Organizing for America

Canadian Embassy Has Denied The Report. "A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta. 'None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta,' Landry said. He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject. 'We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us,' Landry said. 'There is no story as far as we’re concerned,' he said." [Politico, 2/28/08]

“The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama’s consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

OBAMA'S POSITION ON NAFTA WAS CLEAR AT THE LAST DEBATE

I will make sure that we renegotiate...I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA...And as president, what I want to be is an advocate on behalf of workers. Look, you know, when I go to these plants, I meet people who are proud of their jobs. They are proud of the products that they've created. They have built brands and profits for their companies. And when they see jobs shipped overseas and suddenly they are left not just without a job, but without health care, without a pension, and are having to look for seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast-food joint, that is devastating on them, but it's also devastating on the community. That's not the way that we're going to prosper as we move forward. [Democratic Debate, 2/27/08]

OBAMA'S RECORD ON NAFTA HAS BEEN CLEAR

Obama Said NAFTA And CAFTA Were Not In The Best Interest Of The American Worker "Because They Did Not Contain The Sorts Of Labor Provisions And Environmental Provisions" That They Should Have. "The AP reported, "Obama said he supports the foreign trade deal, which is especially important to labor and U.S. manufacturers. He said active trading is a key way to keep the United States competitive. 'We're not going to draw a moat around the United States' economy. If we do that, then China is still trading, India is still going to be trading,' said Obama, who voted against the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement and opposes the pending trade deal with South Korea. 'I think that NAFTA and CAFTA did not reflect the interests of American workers but reflected the interests of the stock owners on Wall Street, because they did not contain the sorts of labor provisions and environmental provisions that should have been embedded and should have been enforceable in those agreements,' he said." [AP, 10/10/07]

2004 Chicago Tribune Cited Its Difference With Obama's Opposition to NAFTA. The Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial, "We sharply differ with some of those views, particularly Obama's opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement." [Chicago Tribune, 2/29/04]

2004 New Yorker: Obama Opposed NAFTA. The New Yorker wrote, "This is a regular theme with Obama: supporters who disagree with him. The two big Chicago daily papers both endorsed him enthusiastically in the primary, even though they disagreed with him on major issues-his opposition to the war in Iraq and, in the case of the Tribune, his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement." [New Yorker, 5/31/04]

12:19 PM | Permalink

"Apparently John McCain thinks we need to fight a 100 year war in Iraq but he does not think we should act on actionable intelligence to take out Osama bin Laden and top al Qaeda terrorists. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership escaped to a sanctuary in northwest Pakistan because the Bush-McCain war in Iraq diverted resources from the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Now John McCain says Obama's call to take out high-level terrorists like bin Laden is "naive," even as the Washington Post reported just yesterday that these operations have succeeded in taking the fight to the terrorists." Susan Rice, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Senator Barack Obama

"But we would risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan" John McCain, February 19, 2008

Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan because the Bush-McCain war in Iraq diverted resources from Afghanistan and allowed al Qaeda to escape into Pakistan. Apparently John McCain thinks we need to fight a 100 year war in Iraq – and threaten to bomb Iran – but he does not think we should take out Osama bin Laden and top al Qaeda terrorists.

FACT: John McCain refuses to commit to taking out high-level terrorist targets like Osama bin Laden if we have actionable intelligence about their whereabouts.

Barack Obama has said he would take out "high-level terrorist targets" in Pakistan if we have actionable intelligence about their whereabouts and Pakistan will not or cannot act. John McCain said this morning that he could not make that pledge, arguing: "So, the first thing you do is you don't tell people what you're going to do. You make plans, and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is." McCain's efforts led commentators like Joe Klein to wonder, "I hope he (McCain) retracts it and joins Obama in the effort to defeat Al Qaeda."

FACT: Barack Obama has never said he would "attack Pakistan"--he has said that he would attack "high-level terrorist targets."

Obama's statement of policy--in his August 1 terrorism speech--dealt directly with high-level terrorist targets like Osama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri, not the Pakistani government.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama has voted for hundreds of millions of dollars to support the Pakistani government's efforts to root out al Qaeda, and would prefer that Pakistan take action. But he will not stand by if he has actionable intelligence about high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan's northwest tribal regions: "But relying on Pakistan while we fight the wrong war in Iraq has not worked. Because of that policy, bin Laden and members of his inner circle who bear direct responsibility for the murder of 3,000 Americans are plotting new attacks. If Pakistan cannot or will not take out these high-level terrorist targets and we have actionable intelligence about where they are, then I would take action to protect the American people. I firmly believe that if we know the whereabouts of bin Laden and his deputies and we have exhausted all other options, we must take them out."

The co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission--Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton--endorsed Obama's stance just over a month after his terrorism speech, writing in the Washington Post: "Pakistan should take the lead in closing Taliban camps and rooting out al-Qaeda. But the United States must act if Pakistan will not."

FACT: The Washington Post reported just yesterday that America is carrying out the very policy that Obama advocated and that John McCain derided as "confused."

John McCain referred to the policy of taking out high-level terrorists in northwestern Pakistan as "confused" – even as the Washington Post reported, just this morning, that:

"In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

....Top Bush administration policy officials -- who are increasingly worried about al-Qaeda's use of its sanctuary in remote, tribally ruled areas in northern Pakistan to dispatch trained terrorists to the West -- have quietly begun to accept the military's point of view, according to several sources familiar with the context of the Libi strike.....

....U.S. military officials say, however, that the uneven performance of their Pakistani counterparts increasingly requires that Washington pursue the fight however it can, sometimes following an unorthodox path that leaves in the dark Pakistani military and intelligence officials who at best lack commitment and resolve and at worst lack sympathy for U.S. interests."

FACT: There is a high-level terrorist sanctuary in Pakistan that is serving as a training ground for al Qaeda, and President Bush's own senior military and intelligence community officials are contemplating action against al Qaeda.

The NIE in July 2007 warned of a reconstituted al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan: "Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa'ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.

The Bush-McCain war diverted resources from the fight against al Qaeda: Substantial military, intelligence, and diplomatic resources were shifted from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden to the disastrous war in Iraq. These resources shortchanged our efforts to bring to justice the people responsible for 9/11, and have left the American people less safe. As the New York Times reported last summer

"Throughout late 2002 and early 2003, Mr. Grenier said in an interview, "the best experienced, most qualified people who we had been using in Afghanistan shifted over to Iraq," including the agency's most skilled counterterrorism specialists and Middle East and paramilitary operatives.... "If we were not in Iraq, we would have double or triple the number of Predators across Afghanistan, looking for Taliban and peering into the tribal areas. We'd have the ‘black' Special Forces you most need to conduct precision operations. We'd have more C.I.A. We're simply in a world of limited resources, and those resources are in Iraq," the former official added. "Anyone who tells you differently is blowing smoke."

01:45 PM | Permalink

"This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama’s views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people." -- Obama Campaign

From Houston Fox News:

"The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign."

10:42 AM | Permalink

"I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad." -George W. Bush, February 10, 2008

"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda." -Barack Obama, October 2, 2002

The Bush-McCain decision to take our eye off of Afghanistan to launch a misguided war in Iraq diverted resources from the fight against terrorism, allowed Osama bin Laden to escape justice, and has enabled al Qaeda’s core leadership to reconstitute a sanctuary in northwest Pakistan. Now, President Bush is issuing false attacks on Barack Obama to try to distract the American people from his disastrous record and Obama's superior judgment on terrorism.,

FACT: Barack Obama has never said he would "attack Pakistan"--he has said that he would attack "high-level terrorist targets."

Obama's statement of policy--in his August 1 terrorism speech--dealt directly with high-level terrorist targets like Osama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri, not the Pakistani government.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama has voted for hundreds of millions of dollars to support the Pakistani government's efforts to root out al Qaeda, and would prefer that Pakistan take action. But he will not stand by if he has actionable intelligence about high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan's northwest tribal regions: "But relying on Pakistan while we fight the wrong war in Iraq has not worked. Because of that policy, bin Laden and members of his inner circle who bear direct responsibility for the murder of 3,000 Americans are plotting new attacks. If Pakistan cannot or will not take out these high-level terrorist targets and we have actionable intelligence about where they are, then I would take action to protect the American people. I firmly believe that if we know the whereabouts of bin Laden and his deputies and we have exhausted all other options, we must take them out."

The co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission--Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton--endorsed Obama's stance just over a month after his terrorism speech, writing in the Washington Post: "Pakistan should take the lead in closing Taliban camps and rooting out al-Qaeda. But the United States must act if Pakistan will not."

FACT: In the weeks following Obama's speech, President Bush echoed Obama's words

When asked at a new conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in August 2007 whether he would act on actionable intelligence about al Qaeda leaders within Pakistan, President Bush said, "I am confident that with actionable intelligence, we will be able to bring top al Qaeda to justice."

When asked about Pakistan at a separate news conference in August 2007, President Bush echoed Senator Obama’s words once against, saying: "I have indicated to him (Musharraf) that the American people would expect there to be swift action taken if there is actionable intelligence on high-value targets inside his country."

FACT: George Bush has failed to bring Osama bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the core of al Qaeda's leadership to justice since 9/11.

Bush Failed to Strike Al Qaeda: President Bush has reportedly failed to act on intelligence reports that identified senior al Qaeda leadership targets within Pakistan--including bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. The New York Times wrote: "A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials. The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group's operations". The decision to halt the planned "snatch and grab" operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military's secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.

Bush Shortchanged the Fight Against Al Qaeda: Substantial military, intelligence, and diplomatic resources were shifted from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden to the disastrous war in Iraq. These resources shortchanged our efforts to bring to justice the people responsible for 9/11, and have left the American people less safe. As the New York Times reported last summer: "Throughout late 2002 and early 2003, Mr. Grenier said in an interview, 'the best experienced, most qualified people who we had been using in Afghanistan shifted over to Iraq,' including the agency's most skilled counterterrorism specialists and Middle East and paramilitary operatives. If we were not in Iraq, we would have double or triple the number of Predators across Afghanistan, looking for Taliban and peering into the tribal areas. We'd have the 'black' Special Forces you most need to conduct precision operations. We'd have more C.I.A. We're simply in a world of limited resources, and those resources are in Iraq,' the former official added. 'Anyone who tells you differently is blowing smoke.'"

FACT: There is a high-level terrorist sanctuary in Pakistan that is serving as a training ground for al Qaeda, and President Bush's own senior military and intelligence community officials are contemplating action against al Qaeda.

George Bush Has Made Us Less Safe: The NIE in July 2007 warned of a reconstituted al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan: "Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa'ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.

Al Qaeda is Resurgent in Pakistan's Tribal Areas: The New York Times reported today that a foiled plot in Spain may demonstrate a larger threat from Pakistan-trained terrorists: "The largely Pakistani cell formed quickly in Barcelona with support, and perhaps direction, from the tribal areas of Pakistan, the authorities said. According to the arrest warrant in the case, three suicide bombing suspects arrived in Spain within the last four months and the bomb making suspect had recently spent five months in Pakistan."

The Pentagon Favors the Obama Approach: The Pentagon is very concerned about the sanctuary. According to the New York Times, " the Pakistanis are still years away from fielding an effective counterinsurgency force. And some American officials, including Defense Secretary Gates, have said the United States may have to take direct action against militants in the tribal areas."

06:52 PM | Permalink

Public Citizen recently claimed that Barack Obama has 10 bundlers who are federal lobbyists. But none of the individuals they cite are currently registered to lobby. As an Obama spokesperson has said, the ban on accepting money from federal lobbyists is not "a perfect solution to the problem [of money in politics], and it isn't even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates."

Read Public Citizen's List Here

Check Lobbyist Registrations Here

Frank Clark, NOT REGISTERED SINCE 2000

Scott Harris, NOT REGISTERED IN 2007

Allan J. Katz, NOT REGISTERED IN 2007

Robert S. Litt, NOT REGISTERED SINCE 2002

Thomas J. Perrelli, NOT REGISTERED SINCE 2005

Thomas A. Reed, TERMINATION ONLINE

Paul N. Roth, NOT REGISTERED IN 2007

Alan Solomont, NOT REGISTERED IN 2007

Tom E. Wheeler, NOT REGISTERED SINCE 2003

10:01 AM | Permalink

RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT OBAMA'S REVISED BILL DID NOT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF LEAKS

NYT: "In Place Of Straightforward Reporting Requirements Was New Language Giving The Nuclear Commission Two Years To Come Up With Its Own Regulations. "In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission 'shall consider'--not require--immediate public notification." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONS THAT THE REVISED BILL, LIKE THE ORIGINAL, REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC LEAKS AND THAT THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THAT REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MADE THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS.

National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]

REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONED THAT THE REVISED BILL ACTUALLY STRENGTHENED THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TO SPECIFY THAT "IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION" SHOULD MEAN 24 HOURS

Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'" [S. 2348, Introduced 3/1/06, 109th Congress]

RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT THE REVISED BILL COULD ALLOW THE NRC TO DECIDE THAT EXISTING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WERE ALREADY SUFFICIENT

NYT Implied That The Revised Bill Left Open Possibility That Revised Bill Allowed NRC To Adopt Task Force Finding That Reporting Requirements Were Already Sufficient. "[The revised bill also directed the NRC to take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks. By then, the task force had already concluded that 'existing reporting requirements for abnormal spills and leaks are at a level that is risk-informed and appropriate." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

REALITY: THE REVISED BILL, LIKE ITS ORIGINAL VERSION, MANDATED NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

RHETORIC: NYT REPORTED THAT EXELON AND NUCLEAR ENERGY WERE SATISFIED WITH TH BILL AND NO LONGER OPPOSED IT

NYT: Exelon And NEI Were Satisfied With The Revised Bill And No Longer Opposed It. "In interviews last week, representatives of Exelon and the nuclear commission said they were satisfied with the revised bill. The Nuclear Energy Institute said it no longer opposed it but wanted additional changes." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

REALITY: BOTH EXELON AND THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE DID NOT SUPPORT THE REVISED BILL AND SAID THEY BELIEVED IT WAS NOT NECESSARY

CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'" [CQ Today, 9/13/06]

NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said." [Platts' Inside NRC, 9/18/06]

NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'" [National Journal's Congress Daily, 9/25/06]

RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT OBAMA'S STAFF BELIEVED THE INDUSTRY'S VOLUNTARY EFFORTS WERE SUFFICIENT AND QUOTED A NUCLEAR SAFETY ADVOCATE AS SAYING THEY WERE UNTRUSTWORTHY

NYT Quoted Nuclear Safety Advocate As Saying That Industry's Voluntary Guidelines Were Not Trustworthy. "Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama's efforts yielded any lasting benefits. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that 'it took the introduction of the bill in the first place to get a reaction from the industry.' 'But of course because it is all voluntary,' Mr. Lochbaum said, 'who's to say where things will be a few years from now?'" [New York Times, 2/3/08]

REALITY: NYT NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT OBAMA SPECIFICALLY CRITICIZED THE INDUSTRY'S VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES AND VOWED TO PRESS AHEAD WITH THE BILL AFTER THOSE GUIDELINES WERE ANNOUNCED.

Obama Called The Nuclear Industry's Self-Regulation Proposal Inadequate And "Vowed...To Press Ahead With A Bill To Mandate" Notification Of Unplanned Releases. "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) vowed Tuesday to press ahead with a bill to mandate reporting of unplanned radioactive releases, such as recent tritium leaks in Will County, saying a self-regulation initiative by the nuclear power industry is inadequate. 'While it's encouraging that the nuclear industry recognizes it has a special responsibility to keep communities informed of tritium leaks, the voluntary guidelines recommended by the Nuclear Energy Institute would still allow tritium leaks to occur without the public ever finding out about it,' he said. 'The nuclear industry already has a voluntary policy, and it hasn't worked,' he said. Obama's comments came in a prepared statement after the NEI presented a 'groundwater protection initiative' to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. It aims to improve the handling of inadvertent releases of radioactive material into groundwater at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants...David Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Nuclear Safety Project, called the initiative 'a step in the right direction.' He said he was waiting to see more details to refine his impression. But he agreed that Obama's legislation would add teeth to the reporting requirement. 'What's to keep today's good initiative from going by the wayside?' he said. The Nuclear Release Notice Act is backed in the Senate by Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and in the House by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.). It would require notification of federal, state and county officials when radioactive releases exceed federal limits or when two occur within a two-year span from the same source, process or equipment. And it would "impose real penalties on plants" that fail to make notification, Obama said." [Chicago Tribune, 3/10/06]

Obama Said Exelon's Adjusted Notification Policy Was "Not Enough When It Comes To Nuclear Waste." "The releases came from a power generating station run by Exelon Nuclear. Exelon says that no public heath risk exists. But the company has changed its notification policy. The philosophy now, said company spokesman Craig Nesbit, 'is to go beyond legal and regulatory requirements.' But Obama said philosophy is not enough when it comes to nuclear waste. 'Notifying state and local officials should not be a courtesy; it should be the law,' he said." [CQ, 3/3/06]

RHETORIC: NYT REPORTED THAT OBAMA INTRODUCED THE BILL, AND HILLARY CLINTON SIGNED ON "LATER"

NYT: Hillary Clinton Signed Onto The Bill "Later." "To flag systematic problems, it would also have required reporting of repeated accidental leaks that fell below those limits. Illinois' senior senator, Richard J. Durbin, a fellow Democrat, was a co-sponsor, and three other senators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, later signed on. But Mr. Obama remained its primary champion." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

REALITY: NYT NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT SHE SIGNED ON AFTER THE REVISIONS WERE MADE

Hillary Clinton Cosponsored The Revised Bill After It Was Revised. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama's Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006]

06:23 PM | Permalink

The leading Democratic and Republican candidates for president have proposed major changes to our health care system. These proposals are worthy of serious consideration. Rising medical costs threaten our country’s long-term fiscal stability. And our failure to provide health insurance to 47 million Americans is cause for shame.

As this year’s competitive primary election season builds to a climax, arguments within each party are bound to become heated. As candidates seek a competitive edge, it is natural to magnify small differences. But if the political debate over health reform is to inform Americans about the choices we face, it should be grounded on facts.

The remarkably similar health plans proposed by Senators Clinton and Obama have the potential to reduce the number of uninsured Americans (citizens, permanent residents, and others lawfully present in the U.S.) to two percent or less of the population. Achieving this goal would require full implementation of these plans’ subsidies and insurance market reforms, plus robust outreach efforts to get everyone to sign up for coverage.

The necessary outreach will not be easy, and it will be fruitless unless health insurance is made affordable and accessible to all. Some believe that an individual mandate to buy health insurance should be part of this effort; others hold that a mandate would be paternalistic or too onerous for families at the margins of affordability. Regardless of our feelings on this issue, what is clear from the evidence is that mandates alone, without strong incentives to comply and harsh punishments for violation, will have little impact on the number of uninsured Americans. Indeed, as the Massachusetts experience illustrates, non-compliance with mandates is a large problem, absent harsh sanctions. There is simply no factual basis for the assertion that an individual mandate, by itself, would result in coverage for 15 million more Americans than would robust efforts to make health care more affordable and accessible.

The inaccurate claim that an individual mandate alone would reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 15 million draws attention away from the challenges we must surmount to make good medical care available to all. These challenges include adequate public subsidies, insurance market reform, outreach to people at the margins of American life, and long-term control of medical costs. Individual mandates may have a role in health care reform, but there is risk of a specious “Mission Accomplished” moment. It is a time for rolling up our sleeves and addressing the hard work required to get everyone care. The central challenge is to make health insurance affordable and accessible, and to reach out to all Americans to help them obtain coverage. Voters should insist that candidates for president address these very real issues.

READ THE NAMES OF 80 SIGNERS BELOW

Stuart Altman
Dean and Sol C. Chaikin Professor of National Health Policy
Heller School for Social Policy and Management
Brandeis University

M. Gregg Bloche, MD, JD
Professor of Law
Georgetown University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow
The Brookings Institution
Adjunct Professor
Bloomberg School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University

Nicholas A. Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH
Professor
Department of Health Care Policy
Harvard Medical School
Department of Sociology
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Harvard University

David Matchar, MD
Professor of Medicine
Director, Center for Clinical Health Policy Research
Duke University Medical Center

E. Richard Brown, PhD
Professor of Health Policy
UCLA School of Public Health

Henry J. Aaron
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
The Bruce and Virginia MacLaury Chair
The Brookings Institution

Paul Weiler
Emeritus Professor of Law
Harvard Law School

Elliott S. Fisher, MD, MPH
Professor of Medicine and Community and Family Medicine
Director, Center for Health Policy Research
Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

Harold Pollack, MPP, PhD
Faculty Chair, Center for Health Administration Studies
Associate Professor
School of Social Service Administration
University of Chicago

Lainie Friedman Ross, MD, PhD
Carolyn and Matthew Bucksbaum Professor of Clinical Ethics
Professor, Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Surgery
Associate Director, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics
University of Chicago

David Blumenthal, MD, MPP
Director, Institute for Health Policy
Physician, Massachusetts General Hospital
Samuel O. Thier Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Professor of Health Care Policy
Harvard Medical School

Theodore Marmor, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Public Policy and Management
Professor Emeritus of Political Science
Yale School of Management

Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH
University Distinguished Professor
Johns Hopkins University

Paula Lantz, PhD
Professor and Chair
Department of Health Management and Policy
University of Michigan

Mark Schlesinger, PhD
Professor of Health Policy
Yale University

Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH
Associate Professor of Medicine and Health Care Policy
Harvard Medical School

Gerald F. Kominski, PhD
Associate Dean for Academic Programs
Professor, Department of Health Services
UCLA School of Public Health

Diane S. Lauderdale
Associate Professor
Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago

David Cutler
Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics
Harvard University

Einer Elhauge
Petrie Professor of Law
Director, Petrie-Flom Center in Health Law Policy
Harvard Law School

Kathleen A Cagney
Associate Professor
Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago

Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.
Clinical Professor of Law
Director, Harvard Criminal Justice Institute
Harvard Law School

Henry J. Steiner
Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus
Harvard Law School

Martha Minow
Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor
Harvard Law School

Jerry Mashaw, PhD
Sterling Professor of Law and Management
Yale University

Laurie Zoloth, PhD
Director, Center for Bioethics, Science and Society
Director, Brady Program in Ethics and Leadership
Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics
Feinberg School of Medicine
Northwestern University

Dayna Bowen Matthew
Associate Dean of Academic Affairs
Professor of Law
University of Colorado School of Law

Elizabeth Bartholet
Morris Wasserstein Professor of Law
Faculty Director, Child Advocacy Program
Harvard Law School

Ellen Meara, PhD
Department of Health Care Policy
Harvard Medical School

Donald E. Fry, MD, FACS
Professor Emeritus
Department of Surgery
University of New Mexico School of Medicine

Mark E. Courtney
Ballmer Endowed Chair for Child Well-Being
School of Social Work
University of Washington

Jacqueline Fox
Assistant Professor
School of Law
University of South Carolina

Oliver Oldman
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Emeritus
Harvard Law School

Jane Loewenson
Partner
Nueva Vista Group LLC

Laurence H. Tribe
Carl M. Loeb University Professor
Harvard Law School

Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD
Visiting Professor, Widener University School of Law
Senior Scholar, Thomas Jefferson University Medical College
Assistant Professor of Law
University of Memphis School of Law

Michael L. Millenson
Mervin Shalowitz, MD Visiting Scholar
Kellogg School of Management
Northwestern University

Barbara A. Noah
Associate Professor
Western New England College School of Law

William Pitsenberger
Adjunct Professor, Health Law and Policy
Washburn University School of Law

Philip J. Rosenthal
Professor
Department of Medicine
University of California, San Francisco

Sarah-Anne Schumann, MD
Clinical Associate
Department of Family Medicine
University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine
Chicago Family Health Center

Daniel H. Lowenstein, MD
Professor of Neurology
Director, Physician-Scientist Education and Training Programs
University of California, San Francisco

Jonathan Skinner, PhD
Professor
Dartmouth College & Medical School

Robin Henry Dretler MD, FIDSA
President
Infectious Disease Specialists of Atlanta

Laurel Coleman, MD, CMD, FACP
Physician
Augusta, Maine

Ann M Labriola, MD
Associate Professor of Medicine
Division of Infectious Diseases
Department of Medicine
George Washington University Medical Center

Jens Ludwig
Professor of Social Service Administration, Law, and Public Policy
University of Chicago

Norman Daniels
Professor of Ethics and Population Health
Harvard School of Public Health

Donald H. Taylor, Jr. Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Public Policy
Duke University

Colleen Grogan
Faculty Director, Graduate Program on Health Administration and Policy
Associate Professor
School of Social Service Administration
University of Chicago

Leon Wyszewianski, PhD
Associate Professor
Director, Executive Master's Program
Department of Health Management and Policy
University of Michigan School of Public Health

John Henning Schumann, MD
Section of General Internal Medicine
MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics
Human Rights Program
University of Chicago
Michael Pine
Lecturer in Medicine
University of Chicago

Wade S. Smith, MD, PhD
Professor of Neurology
University of California, San Francisco

Keith W.L. Rafal, MD, MPH
Assistant Clinical Professor
Brown University Medical School

Bob Arnold
Professor of Medicine
Leo H Criep Chair in Patient Care
Chief, Section of Palliative care and Medical Ethics
University of Pittsburgh

James Tulsky, MD
Professor of Medicine and Nursing
Duke University

William M. Altman, JD, MA
Senior Vice President of Strategy and Public Policy
Kindred Healthcare, Inc.

Rebekah E. Gee, MD, MPH
Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar
University of Pennsylvania

Clarissa K. Wittenberg
Health Education Consultant

Jason Block, MD
Physician
Brigham and Women’s Hospital

Harlan M. Krumholz, MD SM
Harold H. Hines, Jr. Professor of Medicine
Yale University

S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD
Professor of Neurology and Epidemiology
Director, Stroke Service
University of California, San Francisco

Richard Kronick
Professor
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine
University of California, San Diego

Maggie Czarnogorski, MD
George Washington University
Carl Vogel Center, Medical Director

Howard P. Forman MD, MBA
Professor of Diagnostic Radiology, Management, and Public Health
Lecturer, Economics
Director, Yale MD/MBA Program and Yale MBA for Executives: Leadership In Healthcare
Yale University

William Terry, MD
Brigham and Women's Hospital

Rahul Rajkumar, MD, JD
Physician
Brigham and Women's Hospital

Frederick A Masoudi, MD, MSPH
Associate Professor of Medicine (Cardiology)
Denver Health Medical Center
University
David A. Richardson
Health Care Consultant

Helen Levy, PhD
Research Assistant Professor
University of Michigan

Robert Burt, JD, MA
Professor
Yale Law School

David B. Wilkins
Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law
Director Program on the Legal Profession
Harvard Law School

Gene Webb, PhD
Manager of Planning
Biological Sciences Division
Pritzker School of Medicine
University of Chicago

Nikhil Wagle, MD
Physician
Brigham and Women’s Hospital

Clifford E. Douglas, JD
Executive Director, University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network
Adjunct Lecturer, University of Michigan School of Public Health
Senior Policy Fellow, Michigan Public Health Institute

Thomas G. McGuire
Professor of Health Economics
Department of Health Care Policy
Harvard Medical School

Robert A. Berenson, MD
Senior Fellow
The Urban Institute

Stanley S. Wallack
Professor
Heller School for Social Policy and Management
Brandeis University

Charles J. Ogletree, Jr.
Jesse Climenko Professor of Law,
Harvard Law School

Jon Klein, MD, PhD
James Graham Brown Foundation Endowed Chair in Proteomics
University of Louisville

Sara Rosenbaum
Chair, Department of Health Policy
Harold and Jane Hirsh Professor of Health Law and Policy
Professor of Health Care Sciences
George Washington University

John C. Coates IV
John F. Cogan, Jr. Professor of Law and Economics
Harvard Law School

Peter J. Hammer
Professor of Law
Wayne State University Law School

Meredith B. Rosenthal, PhD
Associate Professor of Health Economics and Policy
Department of Health Policy and Management
Harvard School of Public Health

Barron H. Lerner, MD, PhD
Professor of Medicine and Public Health
Columbia University

Lucian L. Leape, MD
Harvard School of Public Health

Kasturi Haldar
Charles E. and Emma H. Morrison Professor
Department of Pathology
Northwestern University

01:57 PM | Permalink