin Leman

305 Washington Street

Salmon, Idaho 83467-3806

Thank you for contacting me regarding election reform and efforts to ensure fair and impartial state and federal elections. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your comments and concerns.

During a drawn-out, and often trying, election cycle in 2004 and again in 2006—and on the heels of a controversial Presidential election in 2000—much debate in Congress and around the United States has centered on election reform. The resulting congressional and public scrutiny exposes a wide range of weaknesses with our system of elections.

Several pieces of legislation have been introduced in the House during the 110^th Congress—including the Federal Election Integrity Act, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, and the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act—to tackle issues ranging from the overhaul of the electoral college to setting requirements for voting and voter-registration systems to improving the voting process for members of the military to producing paper copies of all electronic votes cast.

I applaud the dialogue that our election missteps have produced, as well as, the reforms now in place to correct these missteps. We will learn even more as Congress and the public looks back on the recent election cycles. Please be assured that I will continue to fight for fair and impartial elections, and lend my support to legislation that seeks to enhance fundamental liberties while expanding the exchange of political ideas.

Once again, thank you for taking time to write to me with your concerns. The thoughts and opinions of Idahoans are important to me as your Representative in the United States Congress. I also encourage you to visit my website at www.house.gov/simpson to sign up for my e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.

May 29, 2008 message from Calvin Leman to Mike Crapo, Larry Craig, and Mike Simpson.

Rather than limiting government subsidies to farmers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or less, the Senate raised that limit to $750,000 in the Farm Bill.

Agricultural subsidies benefit some of America’s largest corporations and some of its wealthiest citizens at the expense of taxpayers and of everyone who eats and consequently pays the higher food prices necessary to sustain this farm program.

First created to support farmers during the Great Depression, the Farm Bills have long been an entitlement for the politically connected. In 2006, the average household income of farmers ($77,654) was about 17 percent above the U.S. average. It is expected to reach $90,000 this year.

June 3, 2008 Mike Crapo answers Farm Bill question, admitting that $750,000 is the Farm Income Limit. He does not say why $750,000 Farm Income is in the bill, which is my question to him.

April 14, 2008 message to Mike Simpson about The Workforce Investment Act of 1998

How can we learn about The Workforce Investment Act of 1998? Can the people of District 35 get help from the Act?

March 17, 2008 message to Mike Crapo and Larry Craig about Resolution of Disapproval concerned with the media.

On December 18, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to relax the longstanding newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban, despite the millions of Americans who wrote and spoke out at hearings opposing more media consolidation.

I urge the Senate to act swiftly to pass the Resolution of Disapproval (S.J. Res. 28).

We the people want independent media outlets, who report accurate news. Corporate media have demonstrated that they do not serve the needs of the people. Please send a message to the FCC today. Please support the resolution of disapproval.

May 28, 2008

Mr Calvin Leman

305 Washington Street

Salmon, Idaho 83467-3806

Thank you for contacting me regarding issues related to Medicare. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

First, I wanted to update you on the implementation of the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug benefit. While I understand that there are still significant problems associated with the beginning of this program, especially for people who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, I want to assure you that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), the executive authority charged with implementing Part D, is aware of these problems and is working diligently to fix them.

The evidence of this work continues to grow. In Idaho alone, over 121,000 Idahoans have successfully signed up for a Medicare Part D prescription plan. CMS estimates that the average senior will save over $1,100 a year on prescriptions by enrolling in Medicare Part D. In addition, CMS has issued a rule to protect seniors from sudden changes in drug formularies by insurance companies. The new rule would prohibit changes to formularies for beneficiaries previously enrolled in a plan. I am encouraged by the positive progress CMS continues to make to improve the Medicare Part D implementation and I will continue to monitor the situation to be sure that all seniors and eligible people can benefit from Medicare Part D.

You may also be pleased to learn that HR 6111, The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, included a provision to eliminate a 5.1% reduction in Medicare payments to doctors and keeps pay rates at the current level. As of July 2007, it also offers a 1.5% increase to doctors who submit data on quality-of-care measures. These measures will help to lessen the impact on Idaho’s physicians and senior citizens from further Medicare reimbursement reductions and decreased access to care. I will continue to monitor proposals to reduce Medicare payments to physicians and hospitals and keep your thoughts and concerns in mind.

March 16, 2008 message to Mike Simpson, Mike Crapo, and to Larry Craig about listening to the veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars:

Please arrange for a congressional hearing where Iraq veterans may testify on their experiences in Iraq. We have heard from the generals and from the politicians. Now please listen to the people who have been fighting the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

February 25, 2008 message from Calvin Leman to Mike Simpson, Mike Crapo and to Larry Craig:

Please take Russ Feingold’s statement seriously and support the cause. I am saying what many of your constituents would say, if you asked them.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On Placing Fight Against al Qaeda First

“Those charged with ensuring we are ready to respond to the global terrorist threat, including Admiral Mullen and General Casey, have already told us the primary threat to the United States is in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and that current deployments to Iraq are unsustainable. There is no reason for us to wait another month or even another day to show the American people Congress is determined to focus on those who attacked us on 9/11, instead of draining our resources in Iraq. There should be broad, bipartisan support for the administration keeping Congress informed, in a classified setting if need be, about how it is achieving our top national security priority of defeating al Qaeda.”

S.2633
Title: A bill to provide for the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] (introduced 2/13/2008) Cosponsors (13)
Related Bills: H.R.2031, S.1077
Latest Major Action: 2/25/2008 Senate floor actions. Status: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure withdrawn in Senate.

Thank you for explaining your support for S.2633. I asked you to support S.2633 and you did. When S.2633 comes to a vote I ask that you vote yes.

Your description of your policy on Iraq is the policy of many of us. How to achieve that policy is the debate. Polls of Iraq people and of American people show much dislike of the war. The polls even show that some Iraq people approve of attacks on American soldiers.

I have sent you the reference to Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Hormats presentations to the Joint Economic Committee hearing on February 28, 2008, where they show that the cost of the Iraq war is closer to 3 trillion and not the 500 billion that is reported. With 37 million Americans living in poverty and double that number not much better off and with 47 million Americans with no health insurance, it is easy to see that the Iraq war is causing suffering in Iraq and is causing suffering in America. The cost of gasoline has doubled while this war is being fought, 5 years on March 19.

Emergency spending bills must stop and a clear presentation of the cost of the war, the suffering the war is causing to Iraq and to American people, and how we are going to stop this war needs to come from the Senate and the House to we the people.

February 12, 2008 Mike Crapo responds to my second response about S.2633 with the exact same answer he sent on February 11, 2008.

Thank you for your February 12, 2008 communication to me about the Iraq War. Your records should show that you sent me the exact response on February 11, 2008. Once again, my request to you is this:

Please send to me or post on your website: a clear presentation of the cost of the war, the suffering the war is causing to Iraq and to American people, and how we are going to stop this war. This explanation needs to come from the Senate and from the House to we the people.

March 4, 2008 Calvin Leman asks Mike Crapo, Larry Craig, and Mike Simpson to account for the complete cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

On March 2, I asked you to account for the complete cost of the war. Because you did not refer me to the Joint Economic Committee hearing on February 28, 2008, I send you this reference to that hearing.

“For a fraction of the cost of this war,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more.”

Mr. Hormats said Social Security and Medicare could have been put “on a more sustainable basis.” He cited the committee’s own calculations from last fall that showed that the money spent on the war each day is enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year, or make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants, or pay the annual salaries of nearly 11,000 additional border patrol agents or 14,000 more police officers.

Do you have further information on the cost of the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan?

Larry Craig responds to my question about the cost of the war, but does not answer my question.

March 11, 2008 Calvin Leman responds to Larry Craig's response to my question about the Iraq War Cost.

I did not ask you about the reasons or the proposed solutions to the Iraq War. That was your answer to my question about the cost of the war.

Here is my question: What is the cost of the Iraq War and of the Afghanistan War?

Larry Craig responds to my March 11, 2008 request about the cost of the war. The report Larry mentions was not attached. That report is here:

Dear Mr. Leman,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .

I have included a report from the Congressional Research Service that I hope you will find useful.

Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance.

Thank you for the reference to the Congressional Research Service report. It was not included as you said. I did find it on the Internet. That report does not include the expenses that Joseph Stiglitz Nobel Prize winning economist testified February 28, 2008 explained to the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer. Stiglitz estimates 3 trillion.

Dear Mr. Leman,

Thank you for contacting me.

I appreciate your continued concern regarding the cost of the war in Iraq . As you are aware, Congress continues to hold public hearings into different aspects of those costs-both financial and humanitarian-and I can assure you that I am following these matters closely. However, my position on this matter has not changed-while bringing our troops home remains my ultimate goal, I believe that it is Congress' responsibility to ensure that those troops are fully equipped and supported in the performance of their mission while they are in the field. While I am sorry that we disagree on this subject, I appreciate your continued input on the issue.

Thank you again for contacting me.

March 9, 2008 Calvin Leman asks Mike Simpson, Mike Crapo and Larry Craig about Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008:

Section 327 of that act: Prohibits any individual under the custody or control of an IC element, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.

Why did you vote No on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

In this democracy we the people insist that you vote in the best interest of we the people who elect you, the State of Idaho, the United States, and the world.

March 11, 2008 Mike Crapo responds to the question about treatment of terrorist detainees.

Thank you for explaining to me your idea of the treatment of terrorist detainees.

When the treatment of terrorist detainees is held secret, then we the people have no idea of what is going on. For you to say the treatment is lawful, what facts can you give us that show that it is? What facts show that any treatment gives information that is useful for anything?

April 7, 2008 Larry Craig responds to Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

Dear Mr. Leman,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill. I appreciated hearing from you and apologize for the delay in my response

As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate passed different versions of the Intelligence Authorization bill in 2007. During the conference meetings between the two chambers, a provision was added that would extend the current regulations governing military interrogation procedures to the CIA and other federal agencies.

The House approved the final version of this legislation in December, and it passed the Senate over my opposition by a vote of 51-45 on February 18, 2008. I voted against the conference report because it would preclude agencies from using legal interrogation tactics that are not specifically permitted within the military. Our intelligence community should not be subjected to the same restrictions that our military is because they perform two very different functions of national security. It should not be the job of Congress to tie the hands of our intelligence community, an action that would harm our ability to protect this nation.

On March 8, 2008, President Bush vetoed the conference report as a result of the CIA provision. While the House has since voted to override that veto, I will support upholding a veto until those provisions are removed from the final bill.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I may be of further assistance.

March 3, 2008, Calvin Leman asks Mike Simpson to support an independent Office of Congressional Ethics.

• Under the current rules, only a member of Congress can file an ethics complaint against another member.
• When former Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) and Bob Ney (R-OH) were arrested, convicted and sentenced for bribery, the House Ethics Committee was silent.
• When federal agents found $90,000 in cash in Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) freezer and he was indicted on corruption charges, no ethics complaints were filed.
• When the details of Rep. Rick Renzi's shady land deal were making headlines, the Ethics Committee waited until three days after the 35-count indictment to announce that it will look into Renzi's behavior.

· Last week, a handful of Representatives killed a planned vote on the resolution (House Resolution 895) to create an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. These members like the status quo of "anything goes" when it comes to personal and professional ethics.

· One member of Congress was even quoted as saying that she couldn't understand why an independent panel "would have more ethics, more intelligence, more judgment than we have."

Therefore we ask that you support the resolution to create an independent Office of Congressional Ethics.

The House is scheduled to vote this week on a resolution (H.Res. 895), which will institute an independent Office of Congressional Ethics with the power to file and investigate ethics complaints. The independent panel's reports will be made public, and new timelines and reporting requirements will stop the Ethics Committee from burying complaints for years without action.

February 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM Calvin Leman message to Mike Simpson, Larry Craig, and Mike Crapo.

When FISA was found to be inadequate, why did Congress not amend FISA to accomplish the safety that the Protect America Act does, without affecting our right to privacy, as the 4^th amendment does? If the question of telecom companies doing illegal searches while following government orders is an issue, then the government is just as liable for the illegal activity as the telecommunication business are.

Plenty of time to fix FISA since http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/ was started has passed. Now the Democrats (Reyes) and the Republicans (Boehner) are still politicizing FISA.

FISA needs the oversight of the court as it was. I ask that you vote to keep it that way by allowing the Protect America Act to expire. I found that some of the Senators in the Senate had financial support from the companies in question. And you have $2500 from telecom services and $11,999 from lobbyists.

February 12, 2008 at 12:12 PM Calvin Leman message to Larry Craig and to Mike Crapo.

I am asking you to take telecom immunity off the table. Pull the FISA reform bill and extend current law until President Bush leaves office. The U.S. Senate has more important work to do than figure out how to let AT&T get away with spying on Americans.

I see in the news that you have stated that you will not work for earmarks for private companies. I could not find this on your website.

February 27, 2008 Calvin Leman questions Larry Craig about his earmark message to me.

Thank you for sharing with me your ideas of earmarks. You said: Earmarks are "carved" out of existing spending authority.

That is exactly the problem. Earmarks are not fairly distributed. No competition for funding is in place. The good you say you do for Idaho, we do not question. We say the way it is done is unfair, out of date, and does not address the need of the taxpayers or the receivers of earmark funding.

The House and the Senate should make a law that replaces the earmark legislation, which you mention, with legislation that is transparent to the people. This legislation should describe a fair way of funding earmarks, taking into consideration the other funding that you mention: non discretionary funding or any other need.

Mike Simpson responds to Calvin Leman's question about earmarks attached to the Defense bill and to the Farm bill.

At http://earmarkreform.house.gov/ we see that John Boehner has said earmarks need to stop. You have sent me your approval of earmarks and you show your earmarks on your website. Now that John Boehner has taken this stand on earmarks, are you going to stop attaching earmarks to bills?

February 17, 2008 at 7:32 AM Calvin Leman message to Mike Crapo and to Larry Craig.

At http://earmarkreform.house.gov/ we see that John Boehner has said earmarks need to stop. Now that John Boehner has taken this stand on earmarks, are you going to stop attaching earmarks to bills?

March 8, 2008, Calvin Leman asks Mike Crapo, Larry Craig, and Mike Simpson about energy:

On your website I could not find your position or proposed solution to our energy problem. We see that the cost of gasoline has doubled in the last five or six years.

When legislation about energy, like the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 is being considered, would you please post your position on this legislation on your website? We ask that you post your position on all legislation at the early stages of the legislation, not the day before you vote, not the day after, and certainly not at all. We can find how you vote on the Internet without your help. We cannot find why you vote the way you do if you do not tell us. And we cannot help you with your decision if you do not tell us.

When we the people elect legislators, we expect them to make policy that is good for us, good for the nation, and good for the world. You cannot participate in democracy, if you do not know what we the people want you to do. We insist that the United States government is a Democracy.

April 9, 2008 Mike Crapo responds to my question about the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008

April 10, 2008 Larry Craig responds to my question about the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008

March 5, 2008, Calvin Leman asks Mike Crapo, Larry Craig, and Mike Simpson about energy:

March 3, 2008, Calvin Leman asks Mike Crapo to consider these ideas when working on the Energy bill.

Energy bill from the House: H.R. 5351: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008

Mike, because you are on the Senate Committee on Finance where the H.R. 5351: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 is now, please consider amending the Act with these ideas:

Hydrogen from aluminum-gallium catalyst: Professor Jerry Woodall calls his process "economically viable for producing hydrogen on-demand for vehicles, electrical generating stations and other applications."

Ocean current could drive thousands of underwater turbines, produce the energy of 10 nuclear plants and supply one-third of Florida's electricity. A small test turbine is expected to be installed within months.

What is your current analysis of Yucca Mountain and of nuclear-power electricity generation?

February 27, 2008 Calvin Leman asks Mike Simpson, Larry Craig, and Mike Crapo about alternative energy:

Ethanol may not be the answer for alternative energy. The Farm Bill and other government subsidies to the ethanol industry may be wrong. Producing hydrogen may be right. The government needs to analyze issues of alternative energy before giving money to these industries. Here are two studies that support these ideas:

The Associated Press: Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming

Here’s how the reaction works: the aluminum in the alloy reacts with water at room temperature to give off hydrogen, leaving behind aluminum oxide or alumina. The material can then be recharged several dozen times back into aluminum using a process that Woodall described as more “competitive with other energy technologies,” with a cost of just 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.

We are aware that these ideas may not be the answer to alternative energy. We are saying that the government may be wrong about alternative energy. We are asking the government to address alternative energy so that it helps the people.

March 10, 2008, Mike Crapo responds to question about ethanol being energy negative.

March 11, 2008, Calvin Leman asks Mike Crapo to consider the facts connected with my question about the use of ethanol.

When you interpret our question about ethanol to you as my opposition to use ethanol for fuel, you do not answer our question about ethanol for fuel. I did not say I was opposed to the use of ethanol. I asked you specifically to consider that ethanol is energy negative and to consider that the Farm Bill and other subsidies to promote the production of ethanol may be wrong. The use of switch grass does not change the energy-negative aspect of ethanol.

We also asked you specifically to consider production of hydrogen, using an aluminum-gallium catalyst. This is just one example of energy production that may be a better solution than promoting the production of ethanol, wind, or sun. Missing in the congress is evidence of quantitative analysis of the energy problem. The government subsidies to ethanol are an example of the lack of this quantitative analysis. The bipartisan votes on energy legislation is another example. The absence of sensible energy legislation is another example.

We are aware that Brazil produces ethanol and that the United States has an import tax on that ethanol. We are aware of the problems with the Farm Bill. We are aware of the lobby influence in connection with energy legislation.

We are asking you, the Senate and the House to show us that you are trying to solve our energy problem. What you have written to us does not show us that you are trying.

If you put your quantitative analysis of the nation's energy problem on your website, we can find it there.

February 27, 2008, Calvin Leman writes to Mike Simpson about Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008

We see that you voted No for Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 HR 3531 Why did you vote No? If you are concerned about singling out an industry with a higher tax, then Congress should find a way to be fair to the people by regulating the oil industry in another way. You could specify that the oil industry invest in alternative energy. In the inelastic market where oil is, the government must find a solution for the people. Democracy works that way.

Please vote yes on Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 or write legislation that is fair to the people and fair to the oil industry. We are aware of partisan bickering. We are asking you to stop.

February 28, 2008, Calvin Leman writes to Mike Simpson about Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008:

We see that you voted No on the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. We asked you to vote Yes for this legislation yesterday. Please explain to us why you voted No. To vote No with no explanation to your constituents is to ignore Democracy.

We ask that you write legislation that solves our energy problems or vote Yes for legislation that does. To vote No and do nothing to solve the energy problems is to ignore Democracy.

February 29, 2008, Calvin Leman writes to Mike Simpson about alternative energy research:

I share this with you, because you are on the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Committee

There you see that ethanol is energy negative, aluminum may make hydrogen, and other innovative research that addresses our energy problem. Get in touch if you want more information.

February 29, 2008, Calvin Leman writes to Larry Craig and to Mike Crapo about alternative energy:

We urge you to vote Yes for H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy
Conservation Tax Act of 2008.

We the people are struggling with the high costs of gasoline and home
heating oil. We are concerned about the threat of global warming.
Federal incentives that spur energy efficiency and promote renewable
energy are a solution to our energy problem. That all oil companies do
not lose their tax break, is hardly a reason to not support the bill. If
you have a better idea, then put it to a vote in an amendment.

By reviving the abandoned provisions of the 2007 energy bill, this
legislation offers the public investment necessary to start the
development and promotion of renewable energy sources and energy-efficient
technologies. In the short term, this investment will create jobs
producing renewable energy and technology. In the long term, new energy
sources and more efficient technology promise environmental and public
health benefits and promise to lower costs, for we the people. The bill
also funds the investments by repealing taxpayer subsidies to the oil
industry, which is has been making booming profits at the expense of we
the people, who elect you.

If you do not find this bill acceptable, then we ask that you write
legislation that does help us: we the people.

Sincerely,

Calvin Leman
208-756-4104

March 7, 2008 Calvin Leman message to Mike Simpson, Larry Craig, and Mike Crapo on FARC.

Colombian officials have defended their incursion, and the Colombian president has accused Venezuela of financing and supporting the FARC - a charged denied by Venezuela.

Our concern is the way our president has compartmentalized: those for us and those against us. The world is not that simple. It is not accurate to say that Columbia is for us and Venezuela is against us.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for a diplomatic solution, and warned against allowing the FARC to continue to operate. Rice is due to visit Chile and Brazil next week, but is not scheduled to meet with the presidents of Colombia, Ecuador or Venezuela. That is why we write to you today. Why is the Secretary of State not consulting with Columbia, Ecuador, and Venezuela?

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On Placing Fight Against al Qaeda First

The Associated Press: Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On Placing Fight Against al Qaeda First

The Associated Press: Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On Placing Fight Against al Qaeda First