http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/18/six-ways-the-senate-health-care-bill-raises-health-care-costs-kills-jobs-and-weakens-the-economy/
Six Ways the Senate Health Care Bill Raises Health Care Costs, Kills Jobs, and Weakens the Economy
Posted March 18th, 2010 at 1:55pm
...
On the eve of the House of Representatives push to jam through the misguided and highly unpopular Senate health care bill, the President continues to try and convince the American people that the health care bill would reduce cost while showing his commitment to creating jobs and improving the economy. The raw facts make it clear that he cannot keep either of these promises. For example:
The President claims the health care proposals would reduce health care spending. The reality is health care spending would increase. According to the latest Congressional Budget Office report of the Senate bill, health care spending under the Senate bill would increase by $210 billion over the next 10 years. This is similar to the results found by the President’s Chief Actuary which estimated an increase of $222 billion. While CBO predicts spending would decrease in the second decade, history shows spending rarely, if ever, goes down on government health programs. Medicare is hurtling toward a financial crisis, and Medicaid is breaking state budgets.
The President claims the health care proposals would reduce premiums. The reality is premiums will go up for many under the Senate bill. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated premiums in the non-group market would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 than they would be with no bill and cost would likely fall higher on young and healthy families. In addition, this is before the government specifies and locks into place new federal benefit mandates that will no doubt further increase premiums for all Americans. There is little or no experience of government officials reversing these trends.
The President claims the health care proposals would cost under a trillion. But, that figure excludes major health care provisions " like filling the Medicare “donut hole”, fixing Medicare reimbursement to physicians, and creating a new long-term entitlement program " pushing the price tag to over $2 trillion. Only in Washington does spending more money equal saving money.
The President claims the health care proposals would reduce the deficit. Unlike CBO’s restricted scope of analysis, the independent analysis by the Lewin Group estimates that when taken in its entirety, which means accounting for the expected $200 billion plus boost in Medicare reimbursement for physicians, the proposal would actually add to the deficit, not reduce it.
The President claims he is committed to improving jobs and the economy. Based on his own policies, the opposite is true. The Senate bill would result in 620,000 fewer job opportunities and would increase the national debt by $755 billion through its lethal combination of mandates, taxes, and government spending. As Heritage analysts have pointed out, “Because investment is what drives productivity and economic growth, less investment"even if only slightly less"leads to lower productivity, slower economic growth, weaker wages and salaries, and lower household wealth.” Even worse, his own proposal to “fix” the bill adds a new tax on investment income that would result in 115,000 lost job opportunities and disposable income is estimated to be $17.3 billion less per year than it otherwise would be.
The President claims he will “fix” the bill. Although he promised to ensure no federal funding would be used for abortions and eliminate the repugnant special deals, House passage of the Senate bill would lock these into place, and they could only be undone through a highly uncertain reconciliation process to “fix” the bill in the Senate. Not only is taxpayer funding of abortion not fixed, it is expanded under the Senate bill. Moreover, the ugly special state deals at the expense of the taxpayers still remain.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/03/physicians-working-hours.html
Why physicians are working fewer hours
March 8, 2010
Originally published in MedPage Today
by Michael Smith, MedPage Today North American Correspondent
Physicians are working fewer hours than they once did, the result of a decade-long decline that coincided with lower fees for their services, a study showed.
After two decades of stable hours, a steady decrease began in 1997, according to Douglas Staiger, PhD, of Dartmouth College, and colleagues.
The decline coincided with a marked drop in physician fees, as measured by an inflation-adjusted fee index, Staiger and colleagues reported in the Feb. 24 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
For nonresident physicians, the decline is equivalent to the loss of 36,000 doctors working at the previous hour levels, the researchers said. The finding may have implications for health reform, they added.
To calculate work hours, Staiger and colleagues used data from 1977 through 2007 from the Current Population Survey, which is administered monthly by the U.S. Census Bureau to a nationally representative sample of more than 100,000 people.
They found that from 1977 through 1996, work rates for all doctors were relatively stable at 55 hours a week, on average. But from 1996 through 2007, average hours fell 7.2%, reaching a low of 51 hours by the end of 2007. The drop was significant at P<0.001.
Among other findings:
* Resident physicians saw their hours fall sharply due to duty hour limits imposed in 2003. The decline was 9.8% and was also significant at P<0.001.
* At the same time, average work hours for nonresident doctors fell by 5.7%, again significant at P<0.001.
* Among nonresident physicians, the decrease was largest for those who were younger than 45 (at 7.4%) and working outside the hospital (at 6.4%). Both drops were significant at P<0.001.
* The decrease was smallest for those 45 years or older (at 3.7%) and working in the hospital (at 4.0%). The declines were significant at P=0.008 and P=0.03, respectively.
Between 1995 and 2006, Staiger and colleagues found, average physician fees nationwide fell by 25%.
They also found that in 2001 (the only year for which the comparison was available), doctors in metropolitan areas with the lowest physician fees worked less than 49 hours a week on average, while those elsewhere worked more than 52 hours a week. The difference was significant at P<0.001.
The change “likely reflects a combination of economic and noneconomic factors,” Staiger and colleagues said.
The drop in fees probably accounts for some of the change, they said, by reducing the incentive to work long hours. But other factors " such as increased competition and the rise of managed care " may also have played a part, they said.
The study was not designed to tease out any possible causal connection between fees and work hours, they cautioned. There were also no data on physician specialty, they added.
The “trend toward lower hours, if it continues, will make expanding or maintaining current levels of physician supply more difficult,” Staiger and colleagues said, although larger medical school classes or more immigration by physicians could reduce that concern.
But the trend could also “frustrate stated goals of health reform,” which may require more doctors, they concluded.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000576-503544.html
National Debt Up $2 Trillion on Obama's Watch
...
Treasury Department shows the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion since President Obama took office.
The debt now stands at $12.6 trillion. On the day Mr. Obama took office it was $10.6 trillion.
President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt. It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days.
But the Obama Administration routinely blames the Bush Administration for inheriting a budget surplus and turning it into years of record-breaking deficits and debt -- and then leaving it on the doorstep of the new president.
"I walked into office facing a massive deficit, most of which was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program," Mr. Obama said last month in a speech to corporate executives at a Business Roundtable conference.
"When we walked in, we had a deficit of $1.3 trillion and projected debt over the course of a decade of $8 trillion," he told the CEOs on February 24th. "The lost revenue from this recession put us in an even deeper hole. And the steps we took to save the economy from depression last year have necessarily added to the deficit -- about $1 trillion, compared to the $8 trillion that we inherited."
The most the administration says it can do is try to slow the growth of the National Debt - but its own forecasts show it doesn't look promising.
In the 2011 federal budget released last month, the administration projects the National Debt will soar ever upward to over $25 trillion in the year 2020. The total debt will amount to more than 100 percent of the national economy as early as 2012.
Mr. Obama frequently argues that one of his reasons for seeking to overhaul health care coverage in America is the costs it imposes on the government. He says "the status quo on health care is simply unsustainable."
He warns that if his health care plan is not enacted, "our government will be plunged deeper into debt."
In the belief that politicians lack the resolve to make the tough decisions needed to reduce annual deficits and slow the growth of the debt, the president signed an Executive Order last month creating a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to recommend steps the government can take to balance the budget by 2015 - excluding interest payments on the National Debt.
Mr. Obama set a December 1st deadline for the Commission to vote on its final report.
Right, and spending has to continue until the economy, and hiring, gets going
From the Desk of
Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation
We knew the CBO report was a scam, but now we have confirmation from an unlikely source -- the New York Times. Final House vote Sunday. Details below. --Steve
...
This isn't over.
The Democrats are doing everything in their power to create the illusion that the House will pass ObamaCare on Sunday. And everything is designed to create the appearance of "momentum," including the bogus CBO numbers (more on that in a minute).
Pelosi must maintain every Democrat "yes" vote from the earlier House vote in the fall to pass ObamaCare. The target is 216 votes. But Politico posted this morning a list of 16 potential "No-to-Yes" votes and 26 potential "Yes-to-No" votes. If this holds, ObamaCare fails.
And votes are still moving. Yesterday, two Democrats officially flipped from "No-to-Yes" while two went from "Yes-to-No."
+ + CBO Report is Bogus
Democrats are desperately trying to create the illusion of momentum from yesterday's CBO report, but the report is bogus -- a fact confirmed by a story in the New York Times - yes, that New York Times. After stating Democratic leaders "spent more than a year" working with the CBO "as they fine-tuned" the various ObamaCare bills, the article states:
"In other words, the overall numbers were
never going to miss the mark. Whenever the
budget office judged that some element or
elements of the bill would cause a problem
meeting the cost and deficit-reduction targets,
Democrats just adjusted the underlying
legislation to make sure it would hit their
goal."
Translation -- the numbers were rigged. Just like the rest of this process, Pelosi and gang have made a mockery of the Congressional Budget Office and the latest CBO report is just part of their scam.
+ + House "Slaughter" in place
Everything still points to the House using the "Slaughter Solution" to "deem" the Senate bill passed while they pass the reconciliation bill.
But, again, this is not a done deal! This is a fluid process, and votes are still switching. That's why it is critical grassroots Americans keep up the pressure.
Amidst a sea of faxes and phone calls, pouring into House offices yesterday, Grassfire Nation hand-delivered more than ONE MILLION petitions -- with each of the 435 House offices on Capitol Hill receiving petitions from their constituents.
TURNER: Our lawbreaking Congress
Robert F. Turner - Washington Post - Friday March 19, 2010
As a scholar who has studied and revered the Constitution for more than four decades, watching the be -havior of our Congress in recent years has been all too often a depressing experience. One wonders whether some legislators have even bothered to read the Constitution, or if the problem is they simply don't care about the oath they took to support it.
While doing research for my doctoral dissertation many years ago, I had the pleasure of reading extensively from the Annals of Congress, notes from Cabinet meetings of early presidents, and a great deal of other historical material while seeking to understand portions of our Constitution. In the process, I found myself marveling both at how remarkably well-read the Framers were - encountering frequent references to the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Vattel, and other prominent 17th- and 18th-century thinkers - and also at the high principles repeatedly expressed by members of both political branches of our government when novel issues surfaced.
Whether in the executive or legislative branch, our Founding Fathers were anxious to reach conclusions that were consistent with the meaning of the new Constitution and respected the powers of the other branches and the people. George Washington would suggest that an issue be put off for several days to permit Cabinet members to ponder decisions that might affect future interpretations of the Constitution, and James Madison raised similar cautions in Congress.
Sadly, the latest parliamentary shenanigans in the House, to pretend that the Senate health care bill has already been signed into law so that the (non)law can be "amended" immediately to secure enough House votes for passage, is but par for the course. It is no better than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's attempt to use Congress' rule-making power to deny future Congresses their constitutional right to repeal or amend a previous law by majority vote. Section 3403 of the bill passed by the Senate provides: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." The Constitution can't be changed by statute, and it certainly can't be changed by amending House or Senate rules.
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution sets forth detailed requirements for the making or amending of a law specifying that "Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary" shall be presented to and approved by the president (or enacted over his veto) - so as to prevent unprincipled legislators from bypassing the procedural necessities by the kind of semantical chicanery currently being contemplated by House leaders.
In the Congressional Record dated June 11, 1976, there are lengthy remarks by my former employer, Sen. Robert P. Griffin, explaining why "legislative vetoes" - statutory provisions that also violate Article I, Section 7 by giving legal effect to acts of one or both legislative chambers without ever being submitted to the president - are unconstitutional. During that debate, Mr. Griffin asked me to briefly explain the constitutional issue to one of his Senate colleagues who had not yet voted. After politely listening to me for a few minutes, he cut me off and explained: "Well, you may well be right. But it is the job of the Supreme Court to decide whether a statute is unconstitutional. My job is to vote for bills I think are in the best interest of my constituents." I was briefly tempted to remind him that he had sworn a solemn oath to support the Constitution and that the court was there as a safety valve to make certain legislators did not err in their constitutional interpretations, but from his expression it seemed clear thatwould have served no purpose but to annoy him.
Seven years later, by a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court in the landmark case of INS v. Chadhaechoed Mr. Griffin's analysis and struck down legislative vetoes as unconstitutional. But Congress didn't seem to care. Although Justice Byron White began his Chadha dissent by noting that the court had "sound[ed] the death knell for nearly 200 other statutory provisions ... operating on such varied matters as war powers," Congress wasn't listening.
Less than two years ago, the bipartisan and blue-ribbon National War Powers Commission - including among its distinguished members such stalwarts of legislative power as Lee Hamilton, Abner Mikva and Slade Gorton - made specific reference to the legislative veto in Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution in unanimously concluding both that the statute was unconstitutional and that it should be repealed.
But on March 4 of this year, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and 16 of his colleagues introduced a legislative veto expressly pursuant to Section 5(c) pretending to direct the president to withdraw all U.S. armed forces from Afghanistan. (One wonders if any of them were aware that on Aug. 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention rejected a proposal that Congress be given the power to end war because it had the power to commence it. After a brief debate, the idea was defeated by a vote of 0-10.)
Sadly, such flagrantly unconstitutional legislative vetoes have been more the rule than the exception since the Supreme Court in 1983 held them to be unconstitutional. Indeed, since that decision was handed down, Congress has enacted far more than 500 new legislative vetoes, each time thumbing its nose at the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Legislative vetoes are by far the most common reason for presidential "signing statements" refusing to execute flagrantly unconstitutional legislative acts.
At some point, if we are to have any chance of preserving our magnificent Constitution, the American people are going to have to start saying "no" and holding legislators accountable at the polls for violating their oaths of office. The senators and representatives we elect were intended to be servants of the people, not a special class of aristocrats empowered to rule our lives while remaining aloof from the very laws they enact. Writing in Federalist No. 57, James Madison assured the American people that one of the checks against legislative abuse of power was that Congress could "make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society." One can only wonder what the Obamacare vote would be if it applied to members of Congress and their staffs.
After nearly four decades of watching our elected representatives flaunt their solemn duty and evade the burdens they impose upon the rest of us, I have finally concluded that the time has come to start voting against incumbents who behave as if they are the rulers rather than the servants of the American people.
Robert F. Turner served as acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in the Reagan administration and is a professor at the University of Virginia. The views expressed are his own.
Carter Pushes Supreme Court Challenge to Democrat Healthcare Takeover
(WASHINGTON, DC) " The Democrats’ attempted takeover of American healthcare is unconstitutional and should be overturned through litigation by the states in the U.S. Supreme Court, according to House Republican Conference Secretary John R. Carter (TX31).
Carter today urged Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to join with attorneys general nationwide including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in filing litigation to overturn the healthcare bill set for a vote in the House tomorrow in the event it passes and is signed into law.
“There is nothing in the Constitution that permits the federal government to mandate that citizens buy any product,” says Carter, a former Texas judge. “And that’s just one provision in this bill that violates the Constitution.”
Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) last week warning that the “deem and pass” process under which it was being considered was legally questionable, and that the Commonwealth of Virginia would consider a legal challenge if the legislation passed under those rules.
Democrats on the House Rules Committee today agreed to drop that scheme, but a multitude of other constitutional challenges remain.
Democrats on the House Rules Committee today agreed to drop that scheme, but a multitude of other constitutional challenges remain.
Don't the Republican's have to get over the mental hurdles before they can attempt the constitutional challenges?
Cutting to the Chase in the Health Care Debate
David Feinberg who is CEO of the UCLA Hospital System says, “The debate they’re having now in Washington is the wrong discussion. They’re not talking about health-care reform. They’re talking about health insurance reform. The bill in Congress has nothing to do with health care.”
The Patriot Caucus spoke to this issue in an earlier post, when we wrote, “the insurance companies are not solely to blame for rising health care costs.” The debate in the House from the Democratic side centered on insurance coverage and costs; giving the impression that reigning in the insurance companies would reform health care. Cutting the cost of insurance will not keep people from over eating, avoiding exercise, smoking, drug dependence, alcohol and a host of other self-regulated issues. It is a historical fact " “the more people are given (as opposed to earned), the greater the abuses become.”
Feinberg said, “I have 800 patients in this hospital today, and I bet 50 percent of them have illnesses that could have been completely prevented. That situation is not going to get better with a ‘public option.’”
He went on to say that even people without health insurance can receive care when they need it in the emergency room, and, while it’s not ideal, they’re not being denied care because they don’t have health insurance. Feinberg concluded, “It’s impossible to give high quality, low cost care to everyone. What we need is to decrease demand for health care.”
While there are catastrophic health issues we cannot avoid such as hereditary diseases, system breakdowns and the like; much of the health costs today are not “insurance caused”, but “human caused.” Human behavior cannot be legislated. According to Feinberg, “When you compare us to other countries with similar Gross Domestic Products, they spend half what we do on health care because they have a different lifestyle. We either need to change our lifestyle, or it’s going to be very expensive.” He added, “With all due respect, the surgeon general is obese. I don’t think the President of the United States should be solving this.”
We need representation in Washington that will deal with the root causes of our problems and stop putting expensive band-aids that no one can afford on the symptoms. Many of the root causes are man-made due to our lifestyles, eating habits, and addictions " issues which can be changed at no cost by the American people. Politically, advocating this kind of health care reform is not pertinent because it cuts into the profits of the special interest groups that have brought Washington under siege.
The reality is that Health Care Reform is not a “Washington political issue”; it is an “American people issue.” If we were to take on a preventive mindset and subsequent lifestyle in becoming a healthier America, then the cost of treating non-preventive health issues could be affordable.
We need representation in Washington that will deal with the root causes of our problems and stop putting expensive band-aids that no one can afford on the symptoms. Many of the root causes are man-made due to our lifestyles, eating habits, and addictions " issues which can be changed at no cost by the American people. Politically, advocating this kind of health care reform is not pertinent because it cuts into the profits of the special interest groups that have brought Washington under siege.
Judicial Watch Sues HHS to Obtain Documents Related to President Obama’s Secret Healthcare Meetings
Today we sit on the precipice of a complete and total disaster. The President and liberals in Congress are dangerously close to passing Obamacare, which is just another way of saying they are moving forward aggressively with their hostile government takeover of our nation’s health care system. And yet, at this key moment, the American people are largely in the dark about what government takeover of health care will mean to them and to the country and how this horrible deal is being forced through. As Nancy Pelosi said, the plan is to pass the bill and then find out what is in it.
That’s why we’re fighting so hard in court right now to uncover documents related to the secret, closed door meetings on health care that the President held with Vice President Biden, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sebelius, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and union officials. Press reports have documented at least two private healthcare meetings involving the President between January 1 and January 15, 2010. What happened in these closed negotiations? What promises were made? That’s what we intend to find out.
Of course health care reform wasn’t supposed to happen this way. Obama promised during the campaign that there would be no back-door deals, no partisan power plays, and no secrecy.
Remember?
During a Democratic primary debate on January 31, 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama said the following on the issue of health care reform: “That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are.”
So much for that. Here’s a squib from our lawsuit, filed on March 17, 2010:
At an August 21, 2008 town hall meeting in Chester Virginia, presidential candidate Barack Obama promised the nation that, to achieve health care reform, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies " they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-Span, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”
In a startling breach of his campaign promise, between January 1, 2010, and January 15, 2010, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius, and White House Office of Health Reform Director DeParle met behind closed doors with various groups to reach accord on health care reform before a final vote occurred in the U.S. House of Representatives. One group of individuals was senior officials of major unions. A second group consisted of Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress.
Because President Obama and Secretary Sebelius held closed door negotiations at the White House, the public was denied the transparency President Obama had promised as a candidate.
We filed our original Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on January 15, 2010. HHS acknowledged receipt of the request on January 19, 2010. On January 21, 2010, and March 12, 2010, HHS indicated that two offices within the agency found no responsive requests. However, the Immediate Office of the Secretary and the Office of the Secretary Scheduling Office have thus far failed to respond. Of course, these just happen to be the two offices within HHS most likely to keep the requested records.
CORRUPTION CHRONICLES
• Government Secrecy Increases Under Obama
• Obama Bans U.S. Flag In Haiti
• Conyers Gets Public Atty. Despite Hubby’s $174k Salary
• Rise In Tuition Breaks For Illegal Immigrants
• Bill To Fire Govt. Workers Who Owe Billions In Taxes
• CBO Gets Minority Quota Mandate
• L.A. Sheriff Tight With Terrorist Group
First President Obama breaks his promise on making healthcare negotiations public. Now his administration is stonewalling the release of records from his secret healthcare meetings. This administration surely wants nothing coming at it now that would interfere with its legislative designs on our health care. It is shameful that the Obama administration would violate FOIA law to help ensure passage of Obamacare. But rest assured we intend to hold Obama to his word on transparency.
Because the stakes are so high, I will repeat what I told you last week. Please take the time right now to call your congressmen and let them know what you think about Obamacare. The number to call is 202-224-3121. This will get you to the Capitol Hill Switchboard. (You can look up specific House members here). And it won’t hurt to call your Senators, too. Tell your family, friends, and anyone else you can think of to call. If you can’t get through, or your representative simply refuses to answer the phone, keep on calling. I can tell you that your elected representatives are very much aware of the volume of calls, whether or not they’re bothering to answer the phones. The House vote is scheduled for Sunday, March 21.
Slaughter Rule Unconstitutional
I know many of you are concerned about the corrupt process liberals in Congress have been using to push through the government health care legislation. The latest outrage is the plan by the House Democratic leadership to use the so-called Slaughter Rule to “deem” the Senate health care bill passed without an actual up-or-down vote. Below is a statement that I issued just today for Judicial Watch on the “deem and pass” trick:
A constitutional crisis is upon us. The Democratic leadership’s plan to use the “Slaughter Rule” to pass the Senate health care bill without an explicit “yea or nay” vote by the House is an absolute violation of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 7).
Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that “(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may ‘become a law.’” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998).
Simply put, the House can’t pretend to vote on a bill and expect that the result will pass constitutional muster. No House member can keep true to his oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution” and approve the use of the Slaughter Rule to avoid a direct vote on the Senate health care bill.
And the U.S. Constitution would also seem to require that President Obama veto any resulting “bill” sent to him for signature, as the document that results from any House action under the Slaughter Rule is a constitutional nullity.
But concerned Americans should not assume that the courts will uphold the Constitution and throw any government health care takeover because of the Slaughter Rule. The best defense against the Slaughter Rule’s usurpation of the Constitution is to stop it legislatively this weekend.
Judicial Watch Obtains Top Secret Memo Detailing Closed Congressional Hearing on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
For quite a while now, Judicial Watch has been trying to piece together the evidence regarding what members of Congress (Nancy Pelosi in particular) knew about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) and when they knew it. It hasn’t been easy. The Obama administration, which is ideologically hostile to the use of these techniques, has been stonewalling the release of documents that would shed light on the whole story.
Still, as always, we persist. Recently our determination paid off when we obtained a memo from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) marked “Top Secret” that includes a detailed report of a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) closed hearing regarding the subject of enhanced interrogation techniques.
The CIA produced the document pursuant to a previous court order in Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the CIA. The court order stipulates that documents pertaining to congressional briefings for Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress on “enhanced interrogation techniques” must be provided to Judicial Watch by April 15th.
Here are a few key excerpts from the Memorandum, dated July 14, 2004:
• Summary of testimony by DOD Official, Lt. Gen. William Boykin: “At this point, General Boykin read a prepared statement to the Committee in which he asserted that interrogation is a critically valuable tool, and, citing observations made by service personnel at Ft. Bragg, said that the most [imp]ortant factor in the capture of Saddam Hussein was interrogation.”
• Summary of testimony by member of the CTC (Counterterrorism Center), name redacted: “…Even today long term detainees like Khalid Shayk Muhammed and Zubaydah are providing good information because their histories go back a long way and often a tidbit they provide, while not initially operationally significant, ends up being the piece that completes the puzzle; DC/CTC closed by noting that he was personally persuaded that detainee reporting has saved lives.”
• Rep. Jane Harman: “What do you think of the value of enhanced techniques?” John Pistole, Witness for the FBI: “In my view the benefits are huge and the costs are insignificant. Very few detainees don’t provide us with good information….”
• Rep. Ruppersberger: “Are there procedures that we have stopped that should be resumed?” Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, the Army G-2, [now Director of the National Security Agency (NSA)]: “Yes. Diet and sleep management. Those, plus segregation which is still employed, are key…”
• General Alexander also testified that field commanders wanted more “97E’s” (interrogators), “even to the point of trading off some of their combat troops.”
• Saddam Hussein was not subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, but “friendly discussions with an eye to future public prosecution.”
The document also recounts an allegation by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) that the CIA had not been giving the committee “full and candid testimony on the detainee issue.” Testimony also suggests that interrogators at Fort Bragg believed that “unobtrusive forms of interrogation are the best.”
Now we know why the Obama administration has been fighting tooth and nail to keep these documents secret. They put the lie to the Obama administration’s claim that EITs are not necessary in the intelligence war on terrorism. Members of Congress, meanwhile, continue to play ignorant, claiming intelligence officials did not fully brief them on the use of EITs. Not true, according to the evidence we’ve collected.
You may recall that in February, Judicial Watch released a separate batch of documents, previously marked “Top Secret,” indicating that between 2001 and 2007, the CIA briefed at least 68 members of Congress on the CIA interrogation program, including so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The documents include the dates of all congressional briefings and, in some cases, the members of Congress in attendance and the specific subjects discussed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who previously denied she was briefed by the CIA on the use of these techniques, is specifically referenced in a briefing that took place on April 24, 2002, regarding the “ongoing interrogations of Abu Zubaydah.” So this much is clear. Intelligence officials repeatedly informed members of Congress that enhanced interrogation techniques are effective and save lives.
We need representation in Washington that will deal with the root causes of our problems and stop putting expensive band-aids that no one can afford on the symptoms. Many of the root causes are man-made due to our lifestyles, eating habits, and addictions " issues which can be changed at no cost by the American people. Politically, advocating this kind of health care reform is not pertinent because it cuts into the profits of the special interest groups that have brought Washington under siege.
Stop your disgusting spamming. You post your crap over and over again.
How would you suggest we address these problems - if, as your correspondent says, this is the true way to health care reform?
