The Pew Charitable Trust’s fourth annual report on “Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race?” doesn’t give the United States much to celebrate on this Earth Day. The report, released last week, finds that the United States is no longer the global leader in renewable energy investment. China is.

From 2011 to 2012, China attracted $65.1 billion of the $269 billion globally invested in renewable energy investment. That compares to $35.6 billion by the United States, which is a 37 percent decline from 2011.

Pew found that globally investments in the renewable energy sector were down 11 percent from their 2011 figures, and that more than 50 percent of all investments were in countries not in the G-20, the set of leading industrial countries. China was the only G-20 country to have a net increase in attracting investors to its renewable energy sector in 2012. Luckily, the renewable energy sector still managed to grow by 88 gigawatts, or 11 percent, globally.

Pew said investments in wind energy were down 14 percent but solar still remained strong. “For the second year in a row, solar technologies attracted more financing than any other technology by a wide margin: $126 billion was invested in the sub-sector in 2012, or 58 percent of the G-20 total,” it said. “China, Europe, and the United States were top markets for solar investment.”

The U.S. loss is no surprise, as policy makers have begun to curtail incentive programs and pursue discredited austerity tactics. Meanwhile, China’s size, commitment and aggressive policies enable it to become the clear leader in clean energy. “In countries with strong policy, they’re successful in attracting investment,” Phyllis Cuttino, director of Pew’s clean energy work, said. In the U.S., “we need more than a patchwork of state policies.”

The on-again-off-again nature of federal clean energy programs such as the wind production tax credit, which was barely kept on the books for one more year during the fiscal cliff negotiations at the beginning of the year, contributed to the U.S. losing its clean energy lead. “This is largely due to policy uncertainty,” said Cuttino. “We have no clean energy standard and while there are tax incentives on the books for oil and gas, there are none for clean energy. That makes investors a little nervous.”

The report comes at a particularly hard time for the U.S., as the economy fails to grow and millions still suffer from unemployment. According to Cuttino, the decline in investments is a double whammy because it threatens our advantage as innovators. “This is a sector of the global economy that we’ve traditionally led,” Cuttino said. “We have invented many of the clean energy technologies, so to see China come along and the United States fall back is very troubling.”

On the bright side, the U.S. led the G-20 in energy efficiency, investing $2.5 billion in 2012. President Obama’s latest budget proposal intends to hold this advantage by allocating $200 million for efficiency programs. We are not out of the clean energy race yet.

We need to Increase our public and private investments in green technologies, fix our crumbling infrastructure and create other types of green jobs to return to global green leadership. Enacting policies that would simultaneously heal our broken economy and our climate would give the U.S. a real reason to celebrate the next Earth Day.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has announced a new Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative. This initiative is about both manufacturing clean energy products and manufacturing using advanced techniques to drive energy efficiency. Both will help make American companies more competitive in the world economy.

At the Energy Blog, David Danielson, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy explains, Energy Department Launches Bold New Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative,

The Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative aims to:

• >Increase U.S. competitiveness in the production of clean energy products — a key economic opportunity for America to innovate, compete and lead the way in a growing global marketplace.
• Increase manufacturing competitiveness by increasing energy productivity in the U.S. manufacturing sector. This includes the use of advanced manufacturing technologies, implementation of energy efficiency measures, the capture of combined heat and power opportunities and taking advantage of low-cost natural gas to help American manufacturers across the board compete in the global marketplace.

Helping U.S. manufacturers succeed in the global marketplace is one of my top priorities here at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. During the State of the Union last month, President Obama re-emphasized the Administration’s commitment to American manufacturing, declaring that “Our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing.” The clean energy sector represents one of the most promising areas for the United States to re-invigorate its manufacturing base and create good paying American jobs.

… To learn more about the Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative, I encourage you to check out our website at: eere.energy.gov/energymanufacturing.

As part of this initiative DOE “announced five new innovative research and development projects focused on reducing energy use and costs for U.S. manufacturers, while helping to boost product output and improve companies’ bottom lines.” See the list at the Earth Techling blog, in Energy-Efficient Manufacturing Sees New Investments. They include,

• Ford Motor Company will lead a project to develop a highly flexible energy-efficient sheet metal forming tool that can simultaneously create features on both sides of sheet metal.
• A team led by University of Texas at Austin will develop a tool that integrates performance metrics, models and simulations with real-time plant energy data.
• Colorado School of Mines will work with industry partners to develop a new manufacturing process that replaces hot stamping (typically 1650°F) for making advanced high-strength, lightweight steels with a room-temperature stamping technique.
• Ithaca, New York-based Novomer will head up a project that converts waste CO2 from industrial sources and ethane-derivatives from shale gas into valuable chemical intermediates that are used in applications such as paints, coatings, textiles, diapers and plastic polymers.
• TIAX LLC, based in Lexington, Massachusetts, will develop a new technology that converts waste heat from manufacturing and industrial processes to electric power.

–

Follow me and CAF on Twitter:

Congress and the media paid homage to the agenda of the billionaires and Wall Street, with the manufactured “fiscal cliff” PR campaign frenzy that just ended. So now can we get back to the country’s priorities? Can we talk about jobs now?

Jobs Fix Deficits

Now that the idiotic “fiscal cliff’ is out of the way, maybe we can start to get around to doing something that will actually help We, the People, fix the economy and reduce the borrowing. Namely, invest in modernizing our country’s infrastructure and reducing our economy’s reliance on burning fossil fuels for energy.

We are $2 trillion behind in keeping our country’s infrastructure up to date. Imagine how our economy would be humming if we finally got started on that work that has to be done sooner or later anyway — modernizing all the roads and bridges, modernizing the electrical grid, bringing fiber internet lines to businesses and homes, building high-speed rail across the country and all of these things using American-made supplies, steel, rail cars … Et. Cetera. Et. Cetera.

Imagine our economy (and the health of the planet) if we didn’t depend on burning oil and coal for our energy. We could retrofit all buildings and homes to be energy-efficient. We could build more (American-produced) wind farms and install (American-produced) solar everywhere. Everything would cost so much less, our trade deficit would be lower, Et. Cetera.

Imagine how many more people would be working if we did those things. They would be paying taxes, patronizing stores, Et. Cetera. They would not be collecting food stamps or unemployment. Et. Cetera.

And imagine how all of that would help our government’s budget situation. More people working = less govt assistance, more people paying taxes, more businesses being patronized… Modernized infrastructure = more competitive economy creating more new opportunities. Energy efficiency = lower energy costs, lower trade deficits… This is because jobs fix deficits.

The Plutocrat Agenda Is Cuts

The agenda of the plutocrats is to get government — We, the People — out of their way.

The billionaires tell us that the biggest problem we have is too much government. Think about who benefits if we cut government. If we cut government We, the People get less of the things that We, the People do for each other, the billionaires get less of We, the People in their way.

If we cut government we get less regulation of their banks, and they get less regulation of their banks.

If we cut government we get less worker safety rules protecting us on the job, and the get less worker safety rules making them pay for those protections.

Et. Cetera.

The agenda of the billionaires is also to limit competition. Government regulations work to increase competition. The billionaires are on top and they want to stay on top. A thriving, competitive, opportunity-creating economy is not important to them, their economy is thriving — they are already billionaires.

Et. Cetera. So of course the billionaires want less government. Less We, the People making the decisions means less We, the People in their way.

The Agenda of We, the People Is Jobs

We, the People want good jobs that pay well and provide benefits. We want a modernized, competitive, opportunity-creating economy. We want modern infrastructure that enables our smaller businesses to thrive and grow. We want plentiful good-paying jobs. And when an economy is humming and there are plenty of jobs, more of us can do well.

Do billionaires create jobs or do jobs create billionaires? Why would a billionaire want to “create jobs,” anyway? This is about who has the power. If you believe that billionaires create jobs, you want the billionaires in charge and making all the decisions. But if you believe that jobs create billionaires then you want We, the People in charge, doing things that create lots of good-paying jobs and improve the economy for all of us.

Do We, the People still have the power to do the things that benefit our lives and each other? Again, if democracy creates billionaires then you want democracy to be in charge. If billionaires create jobs then you want billionaires to be in charge.

Who do you think should be in charge? We, the People? Or the billionaires?

–

Follow me and CAF on Twitter:

The public looked at the stories about Solyndra and Sensata and voted. They voted for clean energy jobs IN the US, not for vulture capitalism that ships our jobs and industries OUT of the US. They voted to act as a united country instead of a leaving everyone on their own, in it only for themselves. They said We, the People are a people, not just a bunch of dorks out there on our own, alone at the mercy of the wealthy and powerful.

Solyndra Was About Jobs Here

Our government’s investment in solar-manufacturing companies was part of an attempt to bring clean energy jobs to the US. Solar power is obviously a big industry of the future, and the countries that can build up a manufacturing/research/education/skill/supply chain ecosystem will do well. Solyndra was one of several companies working on solar technologies that the government thinks will help our economy.

After solar-panel prices dropped, partly as a result of Chinese government subsidies to their own companies, Solyndra and some other solar-power companies didn’t make it. But the country still gained from the investment in expertise, research and other parts of the solar-manufacturing ecosystem that occurred in this country through the Solyndra investment.

Remember, the investment in Solyndra and companies like it is an attempt to trigger a manufacturing ecosystem here in the US, not to make a profit from individual investments.

Voters decided this is a good thing. In California, in fact, there was a ballot initiative, Prop 39, to tax out-of-state corporations and use half the money on energy efficiency projects, create 20,000 to 30,000 construction related jobs. It passed 60% to 40%.

Voters want more government help creating jobs and companies, especially green-energy jobs and startups!

Sensata Was About Jobs There

Sensata is a company that Mitt Romney’s old company Bain Capital bought, and immediately announced they are moving the jobs and manufacturing equipment to China. Sensata makes sensors for the auto industry. This is a key technology and a key component of the auto-industry supply chain. Bain is moving this technology and the manufacturing to China.

Voters said that what Bain Capital did with Sensata is bad. Voters said that what our government did by investing in a solar-manufacturing ecosystem is good.

Romney tried to knock down American clean energy jobs by blasting our investment in Solyndra. And his former
But the public looked at Sensata and chose.

Voters chose Solyndra over Sensata. Voters want investment in America, not China.

—

Hey check out what happens when you click these:

So, let’s get this straight: A Republican President is re-elected in 2004 with 284 electoral votes, and the pundits tell us he has the “political capital” to push an extreme right-wing mandate. A Democratic President gets re-elected in 2012 with 303 electoral votes, and they’re telling us he needs to “unite a divided country.”

Nonsense.

This election was a clear and unequivocal victory for the populist positions the President took on the campaign trail.  Don’t believe the hype:  This was a great night for progressives, populists, and agents of change.  Our political system may be dominated by Big Money, but this was a victory for the 99 Percent. 

We’ve been through our Dark Night of the Soul. Now it’s time for inspiration — and for determination to build on these victories in the weeks, months, and years to come.  Here are seven lessons from this election that have been under-reported, or overlooked completely, in all the media frenzy, including Occupy Wall Street’s victory, the “Harold and Kumar” factor,  Harry Reid’s big mandate, and the fact that “Socialism” sells.

1. Occupy Wall Street won big.

The Occupy movement may have disappeared from the national media eye, but this election was a big win for Occupy’s vision and language. After that movement caught the national imagination, the President adopted its populist rhetoric. That may have hurt the tender feelings of America’s CEOs, especially those on Wall Street, but it help cement his decisive victory.  

The nature of that victory was underscored by the victories won by staunch progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, even as far-right candidates like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock went down in defeat.

The President’s populist theme didn’t end with his victory. He spoke last night of a “generous America,” a “compassionate America,” a “tolerant America.” 

That deeply victory moving speech mentioned deficit reduction – once – but emphasized the following themes:  Our “common bond” as a nation. The “weakening” effect of “inequality.” The “destructive power of a warming planet.” “The best schools and teachers.” Ending our two wars. Investment in “technology and discovery and innovation,” with “good jobs” to follow.  

The President deserved his victory. But as this election came to a close, it was the dreamers in Zuccotti Park who Occupied the Night.

2. This was a bigger victory than it looks.

John Nichols did an excellent piece in The Nation comparing last night’s victory to that of previous Presidents. Read it and remember: This was the first post-Citizens United election. Billionaires and corporations poured hundreds of millions of dollars into races across the country, as well as the Presidential campaign -

- and they still lost.

When you compare last night’s Democratic victory to previous election results, add a “billionaire factor” to get a more apples-to-apples comparison.

(I should be a better person than this, but I take no small amount of satisfaction in knowing that Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers wasted lots and lots and lots of money this year.)

3. Social issues can help Democrats now.

Voters in Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational pot-smoking, while a medical-marijuana initiative won in Massachusetts.  This may be the first time in history that getting high actually increased voter turnout.  At this rate politicians may soon find themselves courting that all-important “Harold and Kumar” demographic.  

For years liberals have watched in frustration as conservatives coasted to victory on social issues, despite the harm that their economic policies caused conservative voters. That’s the phenomenon Thomas Franks discussed in What’s the Matter With Kansas? Anti-gay marriage initiatives were used to increase conservative turnout and wound John Kerry in 2004, for example.

A few short years ago it was considered unthinkable for politicians to support civil unions for gay Americans.  But this year’s ballot initiatives on marriage equality and marijuana may have hurt Republicans, as all Americans  - among them young people of all political views, including young evangelicals – are becoming markedly more liberal on social issues, as marriage equality initiatives won in Maine and Maryland.  

In a victory for free choice, Florida’s attempt to ban the use of public funds for abortion failed.  At this rate some conservative will soon write book about Democratic victories in the Deep South called What’s the Matter With Mississippi? (Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he?)  

4. Harry Reid! Good ol’ Harry Reid! He’s got a mandate.

Romney lost, but another Mormon won big last night. This election was a great victory for Reid and his Senatorial majority. He strengthened that majority, despite being forced to defend more seats than the Republicans, and he did it with candidates who tended to be strongly progressive.

Warren won in Massachusetts, as did Sherrod Brown in Ohio both. Tim Kaine pulled out a win in Virginia, in part by decisively rejecting the “centrist” agenda of the austerity-minded Simpson Bowles proposal. Meanwhile a candidate who did embrace the “centrist” agenda, Bob Kerrey, was defeated in Nebraska.

As Majority Leader, Harry Reid now has a clear mandate to  fight for populist causes and resist the radical-right agenda of Congressional Republicans. Reid has made it clear that he opposes any cuts to Social Security benefits. With Senators like Tim Kaine, Elizabeth Warren, and Sherrod Brown by his side, he has the moral and political capital to defend them.

Reid also has a mandate to reform the Senate’s procedural rules, which minority Republicans have repeatedly abused in order to thwart the will of the American majority. Newly-elected Maine Senator Angus King, who is a relatively conservative Independent, campaigned on a platform of filibuster reform. Harry Reid alsohas the political capital to reform the Senate.

Good ol’ Harry Reid. He’s not loud or pushy, but he last night he got it done. 

5. “Socialism” sells

In today’s political rhetoric, the word “socialism” is used to describe policies that were universally accepted by politicians across the political spectrum. Here’s one example: The Republican Party platform of 1956 boasted that millions had been added to Social Security’s rolls, and to the membership of America’s unions, during Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first term.  Eisenhower built the Federal highway system.  President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and proposed a universal guaranteed income for all Americans.

From Roosevelt to Reagan, the ideas now labeled as “socialist” were universal American values.  

Those values won again last night.  President Obama’s victory in Ohio would not have been possible if he hadn’t taken the most “socialistic” action of his Presidency by taking over the auto companies in order to rescue them. He saved millions of jobs – and turned a profit for the country, too.

And while Florida hasn’t been called as of this writing, it’s in play because the President strengthened Medicare,while his opponents tried to destroy it with their voucher proposal, and because Republicans attacked Social Security with a privatization scheme. 

6. Unions and progressives matter.

Unions turned out for the President, providing invaluable help in key states like Ohio. Progressive organizations and individuals contributed their time, money, energy, and ideas. That helps explain progressive victories around the country, as well as the President’s national win.  

Progressives also contributed heavily to races like that of Alan Grayson, who scored an historic comeback win in a Republican-leaning district, and nearly helped unseat Michele Bachmann.

The power and contribution of these movements should be remembered in the weeks and months to come.

7. The “new America” needs bold action.

There’s a lot of talk about the “new America” that contributed to this victory: women (who are a rising political force, even if they’re hardly new!), the growing Hispanic population, and young people.

These constituencies need the same things the country as a whole needs: Hispanics are struggling with low wages and high unemployment, so they need action for jobs and economic growth. Health issues are critical to women, which means we need more and deeper reform of our health sector. Young people need more investment in education, job creation, and a equitable society with opportunity for all.

Welcome to the “New America.” In most ways it’s just like the old one, especially in what matters most: We’re still all in this together.

Mossville, Louisiana is an historic African American community in the southwest part of the state. Like too many similar communities around the country, it is surrounded by 14 industrial facilities that release millions of pounds of toxic chemicals annually. Mossville residents point to studies by governmental and private sources linking the pollution from these facilities to their exposure to dioxins, noxious odors, and unhealthy air and water quality throughout the community. And they have documented how the burdens of toxic pollution and environmental hazards are disproportionately visited upon Louisiana communities that share their racial complexion.

A safe and healthy environment and freedom from discrimination are basic human rights that everyone should enjoy and that all governments should protect. Yet Mossville residents’ efforts to seek relief from their government—both state and federal—have yielded only excuses and inaction.

Last week, however, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—a part of the Organization of American States—agreed to hear their case. The Commission will consider whether the United States government, which is a member of the OAS, has violated residents’ human rights to racial equality. The case marks the first time that the Commission will consider a U.S. environmental justice case.
It’s a shame that it takes an international body to hold our government accountable for protecting the rights of its own people. But that’s one of the reasons why America must be part of an international human rights system as well as our domestic systems of civil and constitutional rights. Human rights treaties provide tools to help ensure that the basic rights of all people are upheld.

Monique Harden, Co-Director of Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, which represents the Mossville residents, explained why the case is so important: “The good news is that a judicial review by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights can open the door to ending the pattern of environmental racism by introducing a human rights framework for environmental protection.” Hopefully, this case will help to bring human rights home to a place that desperately needs them.

Last week President Obama used a strategy that should become an important part of his leadership going forward. On February 18, he issued an executive order creating a bipartisan commission on addressing the budget deficit, after the Senate failed to enact legislation that would have done so. Whatever one thinks of the commission’s mission or likely recommendations, the order should represent a rediscovery of the power of the presidency.

Perhaps because he came to the White House directly from the Senate, the President has been overly reliant on that body to achieve his goals. It goes without saying that the Senate is dysfunctional and divided—by contrast, the House has passed superior versions of many of the President’s legislative priorities, only to see more anemic version die at the other end of the building. But while the Senate is crucial to federal legislation, and federal legislation is crucial to transformative change on many issues, such as health care, financial regulation, and immigration reform, presidents wield tremendous power as presidents through their constitutional authority as executive. The executive order is a prime example.

President Obama has issued some 42 Executive Orders since he took office. But the Deficit Commission order served as a public notice—or at least it should—that the President stands ready to move solutions forward, within constitutional limits, when the Legislative Branch fails to act.

Proactive use of the executive order has been an important tool for past presidents and, in particular, those pushing forward progressive policies in the face of conservative filibuster threats. In 1941, for example, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 to prohibit racial discrimination in the national defense industry. It was the first federal action, though not a law, to prohibit racial discrimination in employment in the United States. In 1948 President Truman signed Executive Order 9980, ordering the desegregation of the federal work force, and Executive Order 9981, ordering the desegregation of the armed services. And in 1961, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and required that projects financed with federal funds “take affirmative action” to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.

Throughout this period, civil rights legislation was proposed, debated, and killed by filibustering segregationist Southern Democratic senators. Even when legislation initially passed, in the 1950s, it was largely toothless. By contrast, the civil rights executive orders had huge impact, both practical and symbolic, and showed the nation what was possible. Similarly, in 1998 President Clinton signed a groundbreaking executive order, 13087, prohibiting discrimination in federal Executive Branch employment based on sexual orientation.

Starting now, President Obama should wield the executive order more publicly, as many of his predecessors did, to solve problems and protect basic rights. While Congress dithers over ending the shameful Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, the president should immediately outlaw discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation or sexual identity in federally funded programs and in federally assisted housing. As a much needed jobs bill is stripped down and delayed in the Senate, the president should issue an order requiring that federal agencies administer all federal appropriations so as to maximize job creation for all Americans and equal opportunity based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. And as the fifth anniversary of the Hurricane Katrina tragedy approaches, the President should issue an executive order providing that federal responses to national disasters and emergencies must meet established international human rights standards, known as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

This is just a start, and must be accompanied by a cogent explanation to the American people about why these and other Executive actions are necessary and in the country’s best interest. Over time, however, they will achieve important change, put pressure for action on both parties, and demonstrate what leadership really looks like.

My Fellow Americans:

I speak to you tonight at a crucial moment in our nation’s history. When you elected me president almost one year ago, you voted in favor of hope, and in favor of change. You voted for the idea that we are all in it together, and that we share a common responsibility to uphold the public good. You rejected the old politics of special interests, of legislative gridlock, and the failed notion that you’re better off on your own than as part of one indivisible nation.

You called out—in veterans’ halls and in union halls, in congregations and from small businesses, in senior centers and on college campuses—that this is America and, in America, we can fix what’s broken, and we can do it together.

Tonight our nation faces a crucial test of that profoundly American resolve. Will we rise together and ensure the basic security for our people that comes from affordable, quality health insurance? Or will we allow the cynics and the fear mongers, and the entrenched interests to extinguish that hope? Can we transcend the partisan bickering and solve the biggest problems facing our nation? Can we be the country we were meant to be?

Tonight, my fellow Americans, I come to you with a clear answer to that question: Yes We Can.

We will reform our health insurance system this year. And we will reform it with one core value at its center: that health care is a basic human right, as essential to leading a productive and fulfilling life as food and shelter. It is not a consumer good. It is not a luxury. It is a public good and a human right. No one in our great nation should have to go without that human right. And starting this year, 2009, no one will.

Protecting the human right to health care is not only about those who cannot afford health insurance, or those whose insurance does not cover their actual health needs. It is not only about the elderly among us, or the sick, or about our vulnerable children and youth. It is about all of us.

When workers cannot afford the care they need, our entire nation’s prosperity suffers. When businesses that do offer coverage are crippled by spiraling costs, our entire nation’s competitiveness is in jeopardy. When half of all personal bankruptcies are due to health care related debts, our entire nation’s economic security is enfeebled. When parents cannot afford to take their children to the doctor, our entire nation’s future is at risk. And when 22,000 Americans die, as they will again this year, solely because they lack health insurance, we are failing to be the country we were meant to be.

That will not happen on my watch. And so we will reform our nation’s health care system this year. We will uphold the human right to health care, and we will do it by ensuring that any legislation that I sign includes four non-negotiable elements:

First, it will cover everyone. All the time. No preexisting condition, no change or loss of job, no red tape or clerical error will stand in the way of your access to needed care. Where you live, what you look like, where you come from, will pose no barrier to your health care coverage.

Second, it will be affordable. To everyone. I’m going to say that again. It will be affordable to everyone.

Third, it will be comprehensive. It’s both just and economically sound that the care Americans need for a healthy and productive life—preventive care, emergency care, reproductive and neonatal care, geriatric care, mental health care—must be covered.

Now if you want that Botox injection for cosmetic reasons, you may have to save up your pennies. But when it comes to basic care, you will be covered.

And fourth, it will insist upon high quality care, holding our health care system accountable to patients while supporting our nation’s committed health care professionals.

Let me be clear. I will veto any plan that does not ensure these four essential elements.

But I am confident that I will not be called upon to veto a bill. Because it is clear that the American people want reform that includes these core elements. And I am confident that their elected representatives in Congress will respond to that demand.

So we will reform our health insurance system this year. We will reform it with Republican votes if possible, but we’ll reform it solely through with our Democratic majority if necessary. There are two ways of avoiding gridlock—one is through compromise and the other is through resolve. As you know, I prefer compromise. But if good faith negotiation is not forthcoming, we will use our party’s votes in Congress to achieve the change that’s needed. That’s what a majority means in our democracy.

Now, there’s been a lot of talk about public options, cooperatives, and other tools for getting this job done. It’s important to remember that they are only tools. I continue to believe that a public option—which means that the government will stand behind the guarantee of health care coverage if and when there are gaps in privately run insurance—is the most effective way to achieve our goals. I will not be inflexible in crafting reform, but I do insist that any attack on a public option or any other tool I’ve offered be accompanied by a concrete alternative that will achieve the core goals I’ve outlined: cover everyone, be affordable to everyone, be comprehensive for everyone, ensure the highest quality care for everyone.

We’ve also seen a lot of confusion and misinformation out there about this process—some of it in good faith and some of it the result of deliberate deception. For those Americans who are understandably confused about the elements of reform, we’ll be launching a new area of the whitehouse.gov website to provide clear information and to answer questions. We will also be setting up telephone hotlines in each region of the country to answer questions and provide information. And I am encouraging every member of Congress who supports commonsense health insurance reform to prepare their constituent service staff to do the same.

I also ask you, the American people, to ask of any proposal or counterproposal that’s out there, including mine: does it cover everyone? It is affordable to everyone? Is it comprehensive for everyone? Will it ensure the highest quality for everyone?

For the small group of organizations and politicians who are intentionally deceiving and scaring their fellow Americans with falsehoods about our vision of health insurance reform, you are on the wrong side of history. And you will fail. The American people want an insurance system that protects their fundamental human right to health care and, starting today, my administration and my allies in Congress will be relentless in communicating what reform will and will not mean.

We will not be jumping to counter every outrageous claim that you may make. That’s an old Washington game that we will no longer be playing. But we will be clear, plainspoken and rigorously honest about what our vision of reform will mean for all Americans. And I call upon our nation’s news media to fulfill their important responsibility to separate fact from fiction.

One clearly legitimate concern is the cost of this plan to the American people. Health insurance reform is an investment in America’s future that we cannot afford not to make. It is also true, however, that our nation must make sacrifices in the short term in order to finance that long-term investment. In addition to the savings we’ll accrue through economies of scale and reductions in waste and fraud, affluent Americans—those who’ve benefited most from our national prosperity—will have to pay somewhat more in taxes in the short term. This should be no surprise, as it was among the promises I made during my campaign. But, over time, this investment will pay off in dollars in cents, in economic security and prosperity, and in the innovation and opportunity that it will unleash in the American people. That dividend will benefit the most affluent Americans in at least the same proportions as it will benefit our nation as a whole.

So I say to you, my fellow Americans, that at this critical moment in our history, we will rise to the challenge. We will look back upon 2009 as the year that America fulfilled the human right to health care for all of its people, and year that we made a historic downpayment on our future.

Article 1 of the International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment provides, in simple terms, that “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession….” The Convention reaffirms the basic principle that intentionally inflicted suffering destroys the dignity of victim, the torturer, and the society that allows it.

Article 2 of the Convention provides that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture,” and that “an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.” In other words, “no torture” means no torture. Ever.

With the release and analysis of Justice Department memos seeking to justify extreme interrogation methods by the CIA, we now know that the techniques included, at least, forced nudity, slamming detainees into walls, 11-day sleep deprivation, dousing detainees with frigid water, putting them in dark, cramped boxes—sometimes with insects to exploit their profound fears. C.I.A. interrogators used waterboarding, the intentional near-drowning of suspects to inspire fear of impending death, 266 times on just two key prisoners over a short period of time.

The methods described in the memos are chilling. They are un-American. And they are unquestionably torture. As a former Justice Department official myself, I read with near disbelief the lengths to which the memos’ authors twisted law and logic to provide cover to ghastly and inhumane practices that would be clearly illegal if perpetrated against animals, much less another human being. Consider one memo’s description of waterboarding:

“In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual’s feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual’s blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of suffocation and incipient panic,” i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths. The sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout. You have orally informed us that this procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of drowning that the individual cannot control even though he may be aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have also orally informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more 20 minutes in anyone application.”

Yet the same memo concludes that this practice—even when combined with others—is not torture because, while it does constitute a threat of imminent death, it does not inflict “prolonged mental harm.” That is so, the memo claims, because the CIA “advised us that the relief is almost immediate when the cloth is removed from the nose and mouth.” “In the absence of prolonged mental harm,” the memo continues, “no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture.”

Consider it for a moment. You are a prisoner. You are slapped in the face by interrogators. You are grabbed by the face and pushed hard and loudly into walls. You are stripped naked. You are deprived of sleep for 11 days straight. You are placed in a small, dark box. You are deathly afraid of insects, and told that a stinging insect is being placed in the box with you. You are doused in cold water. Your face is covered by a cloth and you are intentionally made to feel that you are drowning, to death. But it is not torture, because you somehow did not experience prolonged mental harm.

I am ashamed. I’m ashamed that someone who shares my profession, who studied the same Constitution that I did, who worked for the same government I did in the same building where I worked, allowed this to happen. Endorsed it. Said that it was not torture. Said that it was consistent with our laws and our beliefs as Americans.

These were not snap decisions made on the battlefield. The CIA knew that these techniques were questionable, and asked the Justice Department for reasoned legal guidance. DOJ attorneys sat safely in their offices on Pennsylvania Avenue and clinically rationalized heinous acts on behalf of the American people. In all of our names.

And let’s be clear. Few would deny that Abu Zubaydah—waterboarded 83 times in August 2002 by C.I.A. officers—and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—waterboarded 183 times in March 2003—are heinous, murderous villains. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in particular, is the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which killed 3,000 Americans. We reject torture based on our nation’s values, not based on theirs. The “inherent dignity of the human person” that underlies the Convention Against Torture is as much about our dignity as it is about those who endure torture and humiliation at the hands of our agents.

Although the United States government prosecuted some Japanese interrogators at war crimes trials after World War II for waterboarding and other methods described in these memos, President Obama says that C.I.A. officers who used the same methods with the approval of the Justice Department will not be prosecuted, and he has suggested that he opposes congressional proposals for a “truth commission” to examine Bush era interrogation and eavesdropping methods. While remaining mum on whether the memos’ authors might be subject to prosecution, the President said that “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past,” according to the New York Times.

That’s correct, but irrelevant. Accountability for possible human rights violations is not about blame, but about justice and preventing future atrocities. Indeed, we are obligated as a nation to fully investigate this conduct and to hold any violators—whatever their station—accountable. Failing to do so could perpetuate a new violation of the Convention Against Torture, which provides that suspected torturers must be investigated and, where the evidence supports it, prosecuted through a fair trial. Each party to the treaty “shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.”

Further, the decision whether to bring potential human rights violators to justice does not belong only to the President. The Senate Intelligence Committee has begun a yearlong, closed-door investigation of the C.I.A. interrogation program, and other congressional inquiries seem certain. Three of the memos’ authors, John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee, and Steven G. Bradbury, are the subjects of a pending report by the Justice Department’s ethics office. Some are calling for the impeachment of Bybee, who is now a federal judge. And there will undoubtedly be private lawsuits against the architects, as well as the implementers, of these monstrous techniques.

Facilitating a fair legal vetting of these claims is similarly part of our national human rights obligations; Article 14 of the Torture Convention provides that parties to the treaty “shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.”

Releasing the torture memos was a just and courageous act on the part of the Obama Administration. In the months to come, the Administration will have to grapple with the full implications of the acts that those memos detail, and the steps necessary to prevent either impunity or future violations. A clear-eyed look back will be crucial to moving forward.

By an overwhelming bipartisan margin, Congress has passed what sponsors are calling the first civil rights act of the 21st century: the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The Act, which President Bush is expected to sign, prohibits employers and insurance companies from denying people jobs, benefits, or health coverage because of their genetic make-up.

Past attempts to prohibit genetic discrimination failed after employers and insurance companies opposed them. But the Human Genome Project has given more and more Americans access to their genetic profile, and raised ever-greater concerns that DNA information will be used to limit opportunity and human rights in employment, health care, criminal justice, and other aspects of life. While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce still opposed the bill, it passed the Senate by a 95-to-0 vote and the House by a vote of 414-to-1.

The Act represents a welcome acknowledgement of how technological advances can both advance and threaten our national values and basic rights. DNA testing can help identify and prevent or ameliorate a range of debilitating diseases. Yet it can also feed societal biases—even lead to new ones—and stoke cynical and exclusionary business practices. The legislation is timely and important.
Two other issues at the confluence of science, equality, and human rights warrant quick attention from policymakers: subconscious bias and segregation from opportunity.

A growing body of research shows that, while old fashioned bigotry has declined, subconscious stereotypes and implicit biases continue to pose daunting barriers to equal treatment in health care, education, and the criminal justice system, among other sectors. Particularly compelling is the work of Harvard’s Project Implicit (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/), which shows that we all carry around subconscious biases based on race, gender, religion, and other human characteristics that often influence our decisionmaking. The Institute of Medicine at the National Academies, among others, has found that such biases can influence health care and other decisions, including by professionals who have no conscious intention to discriminate.

Despite this established research, the courts have interpreted the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which bars racial discrimination in federally funded programs), to address only intentional efforts to harm people of a particular group. Because that reading fails to respond to the realities of modern exclusion, Congress should amend Title VI, and the next Administration should advocate a reading of the Constitution that embodies the Framers’ intention to eradicate discrimination, in its evolving forms, from our nation’s institutions.

A different technology, Global Information Systems (GIS) mapping, provides a powerful new way of understanding unequal opportunity, and addressing it. These maps, including interactive versions that use Google’s open source technology, can illustrate how some communities—predominantly low-income and minority ones—are physically disconnected from the steppingstones to opportunity like good jobs, quality schools, and health care services. A map developed by The Opportunity Agenda – http://www.healthcarethatworks.org — shows, for instance, how New York City neighborhoods like Southeast Queens have few or no hospitals, despite high levels of asthma, diabetes, low-birth-weight babies, and other health needs. John Powell of the Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University has pioneered the use of static GIS maps to measure access to opportunity in a number of cities.

Government, private industry, and community leaders should use these maps to redevelop neighborhoods and regions with access to opportunity in mind. Relevant agencies should collect and analyze the data necessary to make smart and equitable decisions, communities should have access to that information, and developers—especially those receiving government contracts or subsidies—should be required to make choices that expand opportunity rather than deepening inequality.

Like genetic information, our growing knowledge about bias and geography presents both challenges and opportunities. Used in the right way, each can help our communities and nation to rise together.