ThinkProgress.com has a story listing the growing support for a commission like the one I introduced on the first day of the 111th Congress, HR 104.  This follows the USA Today/Gallup poll demonstrating over 70 percent of Americans favor an investigation of the Bush Administration for its role in politicizing the Department of Justice.

I thought you'd appreciate reading two front page stories today from USA Today discussing my commission bill to investigate the Bush presidency (HR 104) and the latest Gallup polling which demonstrates over 70% of Americans favor investigation of the Bush abuses of power in the Department of Justice.  The two articles by Jill Lawrence are here and here.

I only have a moment to write, but I want to suggest checking out a blog post by Gary Schwitzer, former head of CNN's medical news division and current professor at the University of Minnesota's School of Journalism and Mass Communications.  Mr. Schwitzer raises concerns about Dr. Sanjay Gupta's possible appointment to be Surgeon General, and offers rather informative criticism of the TV doctor's work from a journalist's point of view.  The post can be found here.  (Scroll down to January 12 to read find the post.)

I've recently read a few really great op-eds, editorials and articles from local newspapers around the country on the expansion of S-CHIP that President Obama signed this week and on the need to provide affordable, universal health care to all Americans.  I've linked a number of the articles below, with some highlights from them.  If you've read an article in your local news that I've missed, please link to it in the comments and I'll update this post with it.

Fix Must Include Health Care, By Rev. Ted Meyers and Beverly Jean D'Errico

Padadena Star-News

"With an economic stimulus package directed at covering the additional costs for the first three to five years of any increased health coverage, with the addition of preventive care, you can see that our current economic crisis provides us with an opportunity to enhance and reform our health-care system and at the same time reorder our economic priorities."

Universal health care a necessity, By Eamonn Hart

The Bowdoin Orient

"Universal health care is necessary to revitalize the middle class in America. Stimulus checks are helpful, but the risk of serious illness or injury often prevents families from injecting money back into the economy, preferring instead to save it for an emergency that they fear will not be covered (if, indeed, they are fortunate enough to have health insurance)."

'Medicare-for-all' cure for health care woes, By Daniel P. Writ, MD

The Houston Chronicle

"The data are in. Incremental reforms, mostly mandate schemes which retain the for-profit insurance companies, have been tried in seven states over the past two decades: Massachusetts, Tennessee, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Vermont, Maine. In all of these states the reforms have failed to contain costs."

Universal health care aim of Colorado proposal, By Ed Sealover

Rocky Mountain News

"A plan to lay the groundwork for a Canadian-style, single-payer universal health care system in Colorado has been introduced by a group of Democrats.  House Bill 1273, sponsored by Fort Collins Rep. John Kefalas and co-sponsored by 18 legislators, would create a privately funded commission to study how a government-funded health care system could work. The goal is to have a single-payer bill to the General Assembly in 2011, he said."

Time has come for single-payer universal health care system, By Nick Matel

The Fort Worth News-Sentinel

"The time has come to take that long-overdue progressive step forward and implement a single-payer universal health care model in America. The time has come for our leaders to ensure that no citizen is ever again added to the list of those who have died due to a lack of health coverage, a list that adds 18,000 names each year, according to the Institute of Medicine. The administration of hope and change is in place, and therefore the question must be asked: If not finally this administration, then who? And if not now, when?"

Cross-posted at the Huffington Post 

The Obama era began in earnest last week, with bold action such as closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and promising to end torture. In its very first days, the new administration has begun to lift the veil of secrecysurrounding executive branch operations, and has made great strides forward on fundamental challenges such as energy and the environment, and above all the national economic crisis left in the wake of the Bush Presidency. While great challenges and much hard work remain, the way forward is bright and clear.

As we proceed, however, the question remains how best to respond to the severe challenge posed to our constitutional structure, and to our national honor, by the Bush administration's actions, and in particular its national security programs. Faced with a record of widespread warrantless surveillance inside the United States, brutal interrogation policies condemned by the administration's own head of the Guantanamo Bay military commissions as torture, and flawed rendition practices that resulted in innocent men being abducted and handed to other countries to face barbaric abuse, what actions will we take to meet our commitment to the rule of law and reclaim our standing as a moral leader among nations?

I have previously explained my view that a full review of the record must be conducted by an experienced and independent prosecutor, and should focus on the senior policymakers and lawyers who ordered and approved these actions. Others, such as my fellow Michigander Senator Carl Levin, have suggested similar measures. This approach is compelled in my opinion by the basic notion that, if crimes were committed, those responsible should be held accountable - after all, is there any principle of American freedom more fundamental than the rule that no person is above the law? If this independent review concludes that the Bush Administration's legal constructs make prosecution impossible for some, so be it, but the matter should be given a proper look before such judgments are made one way or the other.

Some commentators - including even those firmly opposed to criminal investigation - support the creation of an independent Commission with appropriate clearances and subpoena power to review the existing record, make policy recommendations, and publish an authoritative account of these events. I have introduced a bill in the House that would create such a commission, and I believe this sort of public accounting is critical as well.

There remain those, however, who would have us simply move on.Some fear the consequences of a true accounting, or worry that taking time to reckon with the sins of the past will hinder us in meeting the challenges of the future. Others argue that the facts are already known, and further review will accomplish little. Often, the call for further review of the Bush administration's actions is dismissed as partisan payback, kicking an unpopular President when he's down.

I could not disagree more with these views. As a practical matter, I do not believe that empowering a commission or an independent prosecutor would burden the Congress or the executive or would hinder our efforts to meet the challenges of the day. To the contrary, allowing outside review of these matters by qualified independent experts will free us and President Obama to focus our efforts where they are most needed - on solving the problems before us and improving the lives of the American people.

Nor do I agree that the relevant facts are already known. While disparate investigations by Committees of congress, private organizations, and the press have uncovered many important facts, no single investigation has had access to the full range of information regarding the Bush administration's interrelated programs on surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition. The existence of a substantially developed factual record will simplify the work to come, but cannot replace it. Furthermore, much of this information, such as the Central Intelligence Agency's 2004 Inspector General report on interrogation, remains highly classified and hidden from the American people. An independent review is needed to determine the maximum information that can be publicly released.

Finally, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that further review will cause our intelligence services to retreat into a dangerous "cycle of timidity." A properly conducted investigation will help set appropriate boundaries for future behavior, consistent with our fundamental values and the command of our laws. Have we really become so fearful that expecting our government to use its power within the boundaries of law is deemed unreasonably "timid"?

This argument has another flaw. For all the worry of "cycles of timidity," is there no countervailing concern for "cycles of aggression," or "cycles of lawlessness"? In an era where detainees have been held in limbo for years based on flawed or non-existent evidence, where we have waterboarded prisoners, deprived them of sleep, and subjected them to unconscionable degradations and abuse, and where our most powerful technologies have been turned inward to spy on Americans and within the United States, without court order or warrant and in apparent violation of a clear federal statute, is our greatest fear really that our national security services may be unduly timid?

To me, the bottom line is this: If we move on now without fully documenting what occurred, without acknowledging the betrayal of our values, and without determining whether or not any laws have been broken, we cannot help but validate all that has gone on before. If we look at the Bush record and conclude that the book should simply be closed, we will be tacitly approving both the documented abuses and the additional misdeeds we will have chosen to leave uncovered.

That is why there is nothing partisan about the call for further review. In the end, these acts were not taken by George Bush, or by John Yoo, or even by Dick Cheney - they were taken by the United States of America. By all of us. There is no avoiding the responsibility we all bear for what has been done, and for what we choose to do next.

Our country has never been perfect. This would not be the first time we were forced to take a hard look at difficult choices made in times of peril. But when we have done so before, it has made us stronger, both by improving our policies and our practices and, more fundamentally, by strengthening our moral core and by breathing new life into the principles of our founding.

The responsible way forward requires us to look back as we go.

The op-ed below was published in The Washington Post and is available online here.

This week, I released "Reining in the Imperial Presidency," a 486-page report detailing the abuses and excesses of the Bush administration and recommending steps to address them. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. popularized the term "imperial presidency" in the 1970s to describe an executive who had assumed more power than the Constitution allows and circumvented the checks and balances fundamental to our three-branch system of government. Until recently, the Nixon administration seemed to represent a singular embodiment of the idea. Unfortunately, it is clear that the threat of the imperial presidency lives on and, indeed, reached new heights under George W. Bush.

As this report documents, there was the administration's contrived drive to a needless war of aggression with Iraq, based on manipulated intelligence and facts that were "fixed around the policy." There was its politicization of the Justice Department; unconscionable and possibly illegal policies on detention, interrogation and extraordinary rendition; warrantless wiretaps of American citizens; the ravaging of our regulatory system and the use of signing statements to override the laws of the land; and the intimidation and silencing of critics and whistle-blowers who dared to tell fellow citizens what was being done in their name. And all of this was hidden behind an unprecedented veil of secrecy and outlandish claims of privilege.

I understand that many feel we should just move on. They worry that addressing these actions by the Bush administration will divert precious energy from the serious challenges facing our nation. I understand the power of that impulse. Indeed, I want to move on as well -- there are so many things that I would rather work on than further review of Bush's presidency. But in my view it would not be responsible to start our journey forward without first knowing exactly where we are.

We cannot rebuild the appropriate balance between the branches of government without fully understanding how that relationship has been distorted. Likewise, we cannot set an appropriate baseline for future presidential conduct without documenting and correcting the presidential excesses that have just occurred. After the Nixon imperial presidency, critical reviews such as the Church and Pike committees led to fundamental reforms that have served our nation well. Comparable steps are needed to begin the process of reining in the legacy of the Bush imperial presidency. I consider these three points crucial:

First, Congress should continue to pursue its document requests and subpoenas that were stonewalled under President Bush. Doing so will make clear that no executive can forever hide its misdeeds from the public.

Second, Congress should create an independent blue-ribbon panel or similar body to investigate a host of previously unreviewable activities of the Bush administration, including its detention, interrogation and surveillance programs. Only by chronicling and confronting the past in a comprehensive, bipartisan fashion can we reclaim our moral authority and establish a credible path forward to meet the complex challenges of a post-Sept. 11 world.

Third, the new administration should conduct an independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities. Just this week, in the pages of this newspaper, a Guantanamo Bay official acknowledged that a suspect there had been "tortured" -- her exact word -- in apparent violation of the law. The law is the law, and, if criminal conduct occurred, those responsible -- particularly those who ordered and approved the violations -- must be held accountable.

Some day, there is bound to be another national security crisis in America. A future president will face the same fear and uncertainty that we did after Sept. 11, 2001, and will feel the same temptation to believe that the ends justify the means -- temptation that drew our nation over to the "dark side" under the leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If those temptations are to be resisted -- if we are to face new threats in a manner that keeps faith with our values and strengthens rather than diminishes our authority around the world -- we must fully learn the lessons of our recent past.

· In 2003, in a report about a connection between Vioxx and heart attacks on CNN, you stated, “The numbers are very small. Perhaps a small percentage increase in the overall risk of heart attacks with Vioxx. They say 37 percent to 39 percent but that's of a very small number. After 90 days, no increased risk.” According to the FDA, more than 140,000 heart attacks can be attributed to the ingestion of Vioxx.  Were you aware of any prior medical evidence, peer reviewed journals, or drug research warning of the potential harmful effects of Vioxx at the time of these statements?  Are there any other drugs or products on which you reported favorably, that were later found to have serious concerns or negative impacts on health?

 

· You have accepted honoraria and speaking fees from corporate clients. Have these included fees from pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, medical device manufacturers or other corporate interests?  If so, have you reported or offered commentary on any of these products?  If so, did you disclose your relationship with such companies when you reported or offered commentary?  As a way of honoring the promise of transparency championed by our President-elect during his campaign, I would invite you to disclose all sources of income, including an itemized list of speaking engagements and fees, prior to your confirmation hearing.

 

· As a part of your coverage of the claims made in Michael Moore’s movie “SICKO,” you accused Moore of “fudging the facts” during an on-air interview.  After an examination of each of your claims, it appears that most, if not all, of Moore’s facts and claims were accurate.  What motivated you to focus your attack Moore?  Is there a reason you focused your reporting on undermining the claims of universal health care and Medicare advocates?

 

· In a recent CNN segment, you described Medicare as “one of the best examples of health care.”  However, you later questioned whether Medicare would “be a working system 20 years from now.”  How do you reconcile these two statements? Medicare has an over-all administrative cost of 3%, versus 15-30% for private health insurance.  Do you believe that expanding Medicare to all Americans, a federal program that has insured our nation’s seniors and the disabled since 1965, is economically infeasible?  If not, why?

Is Sanjay Gupta the right choice for Surgeon General? A growing chorus are have questions about his candidacy.

The severity of the current health care crisis in America requires a Surgeon General of serious stature, with deep roots in the public health community and a record of compassion towards America's 47.5 million uninsured.  On the surface, Dr. Gupta seems like a nice enough guy.  However, even his supporters note that some of his feature stories have relied upon questionable science.  It is also troubling that Dr. Gupta currently accepts fees for speaking engagements - something considered highly unethical in journalistic circles. 

In what I have read about Dr. Gupta, he seems to have given little thought to the serious problems facing our health care system.  I hope that President-elect Barack Obama will offer us someone who can make us feel he might have the ability to become a champion of health care reform and whose past action reflects more commitment and integrity about the number one issue of our society - a failed health care system. These indicators seem to be lacking in this potential nominee.

I have great optimism that President-elect Obama will ultimately choose someone who shows the ability to become a Surgeon General who will work to create real change.

I had thousands of requests for tickets to the inauguration so I did what I felt was the most equitable thing to meet this demand.  Instead of passing on the tickets to VIPs, I made them accessible to everyone through a lottery.  Here is an article from MSNBC which covered the drawing.

A number of different proposals have been suggested to help homeowners facing bankuptcy and foreclosure.  I have drafted a proposal entitled the Homeowners Protection Act which will enable bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of mortgages for those facing bankruptcy in an effort to help homeowners keep their homes.  Here is a breakdown of similar measures including my own.  I will be strongly pursuing mortgage relief for homeowners when Congess convenes the 111th Session.