Dear Mr. Schaefer,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the "Commission") and defense spending. I appreciate hearing from you.
On February 18, 2010, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13531, creating the Commission. President Obama appointed Senator Alan Simpson, formerly a Republican Senator from Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, formerly President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, to co-chair the Commission. Neither Senator Simpson nor Mr. Bowles required Senate confirmation in order to assume their positions. Should legislation be developed based on the recommendations of the Commission, I will be certain to keep your thoughts in mind.
You also contacted me regarding defense spending. We owe our military personnel and their families our support. I will continue to work to ensure that our troops and their families have the resources that they need, both to combat our adversaries and to provide for their families, during this challenging time.
President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have recommended several changes in defense spending to ensure that we are allocating sufficient funds for current military operations. It is important that the Department of Defense maintain the ability to deter and defeat the current and possible future threats to our country.
You may be interested to know that S. 1390, the Defense Authorization Act of 2010, passed the Senate on July 23, 2009. Members of the House and Senate are meeting to draft a final version of this bill. I was pleased to be a cosponsor of an amendment to S. 1390, offered by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), to strike $1.75 billion in funding for F-22 aircraft procurement by the U.S. Air Force. The Senate's passage of this amendment is a victory for the Armed Forces and American taxpayers. Now defense dollars can be freed up to address real world threats and fill gaps in our defense capabilities.
I have been a strong advocate for better oversight of our defense and military spending. Recently, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution to set aside funds in the defense budget to prevent waste, fraud and abuse in defense spending. I was pleased that the Senate Budget committee adopted my amendment. This amendment supports the efforts of the Senate Armed Services Committee and others to reform our acquisition process, through such efforts as increased competition among contractors, testing and prototyping, and oversight of weapons development. In addition to the ongoing efforts to reform the acquisition process, this amendment could support further auditing and investigations. This amendment will help increase critical oversight activities over the record levels of defense spending.
Thank you again for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Holding BP accountable Senator Kohl-WI
Dear Mr. Schaefer:
Like you, I have been closely following the oil spill at BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Although the oil well has finally been capped and the leak stopped, nearly 5 million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf of Mexico , making this the worst accidental oil spill ever. This tragic accident caused the deaths of eleven workers aboard the rig and has wreaked environmental and economic devastation throughout the Gulf region.
Congress and the administration have already begun investigating the causes of this catastrophe, mitigating damage from the remaining oil slick, and strengthening safety enforcement to prevent similar spills from happening in the future.
Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are monitoring the damage to coastlines, fisheries, and wildlife, as well as studying the safety of chemical dispersants used to break up the oil.
There is no doubt that BP and its partners are financially liable for this incident. Current law states that an oil company is responsible for all oil spill removal costs, plus up to $75 million for damages associated with the spill, such as to natural resources and property, as well as economic losses.
However, the damage caused by this spill has already far exceeded $75 million. Therefore, Congress is considering legislation that would raise - or entirely remove - the liability cap and increase the $1 billion per incident cap on the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Recently, I joined my Senate colleagues in writing to BP calling on the company to create a $20 billion account - which an independent trustee will administer - to pay for the cleanup and for the Gulf region's economic losses. I am pleased that BP has set up such a fund. However, as damage to the region continues to be assessed, even $20 billion may not be enough. You can be sure that we will hold BP and its partners responsible for paying the full costs of the damage they have caused.
I will work with my colleagues to make sure that taxpayers do not foot the bill for this mess. Additionally, we will work to keep accidents like this from happening in the future. As these efforts move forward, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind and will reflect on them should legislation on offshore drilling come before the Senate. Thank you very much for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Herb Kohl
United States Senator
Like you, I have been closely following the oil spill at BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Although the oil well has finally been capped and the leak stopped, nearly 5 million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf of Mexico , making this the worst accidental oil spill ever. This tragic accident caused the deaths of eleven workers aboard the rig and has wreaked environmental and economic devastation throughout the Gulf region.
Congress and the administration have already begun investigating the causes of this catastrophe, mitigating damage from the remaining oil slick, and strengthening safety enforcement to prevent similar spills from happening in the future.
Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are monitoring the damage to coastlines, fisheries, and wildlife, as well as studying the safety of chemical dispersants used to break up the oil.
There is no doubt that BP and its partners are financially liable for this incident. Current law states that an oil company is responsible for all oil spill removal costs, plus up to $75 million for damages associated with the spill, such as to natural resources and property, as well as economic losses.
However, the damage caused by this spill has already far exceeded $75 million. Therefore, Congress is considering legislation that would raise - or entirely remove - the liability cap and increase the $1 billion per incident cap on the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Recently, I joined my Senate colleagues in writing to BP calling on the company to create a $20 billion account - which an independent trustee will administer - to pay for the cleanup and for the Gulf region's economic losses. I am pleased that BP has set up such a fund. However, as damage to the region continues to be assessed, even $20 billion may not be enough. You can be sure that we will hold BP and its partners responsible for paying the full costs of the damage they have caused.
I will work with my colleagues to make sure that taxpayers do not foot the bill for this mess. Additionally, we will work to keep accidents like this from happening in the future. As these efforts move forward, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind and will reflect on them should legislation on offshore drilling come before the Senate. Thank you very much for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Herb Kohl
United States Senator
Monday, September 20, 2010
Letter from Feingold Military Comission vs Federal Court
Dear Mr. Schaefer,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the trial of terrorism suspects in federal court. I appreciate hearing from you.
The White House is currently considering whether to try five Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of conspiring to commit the September 11 attacks in federal criminal court or by military commission. I believe we must bring these men to justice and believe that our federal court system is more than capable of securely, effectively and fairly trying alleged terrorists. Federal courts have been used successfully for years to prosecute terrorists, including Zacarias Moussaoui for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks, Richard Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber," and Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing.
It is important to note that only a handful of convictions have ever been achieved in the military commissions process, and two of the people convicted have since been released to their home countries. While exact figures of how many people have been convicted in the federal court system are harder to pin down, the Bush administration said in 2008 that since 2001 it achieved 319 convictions or guilty pleas in terrorism or terrorism-related cases in the federal court system. I am concerned that using the comparatively untested military commission process would be riskier than prosecuting these individuals in our federal courts.
Thank you again for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator
Thank you for contacting me regarding the trial of terrorism suspects in federal court. I appreciate hearing from you.
The White House is currently considering whether to try five Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of conspiring to commit the September 11 attacks in federal criminal court or by military commission. I believe we must bring these men to justice and believe that our federal court system is more than capable of securely, effectively and fairly trying alleged terrorists. Federal courts have been used successfully for years to prosecute terrorists, including Zacarias Moussaoui for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks, Richard Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber," and Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing.
It is important to note that only a handful of convictions have ever been achieved in the military commissions process, and two of the people convicted have since been released to their home countries. While exact figures of how many people have been convicted in the federal court system are harder to pin down, the Bush administration said in 2008 that since 2001 it achieved 319 convictions or guilty pleas in terrorism or terrorism-related cases in the federal court system. I am concerned that using the comparatively untested military commission process would be riskier than prosecuting these individuals in our federal courts.
Thank you again for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Good Friday Homily-2006
Today we come in silence and leave in silence to commemorate the death of Jesus. We believe that Jesus lived. We believe Jesus died nailed to a cross. We believe that Jesus rose from the dead and lives with us today. We remember that the Body of Christ was nailed to an instrument of torture, an instrument of capital punishment, an instrument of death. We remember that Jesus was an innocent man, the Son of God, who came into human history, as a human being with all the feelings that we have. We believe that he came not only to forgive sins but to also show us the proper way to live our lives so we can avoid sin in the first place. We believe that the Romans actually nailed Jesus to the cross. Yet we also believe that all of our sins today nail the Body of Christ to the cross. Our sins contribute tot he crucifixion of Jesus- to the crucifixion of The Body of Christ. How can this be? Christ died once and for all. He has risen to everlasting life. How do we nail the Body of Christ to the cross today?
As Christian believers we believe that the relationships we have with one another and with all human beings can be referred to as the Body of Christ. When we act sinfully we actually damage our relationships with one another. We damage the Body of Christ. When we sin and damage our relationships with God and others we nail the Body of Christ to the cross.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we start and prolong unjust wars as those killed and those doing the killing are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we torture and when we condone the torture of human beings for any reason as the tortured are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we execute prisoners as both the innocent and the guilty are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we do not provide health care to all as all of our brothers and sisters are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we treat others-our friends and enemies with disrespect and indifference as our friends and enemies are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we do not provide just wages for our workers as workers are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we refuse to feed the hungry as the hungry are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we (you fill in the blank) because we are all the Body of Christ.
Yes, Jesus died once and for all of us, yet we continue to nail the Body of Christ to the cross when we sin against God and our brothers and sisters, because we are all brothers and sisters in Christ-we are the Body of Christ.
We came here in silence today; we leave again today in silence. How can we remain silent when we see our brothers and sisters, the Body of Christ, being nailed to the cross?
As Christian believers we believe that the relationships we have with one another and with all human beings can be referred to as the Body of Christ. When we act sinfully we actually damage our relationships with one another. We damage the Body of Christ. When we sin and damage our relationships with God and others we nail the Body of Christ to the cross.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we start and prolong unjust wars as those killed and those doing the killing are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we torture and when we condone the torture of human beings for any reason as the tortured are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we execute prisoners as both the innocent and the guilty are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we do not provide health care to all as all of our brothers and sisters are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we treat others-our friends and enemies with disrespect and indifference as our friends and enemies are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we do not provide just wages for our workers as workers are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we refuse to feed the hungry as the hungry are the Body of Christ.
We nail Jesus to the cross when we (you fill in the blank) because we are all the Body of Christ.
Yes, Jesus died once and for all of us, yet we continue to nail the Body of Christ to the cross when we sin against God and our brothers and sisters, because we are all brothers and sisters in Christ-we are the Body of Christ.
We came here in silence today; we leave again today in silence. How can we remain silent when we see our brothers and sisters, the Body of Christ, being nailed to the cross?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Feingold Response-St Croix River Bridge
Dear Mr. Schaefer,
Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to the construction of a new bridge across the St. Croix River on State Highway 36 near Stillwater, Minnesota. I appreciate hearing from you.
The Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Transportation (DOT) have created the St. Croix River Crossing Project. The primary goal of the project is to construct a new bridge to connect Washington County, Minnesota, and St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The new bridge would accommodate vehicular traffic, allowing the historic Stillwater Lift Bridge to be utilized by bicycle and pedestrian traffic only. The cost of the project is estimated at $670 million, with Wisconsin and Minnesota each contributing.
On March 11, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis issued an opinion stating that construction plans for the proposed new bridge violate the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The National Park Service (NPS) had previously given approval to the project. The St. Croix River was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1964 due to the efforts of former Wisconsin senator Gaylord Nelson. This designation prevents actions that would harm the recreational and scenic value of the river. The NPS is required to issue a new evaluation that addresses the court's concerns. The project has been put on hold pending the NPS evaluation.
Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to the construction of a new bridge across the St. Croix River on State Highway 36 near Stillwater, Minnesota. I appreciate hearing from you.
The Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Transportation (DOT) have created the St. Croix River Crossing Project. The primary goal of the project is to construct a new bridge to connect Washington County, Minnesota, and St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The new bridge would accommodate vehicular traffic, allowing the historic Stillwater Lift Bridge to be utilized by bicycle and pedestrian traffic only. The cost of the project is estimated at $670 million, with Wisconsin and Minnesota each contributing.
On March 11, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis issued an opinion stating that construction plans for the proposed new bridge violate the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The National Park Service (NPS) had previously given approval to the project. The St. Croix River was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1964 due to the efforts of former Wisconsin senator Gaylord Nelson. This designation prevents actions that would harm the recreational and scenic value of the river. The NPS is required to issue a new evaluation that addresses the court's concerns. The project has been put on hold pending the NPS evaluation.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Dad Story: Buck's Telephone
Dad's best man at his wedding was a guy named Frank "Buck" Brown. Buck was a leather-skinned man who lost an arm in a farm accident. He lived in an old run down house that seemed to me as a lonely place. Dad would check in on Buck every now and again as his health wasn't the best. When I think of Buck I see his old gray, weather-beaten, paint-deprived house and the following story that Dad told more than once about Buck.
One day Buck was talking on the phone to an operator. Somehow Buck and the operator were not getting along well that day. As Dad tells it, "Buck verbally roughed-up the operator." Unless Buck apologized to the operator the phone company was going to remove the phone and phone service from him. Those were the days when the phone company owned the phone. Well Buck was not about to apologize. So out to Buck's house came the phone company representatives to remove Buck's phone and cut off his service. Buck allowed the phone guys to come into his house to get the phone. One of the phone guys told Buck, "If you call the operator and apologize we will allow you to keep the phone." Buck said, "Okay." So, the phone guy called the operator and made sure that the correct operator was on the line before handing the phone to Buck.
Buck took the phone in hand and asked the operator, "Is this the woman I roughed-up last week?" After making sure he was about to apologize to the right operator Buck said, "Get your ass ready! They are bringing in the phone!"
One day Buck was talking on the phone to an operator. Somehow Buck and the operator were not getting along well that day. As Dad tells it, "Buck verbally roughed-up the operator." Unless Buck apologized to the operator the phone company was going to remove the phone and phone service from him. Those were the days when the phone company owned the phone. Well Buck was not about to apologize. So out to Buck's house came the phone company representatives to remove Buck's phone and cut off his service. Buck allowed the phone guys to come into his house to get the phone. One of the phone guys told Buck, "If you call the operator and apologize we will allow you to keep the phone." Buck said, "Okay." So, the phone guy called the operator and made sure that the correct operator was on the line before handing the phone to Buck.
Buck took the phone in hand and asked the operator, "Is this the woman I roughed-up last week?" After making sure he was about to apologize to the right operator Buck said, "Get your ass ready! They are bringing in the phone!"
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Recent Feingold letter on Afghanistan
Dear Mr. Schaefer,
Thank you for contacting me regarding Afghanistan and the recent operations in the district of Marjah. I strongly support our men and women in the military serving in Afghanistan and I am deeply grateful for their service and their sacrifice.
Eight years ago, I voted in favor of the authorization to use military force against those who planned and carried out the horrific terrorist attacks on our nation on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, our military involvement in Iraq distracted us from our mission in Afghanistan and the global threat posed by al Qaeda, and the situation in the region has deteriorated in recent years.
While President Obama appreciates the global threat posed by al Qaeda and the importance of addressing its current safe haven in Pakistan, I am concerned that sending more troops to Afghanistan at this point may not help, and could even undermine, our efforts to address that threat. I appreciate General McChrystal's focus on protecting the Afghan population, but continuing to send more troops to Afghanistan could inflame civilian resentment and provoke militancy in the region without significantly contributing to stability. And it could further destabilize Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country where al Qaeda has a safe haven.
After eight years of war in Afghanistan, we need to acknowledge the serious risks of continuing our massive, open-ended military commitment in that country, and instead pursue a comprehensive, sustainable strategy to combat al Qaeda's global network. That is why on April 14, 2010, I introduced S. 3197, a bill that would require President Obama to establish a flexible timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Such a strategy would bolster our national security by undercutting the perception of the U.S. as an occupying force in the region, while at the same time removing a tremendous strain on our troops and our economy.
I have attached my statement for the record regarding this legislation and an op-ed on the need for a comprehensive national security strategy. For additional information on this issue, you can find video recordings of Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings at http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/, and I encourage you to visit my website for a more detailed account of my work on Afghanistan and Pakistan at http://www.feingold.senate.gov/afghanistanpakistan.html
Thank you again for contacting me. If you would like to discuss your comments further, please contact Brian Chelcun in my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-5323. For more information about my work on behalf of Wisconsin, you can subscribe to my monthly e-newsletter by visiting http://feingold.senate.gov/newsletter.cfm. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Thank you for contacting me regarding Afghanistan and the recent operations in the district of Marjah. I strongly support our men and women in the military serving in Afghanistan and I am deeply grateful for their service and their sacrifice.
Eight years ago, I voted in favor of the authorization to use military force against those who planned and carried out the horrific terrorist attacks on our nation on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, our military involvement in Iraq distracted us from our mission in Afghanistan and the global threat posed by al Qaeda, and the situation in the region has deteriorated in recent years.
While President Obama appreciates the global threat posed by al Qaeda and the importance of addressing its current safe haven in Pakistan, I am concerned that sending more troops to Afghanistan at this point may not help, and could even undermine, our efforts to address that threat. I appreciate General McChrystal's focus on protecting the Afghan population, but continuing to send more troops to Afghanistan could inflame civilian resentment and provoke militancy in the region without significantly contributing to stability. And it could further destabilize Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country where al Qaeda has a safe haven.
After eight years of war in Afghanistan, we need to acknowledge the serious risks of continuing our massive, open-ended military commitment in that country, and instead pursue a comprehensive, sustainable strategy to combat al Qaeda's global network. That is why on April 14, 2010, I introduced S. 3197, a bill that would require President Obama to establish a flexible timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Such a strategy would bolster our national security by undercutting the perception of the U.S. as an occupying force in the region, while at the same time removing a tremendous strain on our troops and our economy.
I have attached my statement for the record regarding this legislation and an op-ed on the need for a comprehensive national security strategy. For additional information on this issue, you can find video recordings of Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings at http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/, and I encourage you to visit my website for a more detailed account of my work on Afghanistan and Pakistan at http://www.feingold.senate.gov/afghanistanpakistan.html
Thank you again for contacting me. If you would like to discuss your comments further, please contact Brian Chelcun in my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-5323. For more information about my work on behalf of Wisconsin, you can subscribe to my monthly e-newsletter by visiting http://feingold.senate.gov/newsletter.cfm. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)