and if they do,hen they are going to say this whole fabric -- theccain-feingold law was a lobby that plugged a loophole. taught loopholes as mccain said there was soft money was a term tt can and to vote because it was a way to get around the limits on spending. you could give it to a party. the congress is always trying to comeack and plug the loopholes, but it'slways been with the understanding that some types of money can be restricted, and one of the types of money was corporate money. that congress has understood that it can limit or restrict rporate money in politics and as i say that is at least what is potentially at issue in this case. >> host: of ur city was just on the air. >> caller: i have a follow-up question. would you agree the issue here for the court would be number one, would define a corporation? >> host: define a corporation. >> guest: corporation is integration of state law elena kagen tried to make that point. you don't walk on the street and on into a corporation or talk to a corporation on the street. it is a legal entity whose jo is to make money. she was si

he is usually the swing vote but he is at the center and both dealing with mccain-feingold. so the question is alito and roberts will probably come out in favor free speech but just haven't gone that far yet to want what do we learn about justice sotomayor during the oral argument if you. >> i think we learned that she is going to be about what people expected. she has always been one who has wanted to stick closely to precedent which is what people talk about, and here the precedent is for restricting speech. so she seem to be willing to hold onto that doing the campaign-finance laws are one of the great offenses against the constitution and with any luck we will get them to throw these precedents. >> we come back, a new hampshire judge orders a homeschooled girl to attend the local public school setting the rigidity of her christian faith. the details are next. natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel, yet a lot of natural gas has impurities like co2 in it. controlled freeze zone is a new technology... being developed by exxonmobil... to remove the co2 from the natural gas...

russ feingold.ifically, i ask that you identify these individuals' roles and responsibilities and provide the judgments of our legal advisors as to whether and how these positions are consistent with the appointments clause." rut-ro, george. then -- i had a cupcake before i went on the air. i'm wired with sugar. then you had what's her name. there she is, i love good old what's her name. feinstein. she said she thinks it a problem when the white house appoints someone to a czar position that is clearly not defined. i don't know what a car czar does, for example, she said. hmm. looks like the crazy man and you not so crazy. wait until you hear the latest on just what has happened in the last 24 hours on acorn. progress, america, you're making it! >> bring in byron york. hello, byron. how are you? >> hi, glenn. good to be here. glenn: good. are you just saying that or do you really mean it? >> i actually do mean it. it is a very newsy day. glenn: it s there is so much happening with acorn today but be

that was what was shown in the long record in the mccain- feingold litigation. members of congress said corporate money is affecting directly amendments, what is voted on, the final language of legislation that has a disproportionate, corrupting influence on what is happening in congress. >> i asked senator mccain... >> that's the worry. >> ...when i took his deposition in that case, to give me an example of a vote that was changed because of contributions or independent expenditures, and he did not and could not do that. >> senator mccain is a very polite man who respects his colleagues, and if you go back and look at the record, there were a number of affidavits from former members. interestingly, it's the former members in this who are the truth tellers. they're always the ones who say, "let me tell you what happened when i was there." and why is that? because they don't have to deal with their colleagues. they're not up before the voters and admitting something terrible. so, they can say, "this is what i really saw." and i think that's the other piece of thi

>> yes, that is just what just happened and, frankly, i think senator mccain and senator feingold haveson to be worried because it did sound from extraordinary oral arguments that we just heard in the u.s. supreme court that the court is on the verge of making a huge change in the laws governing where the money comes from in american ploks. here is the issue. the law has long banned corporations and unions from making contributions to candidates. the issue today was what about the ban on corporations and yoons buying ads to support candidates? this issue came from the backers of something called hillary, the movie, a 90-minute documentary harshly critical of hillary clinton that they wanted to run last winter and spring when she was on the verge of looking like she might win the democratic nomination. the federal government said no, you can't run that, that is an ad attacking a candidate and you're a corporation, because, number one, you're a nonprofit corporation and, number two, you've taken some corporate money, so you can't run that ad because the law bans corporations from running

maybe it has gotten out of control. >> the strong impression i am left with is that senator feingold'sgard should be decoupled from the hysteria that has bloomed over this issue. i believe what senator feingold is attempting to do here is properly define terms, make sure that this issue adheres closely to the constitutional mandate and give the obama administration simply an opportunity to say who these people are and what legal authority they believe provide to their placement in the white house. >> liz, what's wrong with that? are you stoking this hysteria? >> i actually think what senator feingold is doing and what he's trying to get information about is very important. i would be curious to learn more about the legal basis that the white house believes exists for appointing these guys. and also, frankly, about how many there are and what they do. certainly, some czarists have very large policy mandates and i think it would be interesting to learn about what that all encompasses. ultimately oversight is an issue and we all should be concerned about checks and balances in government,

>> bob or fred. >> well, there are two parts to it mccain-feingold.rst part is a ban on soft money going for political parties. and that has not been touched. although jim has presently in court trying to touch it. [applause] >> more than just touch it. >> i think wisconsin right to life substantially cut back on the eltioneering communications revisions, but did not eliminate them. i think they still have forced. i think they still will be treated seriously by corporations and labor unions. i think one has to keep in mind here in tes of what maryust said, that when you switch from issues to direct campaign activity, corporations and labor unions are being asked to speak through their pac is. there being told not to speak. they're being told that you need to use money, voluntarily given by individuals for the purpose in order to speak directly and campaigns. and i continueo believe that there is going to be a major difference if all of us on a constitutional right is established to directly, to make expenditures to directly to defeat candidates in ter

greta: all right, on another note, senator feingold. the senator from wisconsin, the liberal democrat, firing off a letter to the president. >> i think there is opposition out to czars, even among democrats. this is the kind of issue that cuts across party lines because democrats feel this is a run around their constitutional authority. you are supposed to have checks and balances when it comes to presidential appointments, and when you appoint a czar, they do not have to sit there for a hearing and get question. you just install them unilaterally, and that is probably what you'll have people like van jones, who would not have survived the scrutiny of a public hearing because he was calling himself a communist and calling republicans a vulgar name. if that would have come out in a hearing. he was just installed unilaterally. they did not have to worry about the oversight. greta: we have a pretty good idea about what most of these bizarre is due, but what do they all do? >> well, there are dozens of them -- most of these czars do. their

the republican national committee is looking to mccain- feingold-of of political parties. to permit political parties to collapse soft money. if you look at the rnc as a whole, it is positioning itself, and i think its position each year is quite clear. >> would you respond to that? >> i would respond not by agreeing. the rnc has adopted a resolution i sponsored, i am a member, putting them in favor of deregulation, and in particular, got them off their two-year detour where they were supporting the adoption of further restrictions on 527. so there are definitely in favor, as a matter of policy, in favor of the first amendment, and that has to be juxtaposed with the dnc which is in favor of the status quo. >> i just have one more question before i open it up. we're planning to open it up first to reporters, anybody who wants to oust the question of the panelists. but just in the context of the supreme court broadening these cases so dramatically with the june order, we saw in another case of last term, the voting rights act case, were justices at one point seemed to be loo

john mccain and russ feingold are absolutely right. we are going back to a time before teddy roosevelt where we had united states senators -- from pennsylvania, massachusetts, senators from the u.s. steel, from sinclair oil. this is a terrifying prospect. >> what do we have now? >> exactly. >> individual contributions. >> $1 billion was spent in the last campaign. look, we have a first amendment. once we have a congress regulating political speech, you are curtailing the most precious assets in america. if you have disclosure, as colby said, that is what you need. open honesty and an open playing field. >> 9/11 revisited. ground zero in new york. police, firefighters, and police officers on the eighth anniversary of the attacks on 9/11. september 11, 2001, the world trade center attack, pentagon attack. the weather was clear, crisp, and then at 8:46 a.m., the nation changed, colby, and we haven't recovered. >> we will not recover. we changed fundamentally because we were attacked in a way we never anticipated. now where we are is the p

last week, senator feingold introduced legislation that amongst other things repeals title late of fisa which provided civil liberty liability, excuse me, protections to telecommunication carriers who assisted the government following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a provision president obama voted for. to your knowledge, does the administration supports this proposal? >> congressman roomy, the administration has taken no official position on this or any other position on senator feingold's bill as you noted in your question the president did vote for the fisa's amendment as a senator and doj defended the provision in litigation. without forecasting an offical opposition, as the president has suggested, it may be more productive to look forward to meet the challenge is still before us than to reopen debate resolved in the past. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. sherman. i think this issue -- >> using microphones, please. >> i think this issue is clearly draws a distinction between the two basic philosophies that the supre

senator feingold, and senator frank and cobo char and senator cardin, senator feingold. >> let me begin, director, good to see you, and i'd like to associate myself with the senator's comments about violent crime in wisconsin, the overall trend of violent crime is being -- decreasing is heartening but i urge you to continue to work closely with the state and local law enforcement on these issues. director, as to the patriot act, 3 provisions of the act expire as we know at e the end of the year and critical information about their implementation has not been made public, information that i think would have a significant impact on the debate. during the debate on the protect america act in the fisa amendment act in '07-'08 i felt critical legal and factual information remained unknown to the public and members of congress, certainly relevant to the debate and might have made a difference in the way some people voted. and during the last patriot act reauthorization debate in '05 a great deal of implementation information remained classified and this time around we have to try to find a wa

i hope they will respond to senator collins letter, to senator feingold's request. thank you very much. and to the other admonitions. we call on the administration to answer the questions posed by senator collins, senator feingold and the others that were specifically outlined. who are these czars? what is their role? what is their responsibility? how were they vetted? what limitations are on their positions to make sure that they don't encroach on the legitimate statutory responsibility of other executive branch officials? and whether they will agree to a reasonable request to appear before or provide information to congress. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: madam president, i'm informed that there's 12 minutes left on the democratic side for morning business. i note that there is no one on the floor. i would yield back that time. the presiding officer: the time is yielded back. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proce

setor feingold. -- before, and askour help for being here. would likeo thank the aian for holding this and i am pleased we have a timetable for ending involvement and the war in iraq and while i am concerned that the redloyment is not being done as promptly as it should be this step will allow us to refocus on the global threat posed by al qaeda. i remain convinced as foreign occupations are usuahly not a good strategy for combating a global terrorist network we need to fild ways to relentlessly pursue al qaeda while simultaneously developing long-term parerships with legitimate lal actors to the koza with through efforts that do not involve a massive military footprint. and now as we transition out of iraq is extremely important we focus on making this orderly withdrawal doing everything we can through dipmatic means to help promote political reconciliation needed to bring lasting peac to iraq. as to some questions, ambassador, how do the iraqi people feel about a redeployment u.s. troops by the end of 2011 a required by the bilateral@@ agre

. >> they say the problem of congressional oversight, the senator from wyoming, russ feingold actually wrote a letter to the president saying you show us exactly how this satisfies the appointment clause of the constitution. it is unconstitutional to make willy-nilly appointments of people like carol bounder. >> you're right. it is very sad in a government that we employ millions of people that they still have to bring in another layer of bureaucracy to deal with this. >> kneel, you want to chime in. >> again, do you really want somebody who is going to be running a big piece of government who is politically connect enough to get through all of congress? we elected president obama to run are the country r let him run are the country and pick who he wants. let these people fail or succeed. >> we don't know again what kind of lobbying money is being put behind any czar behind any president. >> they can pick anyone they want. he doesn't even have to say who it is. we saw that in the last administration. >> then don't pay them! >> these are sheeper agents from some foreign governments. thi

it may come as no surprise that liberals like wisconsin senator russ field -- russ feingold are questioning forces should be substantially reduced. >> paul: we're back. joining the panel "wall street journal" editor and former affair columnist. brett how serious is this revolt against the afghanistan policy of the administration? left and right. >> it is especially serious. you have george will looking like john kerry the man for the war before he was against it. consistency matters. when you go into a war it is important you support it through difficult times. two years ago we were in the exact same place in iraq. had you a new general. a new strategy and mounting calls from high profile pundits and congressmen saying, this isn't going to work we need to get out the experience will tell us the u.s. can do -- >> paul: will's argument is we as americans don't do nation-building well, which is a powerful point. certainly not in the last decade from kosovo to iraq or afghanistan. second, we have achieve strategic goals from offshore. we don't need to be on the ground we can take care of al-qae

i am amazed that we're coming up on the third mccain-feingold case. i hope the reason they wanted to be argued again was to take a broader look at it and start down more of it. i think that is what they're looking at. i hope that is what they are looking at. unions can put their money into campaigns. corporations can put their money into campaigns. guys like george soros pour millions of dollars into the campaign finance systems. i feel that if they do look at this hard, they will strike down more of it than people thought the originally void. guest: i think you're quite right. i think they will take a look at it to do something broader. my comment about being assaulted was to draw this distinction. there is the difference between an uninvited ad and a video on demand program. that does strike me as being different in kind. if i care enough to learn about "hillary: the movie,"that is a little bit different from watching a football game and getting political advertising it is a distinction that the supreme court might increase. host: someone has tweete

we were expecting a decision on whether the mcca-feingold act provision on brocast of ad that advocatehe election or feat of a candidatepplied to tis paicular movie in june. and june, instd, the court issu the order for-- a number of-- well, recent years, a number justices ha voiced skepticism about campaign finance lawsnd their constituonality under th first amendment. and so the court, i think responding to some of those justices' concerns,ssued the order, asking the parties in thi case to address whether it should overrule in whole or in part twokey precedents, one from 1990 and another from 2003 that essentially bann the use of general tasury funds by corporatns and unions in campaignpending. >> ifill: so it potentially could roll bacall the fund-raising limitput in place over the years. well, it as relas to corpore and union expenditures. and i'm talking herebout indirect speing. there are limits on direct contributions to cdidates anthey would still stand, but this is just using geral treasury funds. right now, the law allows corporations and uonso speain campaigns throu politica

. >> senatorohn mccain and russ feingold, co-sponsors ofhe law that regulates financing of political campaigns,t begins with last ye's movie abou hillary clton for this by citizensnited time for release during the 20 primary. therwas some corporate money volved. is that why it is at the supreme court? >> that is actly why. it wt up to the supreme court. this is the st interesting aspect. it went up on a relative minor point, to see this group had an exceptionnder the law. instea after words, they hed arguments in march at ju ar't -- justices ordered a re-argumentn a huge question ofhether congress could, as it had for a centurynd essentially, thaa corporate -- ban thcorporate and union spending in election that you have do it through dividual contributions, not through the corporatmoney, the union, general treasy fund. looked very much that there may be five juices to say place. >> tn what happens? >> corporaons and unions are already contributi tothey do it through pacs, their employees give it. i a big fan -- advocate of disclore. let us know exactly where the money is coming fr. a

>> there are two parts to mccain-feingold. the first part is a ban on soft money going to political parties. that is not been touched. jim is presently in court trying to touch it. [laughter] i think wisconsin right to life substantially cut back on the communication provisions but did not eliminate them. i think they still have force. i think they still will be treated seriously by corporations and labour unions. i think one has to keep in mind here in terms of what larry just said that when you switch from issues to direct campaign activity, corporations and labour unions are being asked to speak through their tax. they are not being told not to speak -- to speak through their pacs. they are being told that you need to use money voluntarily given by individuals for this purpose in order to speak directly in campaigns. i continue to believe that there is going to be a major difference if all of a sudden a constitutional right is the established -- is established to make expenditures to directly elect or defeat candidates, in

i understand the senator mccain and russ feingold for listening to the-- and afterwards they approached reporters in the supreme court plaza. >> it is apparent to me that the questioning shows a strong disconnect, a great disconnect between what the justices and the reality of politics when corporate and union leaders were able to call up, were able to take calls from powful committee chairmen and who would say, i want a check in six figures in soft money and by the way your legislation is up before my committee. we saw the corruption of soft money. resod in the telecommunications reform act. we syeth in other legislative activity. as the influence of special-interest and corporate and union money in wng

democratic senator russ feingold of wisconsin is one of the voices against the increase. capitol hill. senator, it's great to see you. as we know, general stanley mcchrystal may, in fact, ask the president for more troops on the ground in afghanistan. quoting from you, you said that our military presence there is driving our enemies together and may well be counterproductive. if the president asks for more troops, will you back him? >> well, regrettably, i'm not going to be able to unless some different arguments are made, because i wasn't even persuaded that it was the right move earlier this year to increase the troops to 21,000 more than we had when the bush administration ended. we had 30,000 troops there at the end of 2008. my understanding is that it's now over 60,000 and growing. and the question is, what exactly are we accomplishing by building up troops? i agree with the president's policy that we ought to integrate the policy of pakistan and afghanistan. the people that attacked us, though, the leaders are in pakistan. so i'm not at all sure this isn't counterpr

in a letter to the president this week, democratic senator russ feingold said the issue came up repeatedly in his town halls. quote "i respectfully urge you to disclose as much information as you can about these policy advisors and czars. " late today, the p president put on his website that it was calling out those who would make an issue of it, labeling some of them ridiculous, and hypocritical. in washington, shannon bream, fox news. bret: republican party hopes in colorado may soon be pinned on a relatively fresh face. 33-year-old gubernatorial candidate josh henry says the g.o.p. has a credibility problem and needs to get back to its roots. correspondent alicia acoon that looks at his path to the statehouse. >> we have to own up to our fair share of the mess. >> republican josh henry, colorado senate minority leader wants to unseat governor bill ritter, his strategy, calling out all who are responsible for economic instability. henry's list is not short. >> but there is an awakening that is taking place in the party, people who are clearly frustrated with the democrats but just as fru

senator feingold, senator schumer. senator feingold? >> let me begin. director, nice to see you again. i would like to first address about the violent crime in wisconsin, the overall trend of violent crime is being decreasing is, of course, heartening, but i urge you to continue to work closely with state and local law enforcement on these issues. director, as to the patriot act, three provisions of the patriot act expires, we know, at the end of year. critical information about their implementation has not been made public. information that i think would have a significant impact on the debate. during the debate on the protect america act in the fisa act of 2007 and 2008 i felt a critical legal and factual information unnamed to the public and information to congress, information critical to the debate might have made a difference in the way some people voted. during the last patriot act reauthorization debate, a great deal of information remained classified and this time around we have to try to have an open and honest debate about the nature of these

senator chris dodd, wes feingold, and others. they are introducing this legislation.y are looking to see if their customers and rights were violated. we will let you know. and up next, the best of the rest. get that machine out. an f bomb that dropped on tv. he didn't prove do not look at me. i did not do it. -- i did not do it. do not look at me. and hugo chavez. speaking of girlfriends, the most famous polar bear and the world has a new girlfriend. greta: you have seen our top story, but here is the best of the rest. you never know what is going to happen on light t d -- live tv. a new person on "saturday night live" said this. >> who is your first guest? >> it is to always is. my best friend, donna. -- who will always is. >> get a bayberry candle. >> you know what? you just threw an ashtray at my head. you know what? [beep] >> you're in my heart. you are in my heart. greta: oops. she will not forget her first appearance on "saturday night live," and if you could not tell from that bleeped out word, it was teh he f word. and the bear canut is all grown up. the polar

. >> russ feingold and republican john mccain say that the justices are out of touch with reality if they are truly ready to allow corporations to spend at will in the political arena. >> it was the first day for sonia sotomayor, she asked a couple of questions but it was pretty low key. shepard: for the most part the nation's doctors are sending a message to lawmakers. what are they saying about the future of operating room? plus, you will get the republican response following the president's speech tonight. he will be doing it as a congressman and a surgeon. we will introduce you to him. coming up. because our 2 for $20 features a half rack of our new double-glazed baby back ribs. seasoned and slow cooked to flavorful and tender perfection and your choice of sauces. and our juicy 7 oz. house sirloin. oriental chicken salad, boneless buffalo wings and lots of other choices. who says you can't have it all? get one full-sized appetizer and two real entrees for just twenty bucks. it's 2 for $20. only at applebee's. it's a whole new neighborhood. sfwhen you own a business,g saving sound

>> some liberal democrats like senator russ feingold are even calling for a timetable to bring troops home from afghanistan, that's the approach levin and other democratic leaders took on iraq when there was a republican in the white house. now there's a democratic president who is working on stabilizing afghanistan and the main political fight for now is over whether to add more troops, not withdraw. >> john mccain, now the senator's top republican on military matters is called to hold off on afghanistan. the lesson of iraq should be an order to clear out extremists, in this case, the taliban and al qaeda. >>> for much more on the war in afghanistan, tune in to a special "anderson cooper 360" tonight from the battle zone. that's at 11:00 p.m. eastern? a democratic shift, the united states will now enter into direct talks with north korea. a state department spokesman immediately denied that it was a break through, insisting there is no policy shift. but previously it was only policy to -- contradiction saying that if a bilateral discussion will lead us back to the six-party process,

last week, senator feingold introduced legislation that amongst other things repeals title late of fisa which provided civil liberty liability, excuse me, protections to telecommunication carriers who assisted the government following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a provision president obama voted for. to your knowledge, does the administration supports this proposal? >> congressman roomy, the administration has taken no official position on this or any other position on senator feingold's bill as you noted in your question the president did vote for the fisa's amendment as a senator and doj defended the provision in litigation. without forecasting an offical opposition, as the president has suggested, it may be more productive to look forward to meet the challenge is still before us than to reopen debate resolved in the past. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. sherman. i think this issue -- >> using microphones, please. >> i think this issue is clearly draws a distinction between the two basic philosophies that the supre

senator feingold, senator schumer. senator feingold? >> let me begin.director, nice to see you again. i would like to first address about the violent crime in wisconsin, the overall trend of violent crime is being decreasing is, of course, heartening, but i urge you to continue to work closely with state and local law enforcement on these issues. director, as to the patriot act, three provisions of the patriot act expires, we know, at the end of year. critical information about their implementation has not been made public. information that i think would have a significant impact on the debate. during the debate on the protect america act in the fisa act of 2007 and 2008 i felt a critical legal and factual information unnamed to the public and information to congress, information critical to the debate might have made a difference in the way some people voted. during the last patriot act reauthorization debate, a great deal of information remained classified and this time around we have to try to have an open and honest debate about the nature of these

. >> but the co-authors of those stringent campaign finance laws, democratic senator russ feingold and republican senator john mccain say the justices are out of touch with reality if they're truly ready to allow corporations to spend at will in the political arena. >> the idea that an era of a.i.g. and exxon, that their corporate treasuries would be opened up to destroy the political process, this is a very bizarre time for these justices to be considered to destroy this long-standing law that has protected our democracy. >> but justice antonin scalia expressed skepticism of his own. >> i doubt that one can expect a body of incumbents to daw to draw election restrictions that do not favor incumbents. now, is that excessively cynical of me? i don't think so. >> we saw the corruption. that's why we acted, and that's request congress acted, not in congress' self-interest. >> today was the second time the court has heard this case but the first for new justice sonia sotomayor. she did ask a couple of questions but it was a relatively low-key first day on the bench. at the supreme court, s

. >> the mccain-feingold campaign finance reform law systemed that this is a video that could not be shown. that it was politically directed and thereby subject certain to restriction as you enter the campaign season and really the question, the fundmental question everyone thought is whether the movie did or did not satisfy the statutory mechanism. the case was argued in march. during the argument it became clear that the conservative justices are really much more concerned about a broader issue and that is 100-year-old doctrine that corporations cannot directly finance campaigns. goes all the way back to teddy roosevelt era. that corporations because it was thought they are not real persons. they are using shareholder money should not be allowed to put in whatever they want this campaigns and the question is whether that restriction is a violation of the first amendment because the court established a proposition that giving money is speech and if you are limiting the money of corporations, you are infringaging on their speech. >> some legal analysts have said it is a hornet's nest

rather than adding more of our own, it coincides with recent calls, specifically from senator russ feingold of wisconsin for the establishment of a time line for u.s. troop withdrawals from afghanistan. what we're doing there either isn't working, in terms of the central government and the taliban, or it has already worked, in terms of al qaeda no longer being there. the u.s. military command, including president obama, now follows the task of justifying continued military presence in the country that's considered the graveyard of empires or coming up with a way to bring our troops home. now joining us now is bob casey. senator casey, thanks very much for being here. >> rachel, thank you. great to be with you tonight. >> you were in afghanistan and pakistan during the august recess, i know. in very basic terms, what do you understand our military mission there to be right now? >> well, fundamentally, i think, rachel, you saw it in senator levin's great statement today and you saw it in what president obama said a couple of months ago, which is, first of all, to disrupt, dismantle, and al qa

the john mccain-feingold law plugged loopholes. john mccain said that soft money was a term coming into vogue because it got around limits on. on you could give it to a party for schenectady's. congress is always trying to plug those. -- begin a two-party for certain activities. corporate money was one of the moneys limited. host: i was city was just on air. caller: then would you agree that the issue here for would be to define corporation? host: hostguest: it is an artifl entity. corporations are not like people. you did not bump into them on the street. it is a legal entity whose job is to make money. they are not voters. they have a variety of ventures. corporations job is to make money. justice scalia says it is just an association of people and there are a lot of small corporations. he kept saying that the local hairdresser could be incorporated. the answer is we do not want to keep them out of politics, but they can give money as individuals. they are going to define the first amendment rights of a corporation. the first mom

this week, democratic senator russ feingold who chairs the senate constitution subcommittee asked the white house to disclose more information. who are the individuals? what are their responsibilities? and whether and how these positions are consistent with the appointments clause of the constitution. and lawmakers are continuing to press the issue, introducing legislation to withhold funding from any czars calling for congressional hearings. and today, a policy of approval was introduced in the house, lou? >> we should be clear that that number, in the bush administration, the number of czars, point of fact, the highest number of czars that we were able to document in our own reporting on this broadcast, for the number of czars previous to the 34, 35 czars appointed by president obama, in his first eight months in office, was during the clinton administration. and he had only 10 czars. a remarkable change of emphasis on czardom, if you will. >> yes. you know, if you take a look at the numbers that the dnc put out, one of the things that they do is they count all of the czars that pre

senator russ feingold said let's set a time frame. >> will it simply mean we are entrenched in a war where victory seems distant and difficult. at least an elections, we have see the fraud and the election. >>> i was at the white house this weekend and you hear language talking about this being the war of necessity, not the war of choice. this is the one that we have got to win in order to stop al-qaeda and the taliban from taking root. >> chris: brings up an interesting question. speaking to the veterans of foreign wars, president obama called afghanistan a war of necessity. this is an issue i know that you have talked about a lot since he became president. do you think barack obama will take on the left wing, the antiwar wing base of his party on afghanistan? >> i think it is doubtful that he will but listen to what senator levin says. it sounds very familiar if you remember what democrats and other critics were saying at the time of the surge in iraq. what we learned i think from iraq is that a counter terrorism strategy, a counter insurgency strategy relies initially on the suppr

senator feingold who is with us. senator boy and a bit of ohio. senger merkley of oregon.sylvania. senator gil brandt of new york. senator read and write island from a -- senate term rtor reidf rhode island. any other member is ths? congressman dan to of pennsylvania. reaching dench of pe -- center dench of pennsylvania. i think we should take them as a sign of the enormous gratitude that we have. i hope we will go from here to our 9/11 ceremony were real honor you. anyone who visit here will see the name of your loved dom. now we will on bail. -- now we will unviel. unveil. [applause] >> [unintelligible] >[reaading list of honored heroes] [reading list of honored heroes] [readintg lisg list of honored heroes] >> and brave sacrifice on september 11, 2001. they say to the u.s. capitol from destruction. chefs >> of the next, senator carl levin discusses u.s. involvement in afghanistan. that of the pollard -- that'll be followed about german chancellor on july -- angela merkel. this week during a special session, the supreme court heard an oral argument on campaign finance. t

senator russ feingold said let's set a timetable. if the surge had impact in iraq, would a surge in afghanistan deal with the problems there or mean we are entrenched in a war where victory seems difficult. the recent elections seemed to have fraud and corruption. i was at the white house this week, and you still hear a language talk about this being a war of necessity, not the war of choice. if iraq was the war of choice, this is the one we've got to win to stop the taliban and al qaeda -- >> speaking to the veterans of foreign wars last month, president obama called afghanistan a war of necessity. this is an issue you've talked about a lot since he became president. do you think barack obama will take on the left wing, the anti-war wing base of his party on afghanistan? >> i think it's doubtful that he will, but listen to me and what senator levin says. it sounds very familiar, if you remember what democrats and other critics were saying at the time of the surge in iraq. what we learned i think from iraq is that a counter-terrorism

this is a lot different situation than iraq and you've got people on the left like russ feingold sayingwe need a timetable for withdrawal just like you did on iraq, mr. president. he's facing tough choices. >> jump in, guys. go ahead. >> i'm sorry, john. he wouldn't be the first president to redefine what victory is if he needs to do it. and that this is one of those things that really does turn politics on its head because despite declining support for afghanistan, there's huge support among republicans and huge opposition among democrats. so it's an interesting position he finds himself in. >> and so, dana, do they view these as two zipgt things on capitol hill, but if liberals are mad about afghanistan, does that trickle into things like health care? >> i think they would like to view it as distinct things but i think there's no if the president does have to drop a government-run health care option for health care, which liberals say is the only way to reform the health care system, and the president does increase troops in afghanistan, which many liberals say is absolutely the wrong

the john mccain-feingold law plugged loopholes. john mccain said that soft money was a term coming into vogue because it got around limits on. on you could give it to a party for schenectady's. congress is always trying to plug those. -- begin a two-party for certain activities. corporate money was one of the moneys limited. host: i was city was just on air. caller: then would you agree that the issue here for would be to define corporation? host: hostguest: it is an artifl entity. corporations are not like people. you did not bump into them on the street. it is a legal entity whose job is to make money. they are not voters. they have a variety of ventures. corporations job is to make money. justice scalia says it is just an association of people and there are a lot of small corporations. he kept saying that the local hairdresser could be incorporated. the answer is we do not want to keep them out of politics, but they can give money as individuals. they are going to define the first amendment rights of a corporation. the first mom

[applause] senator russ feingold of wisconsin.f its of ohio. -- senator voinavich of ohio. [applause] senator ensey of wyoming. [applause] senator altmier of pennsylvania. [applause] senator gillibrand of new york. [applause] we have never had this many senators adventure over to this side of the house. actually we are on their side. [laughter] and the other members? [inaudible] congressman dan of pennsylvania. [applause] congressman murphy of pennsylvania. [applause] little bit i know when we went down this path hal honored we were. we should take that as a sign of the enormous gratitude we have. i hope by the presence of some members in this space will go from here to our 9/11 observance will we will also honor you, but first, as has been said, by all of our speakers, for you to see, for as long as this capital exists, for anyone who visits here, they will see the names of your loved ones and honor his or her memory. now we're going to unveil -- [applause] [applause] [inaudible] [inaudible] [reading names] [reading names] [readi

senator feingold. >>hank you ambassadors hill. i would like tohank you for holding thihearing and extremely glad we are finally having a timetable. while i am concerned that the redeployment is not being done as promptly as it should be this step will allow us to refocus on the global threat posed by al qaeda. i remain cvinced that foreign occupations are usually not a good strategy for combating a global terrorist network. we need to find ways to relentlessly pursued al qaeda while developing long-term partnerships with legitimate local actors in doing so through developmenefforts that do not involve a massive military footprints. now as we transition out of ira is extremely importantly focus on making this an derly withdrawal and doing everything we can to help promote the political reconciliation needed to bring lasting peace to iraq. as to some questions, ambassador, how to the iraqi people feel about the deployment of all u.s. troops by the end of 2011 as currently required by the bilateral agreement? is there a danger at any

. >> senator feingold, do you wish to make a brief opening statement? >> i know we want to get onto the hearing but this hearing is such an important step in shedding light on one of the worst abuses in the past administration. let me declare the so-called enhanced derogation program was illegal. it was contrary to our national values, and it undermined our national security. like chairman whitehouse and chairman feinstein, i am a member othe intelligence committee. and i can tell you that nothing i have seen, include the two documes to which former vice president cheney has repeatedly referred, indicates that the torture techniques authorized by the last administrationere necessary, or that they were the best way to get information out of detainees. so clearly, the former vice president is misleadinthe american people when he says otherwise. mr. chairman, i support further declassification including the rest of the justice department memos and letters on this program, the inspector general report, and the work of the intelligence committee provided the