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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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