balance that would not exist >> the affordable care act and have revenue collisions. >> we're not worried about the deficit. that is the tortured stuff you were talking about. because they were able to not score certain things as expenditures, make certain assumptions and their and most importantly collect revenue during a time in which they were paying nothing out which gained them a score of revenue that on an ongoing basis, they started on that day the day the affordable care act began providing services and took only the revenue, they would have had a deficit. >> they started the day the affordable care act began, they would have showed a massive surplus. >> you are saying that --

are you sure you want to say that, your knowledge? in fact today was the payout you you want to say that the incremental medicaid payment would, in fact, have had a surplus, not a deficit. >> my recollection of the numbers -- and i have not looked in a while -- by the end of the decade on a year-to-year basis the affordable care act lowered the deficit. i believe that would have been deficit. >> you are aware this cbo has revised the number and now show a deficit and have really since shortly after the parties changed and they redid their numbers. are you aware that they show a deficit? they no longer stand behind the numbers trying passage? i sure wish you had been

aware of it. you had not heard that. >> i don't think so. >> we will check on that. >> one of the things that i think about and talk about is that we have a a limited amount of time to be in these offices. i am so sorry, mr. gruber, that you said what you said. you said. you can call it conjecture, whatever. what it does is distract. it it distracts from all of the good things that are being done with regard to this law. that is the most painful part of all of this. wait for the affordable care act to go into effect.

story after story after story. we have to spend all this time dealing with something, mr. gruber, that you were conjecturing about. you ought to learn from this. watch what you say. and i'm so sorry to hear. i know you wanted to say something. what did you want to say? >> first of all, express my sorrow. follow up with the dc exchange. so anyway, ms. kayfive, i hope you you we will go out there and continue to work hard to make this work. we have to protect people, try to keep people well and help families stay strong. when we have an unhealthy population we have an

unhealthy country. mr. gruber, you know, you can call it amateur politics, whatever you want to call it. i always try to keep site of the big picture. i think sometimes we get so caught up that we don't deal with the bigger picture, the life-and-death situations. thank you all. >> i am going to close the hearing. thank you for your participation. i suspect that this is an unusual event for you. you carried yourself well. perhaps if you we will post a few videos you we will get an opportunity. i think you saw here that a

number of members don't buy that you were saying one thing that you did not believe. you believed a lot of what you said. in the case of tortured accounting, only six years worth of payout, it was tortured, is tortured. no free lunch and paying a hundred percent, the major part of the new insured has a cost. the taxpayers are who we represent. the only reason you are back your today is you came with figures that were deceptive, needlessly deceptive. we can take bad news here. we have overseen a lot of agencies, problems of the secret service.

we have been able to work without endlessly bringing people back when there is open and transparent delivering of information. you made some specific promises of delivering information. i trust that you we will keep those. no matter who sits in this chair, i can tell you, mr. waxman would have been just as animated as we are here today. give us give us the bad news. give us what you have. even give us bad information in in the early days of the stimulus package. at the end of the day we accepted that they were giving us the best information. when they saw mistakes they corrected them. you have that opportunity. somebody else we will be here.

if they call you back tell us what you don't know or leon, not only ask for facts later. i have said all along the problem with this administration is they did not live up to there promise the standard, the bar was low. bad news at the latest possible date. i date. i want to thank the ranking member. he said that i made them better. he worked very hard to make me out to be better. i have learned a great deal. i i would do things differently with what i now no, but i would hope anyone that sits in this chair would never do less than i have done because it is our watch. it is our time, and i think

you and i worked i worked hard to try to make sure this committee did as much as we could. my only regret is we could not do more. thank you. we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> next on c-span2, it's prime minister's question time. the british house of commons with the deputy prime minister nick clegg. and senate floor debate on the release of the cia interrogation report. live at 9:30 a.m. eastern the u.s. senate returns on the defense programs bill for 2015. >> and now live to london for british prime minister's question time. each week the house of commons is in session we bring you prime minister david cameron taking questions from members of the

house of commons. this week, mr. cameron is in turkey so deputy prime minister nick clegg will step in. now live to the floor of the british house of commons. >> young people into work so businesses employed under 21 and apprentices age 25. >> unemployment in northern ireland is much higher than the uk average. two-thirds of young people want to leave northern ireland. what specific test is he giving to improve skills and treating young people to stay in northern ireland? >> of course the government works very closely. she'll be aware a help of the economic plan that was published 18 months ago in collaboration

with the northern ireland executive which laid out a number of steps that we would take jointly to promote a shared an integrated future, including of course the creation of the further education college. further such measures will be considered. the important thing is to improve the number of apprenticeships in northern ireland. i think the national assurance contributions that have been announced in the autumn statement are very important part of that. >> order. options to the prime minister. >> question number one in mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, i've been asked what on behalf of a right honorable friend the deputy primprimeminister. this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> the deputy prime minister last week refused to attend the autumn statement. can he tell us exactly which part of that statement the most

objected to? >> that autumn statement was a coalition autumn statement. [laughter] mr. speaker, i spend one to in cornwall. members opposite have been spending five years in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to the economy. this side of the house is been clearing up the mess they created. >> in the light of my right honorable friend's enthusiasm for devolving power from uk government to component members of the parts of the united kingdom, does he have a similar plan for devolving competencies from europe to uk institute? >> tragedy will be perhaps the surprise of the road once a little booklet about the very idea. but just as we have to decide to do certain things at european level together that nationstates can do on their own, the environment, globalization,

trade talks and so on, certain other powers should be evolved down with as well. >> it's good to see the deputy prime minister back in his place after his important day trip during the important statement, but mr. speaker, since he became deputy prime minister he's had the opportunity to appoint seven cabinet members. but can he remind the house how many of them have been women? >> mr. speaker, she knows exactly who the members of the cabinet are. but i would like, i would like to remind her that for the millions of women in this country they have got from this government something they never got from her government. better pension, more jobs, tax cuts, shared parental leave, better childcare, instead it's going westminster points why doesn't she do the right thing for millions of women around the country?

[shouting] >> well, he's reluctant to answer the question which is normally when he is asked about numbers and women, he's quite forthcoming. [laughter] this is not, this is not -- let me tell the house. let me tell the house. for and have years as deputy prime minister, seven cabinet appointments, not one woman. this is not a westminster board. it if asked what they do so let me ask him, since his government brought in tribunal these come what has been the number of sex discrimination cases? >> mr. speaker, i don't have that statistic at him. of course, i'm very happy to provide it to were. mr. speaker, once again she displays the way in which her and her party are in total denial about their own record when it came to women in our country. e-mail unemployment rose 24%

under labour. under labour in one year women were given a paltry 75 p. rise in the state pension. scandalous, a total shame. to our new their shingle. pension, 650,000 women will get an extra 400 pounds a year from 2016. and i care more about the six and 50,000 women across the country kind of do anyone around the cabinet table. >> i'll answer the question since he hasn't. since the introduction of their tribunal these, there has been a 90% fall in women taking sex discrimination cases, including women who have been discriminate against at work because they are pregnant. let me turn to another of his key decision. of those who get the millionaires tax cut, what percentage are men? >> it's quite breathtaking, is

quite breathtaking. does -- is she not aware that in the over 26 monkey blood benefited from our tax cuts for lower and middle income earners, that tax cut is disproportionally gone to women? is she not aware that that her government the top rate of taxes 40 p., five p. lower than it is under this government? issue not aware that more women in employment than ever before? that is a record of which we are very proud indeed. >> and he should be aware that it has been more than wiped out from its they've taken on the cuts to tax credits. [shouting] and yet indeed i would agree with him, it is breathtaking. just let me tell the house 85% of those who benefit from the millionaires tax cut are men. so let's try him on another one.

what proportion of those hit by his bedroom tax are women? >> mr. speaker, since she's losing her way a bit with statistics, let me tell you we have cut tax for 11.9 million women. the gender pay gap for women under the age of 40 has pretty well disappeared under this coalition. [shouting] under her government only one in eight were women. under this government there are more women than ever before. thank you the labour party is becoming the last armstrong of british politics. they have just forgotten about half of the decade of how they messed things up. [shouting] >> well, i will tell the deputy prime minister and the house the reality for people who are paying the bedroom tax. two-thirds of those hit by the bedroom tax are women. don't think there's any sure

room on downing street. let me ask you about something else. of the 26 billion pounds this government has raised in changes to benefit cut taxes, a staggering 22 billion pounds of that has come from women. can he explain why? >> mr. speaker, i think it is time to call the right honorable lady on her government's record. under labour unemployment, unemployment was higher. e-mail unemployment was higher. youth unemployment was higher. inequality was hi. child poverty was higher. pension of poverty was hi. relative poverty was higher. fuel policy was higher in income tax for low and middle income earners was higher. when was she, to admit that her party create so much of the mess

so this side of the house had to to clear up? >> is just demonstrating that he is completely out of touch with women's lives. it's always the same with this deputy prime minister. he talks the talk but he walks through the lobby with the tories. [shouting] he always votes with them. he complains about the autumn statement, but he signed it off and that's what people will never trust him or his party ever again. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, does she think people trust her and her party? of course the. this is the party, if that shadow health secretary sitting there is eliminate with those ever privatize nhs hospital? and day care to lecture us

pitching the hospital. the only nhs hospital privatized by the labour party. in equality, high under labour. privatization under labour and an economy destroyed under labour. >> here, here. [shouting] >> thank you. by constituents would've been delighted to be the deputy prime minister's support for the excellent autumn statement last week because people in wimbledon know it's the only correct thing for economic recovery. they have been worried that the deputy prime minister wanted to raise taxes. after his answer to the question, that can't be true. wiki today confirms loyalty to the long-term economic plan to bring jobs and growth to the people of wimbledon? >> mr. speaker, i of course wholeheartedly agree with him that you must stay the course in

order to finish the job and finish it fairly. he perhaps we'll know that the long-term youth claimant count in his constituency is falling just in the last year by a full 14%. that is an extraordinary achievement. as he knows my view is it is simply not there or justifiable to apply property tax bands, council tax bands to lower value properties and not adopt the same approach to higher value property. why should a family living in the coming home it is in council tax is living in 18 million-pound palace possible in wimbledon? doesn't make sense to me and it should change. >> mr. speaker, my 69 year old constituent, margaret, was run over by a car and was left bleeding in the road 490 minutes before the end let's showed a. the chance for last weeks of the government had make cuts without affecting front-line services. does the deputy prime minister a great or does he regret supporting every cut that this

government has made a? >> mr. speaker, what i regret enormously is every household in her constituency come into every household in all of our constituency, took a hit of 3000 pounds each because of the crashed into thousand eight, caused in large part by the outlook neglect of the labour party in government. that's what i regret. that's what i regret. that's what i regret. this economy has suffered a cardiac arrest, the likes of which would not seem in the postwar period and i'm very proud of the fact this coalition government is taking the painstaking in controversial decision to make sure that we live within our means and don't sell the burden our children and our grandchildren with his generations mistakes. >> thank you, mr. speaker my constituents are very concerned by board of security in the situation the we've seen this year. does he agree while we have acted, the european union page

to take more responsibility for people trafficking? open borders and give italy to take responsibility. it's there country. >> mr. speaker, i certainly of course can understand what an important issue this is for him and his constituents. i agree this is a problem shared and, therefore, the solution needs to be shared as well across the europeans. it's one of the reason what i've always been an advocate of cross-border cooperation in the european union on issues which have to do with people crossing our borders. we can't do that on our own and agreed wherever possible for your opinion should act effectively and together. >> thank you, mr. speaker and. on this side of the house with called for order to fast-track elements of smith commission for scotland, specially for 16 and 17 euros in the 2016 scott parliament elections. seeing his in the big secret able to make a commitment --

[inaudible] >> we will stick to the timetable that was committed to by all the main parties in westminster for the time of the referendum and we religiously stuck to the timetable so far and, in fact, despite predictions we have over delivered on the commitments about for the devolution of scotland despite the predictions to the contrary. as he knows there was a lively debate about the franchise 16 and 17 euros. my party is always believed we should give 16 and 17 euros the right to vote. they took up that right in the scottish revenue but it's clear something which will continue to be debated across parties in this house. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [laughter] what a surprise. some of us -- spin when one is standing, you are standing to be called.

[laughter] spirit still a surprise. sometimes i worry i forget what i am. anyway, mr. speaker, -- thank you. heart rendering cases in my surgery on a weekly basis, are those people who have had mental health difficulties and field left them by the national health and other organizations set to help them. does the deputy prime minister agree with me it's time we did more? >> mr. speaker, i suspect many members across all parties in this house will agree that mental health services for too long have been treated as sort of a poor cousin, as a cinderella service in the nhs, have been systematically underfunded for a long period of time. that's what i'm delighted to say we have announced as a coalition government that we will be introducing new access and waiting time standards for mental health condition in a way

that's been in existence for physical health conditions for a long period of time. and overtime as reflected in the new nhs mandate we must ensure mental health is treated with the same quality of resources can be nhs just as much as any other part of the nhs. >> when the act passed department government said it wasn't about privatization. a reason study says one-third of all contact because of the private sector but only 10% to the voluntary and social enterprise sector. does the deputy prime minister regret supporting the legislation? >> mr. speaker, he is being highly selective in describing what another report said. what it actually said was of all nhs budget contracts, 6% gone to the private sector. jesse hockett was when this government took office? 5%. so they preside over a 5%. we've added 1% on it.

they delivered 250 million pounds worth of sweetheart deals to the nhs, but literally undercutting the nhs for operations which did help a single nhs patient in the country and they have the gall to lecture this side of house on the privatization of nhs. [shouting] >> will the prime minister unreservedly condemn what appears to be the killing this morning by the israeli defense board of the palestinian government minister who was doing nothing more than protesting in his own country against illegal destruction of ancient olive groves by the state of israel? will her majesty's government join international pressure in demanding a full investigation and then calling that it be so justified for the prosecution of the soldier who struck at him?

>> mr. speaker, of course i and the government will look with urgency into the circumstances around this killing. off course we condemn all unwarranted acts of violence on all sides in the middle east. the circumstances of this particular death is something i'm not familiar with now. clearly we want to see restraint exercised on all sides and we want to see an end to illegal settlement activity, and into indiscriminate violence being inflicted on innocent israeli citizens and the demonstrative move on all sides which will involve compromise and difficult copper lysis towards a two-state solution which is the only means by which peaceful security can be delivered to all communities in the middle east. >> the deputy prime minister who has received donations totaling 34,000 i've hundred pounds from the director of -- [inaudible] can he tell the house what he thinks of the fact that workers

have received the news recently that as many as 160 jobs could be moved overseas, jobs lost to britain? >> mr. speaker, clearly i can't speak for auto fill and any company to explain its own business and investment decision. i'm very, very surprised by his line of questioning, given the labour party's entirely bankrolled by the puppet masters of the trade unions. for all i know that question might have been written for him by his trade union bosses, which -- and surely you would agree with me that it is time that we claim the party funding and a cross party basis once and for all. >> youth unemployment has fallen since 2010, apprenticeships are at record levels and the jsa claimant count is down 51% in the last four years. in addition to number of

children living in working households is now a record low national. does the deputy prime minister agree that such achievements and the policies that gave rise to them consistently opposed by the labour party showed courage and would change the lives of people for the better, not some people have foolishly said as a result of an ideological commitment to austerity? >> mr. speaker, i think it is very slight they given at the outset of his coalition government we were told by the party opposite that 3 million people would be unemployed, that we now find a more people in work than ever before. i find it striking in my constituency as he no doubt does in his, he says quote it would be a post meltdown. people we defending district ending for themselves on the street. we have two young people are not in education implement or training in sheffield ever. fewer needs in the great cities that have something easy repeated across the country. there is a balanced, pragmatic,

non-ideological approach to balancing the books steadily over time. >> could ask the deputy prime minister to use this evidently widespread support in the coalition and the particular with the prime minister to a bill on the prime minister on a pledge he gave in june of this year to the victims of the scandal which took place in the nhs? if the scandal that reflects very badly on administrations, as far back as howard wilson and before, it is something you out to look at and rectify. it would be one pledge from one promise the coalition government has it in their power to do. >> i'm grateful to him because he's quite right of course that this is a heart wrenching issue which has dragged on now for a very prolonged period of time. if i may i will write to him as a no him as a no steps have been taking seeking to address some of the many legitimate

outstanding claims which exists, and that will look into it for them and write to him if i may. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the deputy prime minister will be unaware that sure would force hospital trust currently stands in special measures to what assistance can he get to the health secretary as he worked with a trust to continued improvements despite wrestling with the 40 million pounds a year repayments to pf ideal signed from the previous government? >> mr. speaker, i'm afraid it's another example of the approach the nhs from the party opposite. they entered into this appalling contract along with other contracts the nhs which are not costing the nhs and 1 billion pounds a year. it's a scandal for the sherwood forest hospital trust has been crippled by the botched pfi be entered into by the previous government. the trust is receiving central support address bundling financial deficit and is develop

a plan showing year on year improvements in this position including 145 extra nurses, support and often doctor since going into special measures. >> is the deputy prime minister had attended the autumn statement he would have heard the chance to claim -- [inaudible] he could give those words meaning by backing labour -- [shouting] to outlaw large companies who are charging small companies to be on the supplier list. will he take this opportunity within a small business bill to act -- to back that fund? >> thankfully we have seen more new and small businesses being created of his coalition government that has been the case since records began. i actually agree with him and i think i don't agree with him some of the revelations that come to light in recent days of some large compass, particularly in the food sector, in effect charging small suppliers for the privilege of providing them with

-- i know my right honorable member come right honorable secretary of state for business has looked at and is looking at, is looking at very carefully and enough he's already pledged publicly will take action effectively. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituent visited gps in newark 15 times in a month last year he for sure was eventually diagnosed with terminal cancer when her son took her to a&e in newark. 80,000 people a year, or one quarter of all new cancer cases, are only diagnosed at a&e. with my right honorable friend agreed to review this for a tragic case and also to back loops campaign that can to be rolled out first and not last and increase referral rate at rgb? >> mr. speaker, of course i will look into the case. i'm sure my right on both in the secretary of state for health

will be keen to look at it as both himself and get back to him. as he knows the nhs is successfully suing 51% more patients with respect to cancer than four years ago. survival rates have never been higher. almost nine out of 10 patients say they care is excellent or very good and, of course, the cancer treatment fund has sent thousands upon thousands of patients. but, of course, where possible we should always do more. >> the deputy prime minister -- [inaudible] among the most extraordinary, the response to the least question that pension and poverty -- [inaudible] can the deputy prime minister explained to the house what is the source for that claim is?

[shouting] >> the source of it is -- 75 p. we have delivered the largest cash increases in state pension ever. we have delivered the triple lock guarantee for pensioners. we are putting, we want to put that into law so that unlike pensioners under later, pensioners because of his coalition government will no other state pension will go up by a decent amount every single time. that's my source. [shouting] >> close question. dr. julian lewis. >> number 12, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, our defense budget is the biggest in the eu and the second largest in nato. this government is spending 2% of gdp on defense or become one of only for nato countries to do

so. >> dr. julian lewis spent the wasn't exactly an answer to the question on the order, mr. speaker. given that this country for decades spent more than 4% of defense, with the deputy prime minister not agree that this would be a disgraceful dereliction of duty if the british government have recovered low the 2% minimum recommended by nato? >> mr. speaker, as my on or friend will know we're spending 2% of gdp on defense and have consistently met and exceeded this nato guideline. we're spinning over 160 billion pounds on equipping anadequate to support over the next 10 years which will ensure we have one of the best trained and best equipped armed forces decisions on defense spending after 201560 to be determined in the next comprehensive spending. >> what does he think of the fact that in his government does he now needs an operation

conducted used indicted because he smokes? >> to be harsh? to be harsh? track to i don't anyone would disagree with commissions urging patients to look after themselves and prepare themselves for operations. my understanding of the decision or the announcement mooted as the patient preparing themselves for operations. but, of course, of course i disagree with the idea of in effect rationing in this way and that's one of the reasons why we have announced in total 3 billion pounds of extra money for nhs. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on the 13th of november the people of switzerland voted overwhelmingly to repay you with me but with the european union because their politicians talk about the economic benefit of being in the single market. will the prime minister continue to do what the city, the cbi and

companies in my constituency want, talk about those benefits for the uk and reject the politics when we know the cost of everything and the value is nothing? >> mr. speaker, i strongly agree with him the freedom of movement which is by the what a privilege and entitlement that goes to one and half million british citizens benefit from across the european union now is something that we should event. the freedom of movement is not the same and is not anonymous with him to claim which is why there's not a very healthy debate about how we ensure that freedom of movement can be protected whilst the rules is run access to benefits can be changed. >> question 14, closed question. mr. graham allen. >> fourteen, mr. speaker,. >> mr. speaker, i'm grateful to the honorable gentleman and the committee chairs for the work on the operation of the parliaments act. they give greater predictability and continuity, enabling better long-term legislation. the full effect of introducing

it is only something can be accessed over time which is why the act will be reviewed in 2020. >> nearly 25 years ago i asked the then prime minister mrs. thatcher if she would set up a national institution to reduce the sexual abuse of children. may i congratulate the deputy prime minister and this government on setting up over the last five years a series of what works organization to provide best practice, including early intervention? but may i ask if he and other party leaders will now consider putting in their manifesto the creation of a national institute for study and prevention of sexual abuse of children so we don't have another 25 years worth of belated inquiries that preempt perpetration and help victims with the best evidence

based on practice and programs both national and international? >> mr. speaker, i know he is saying my right over friend the minister for crime prevention. i agree on the merits of what works initiative. we believe what works institute for crime prevention would be a good idea. and, of course, he shines a spotlight on the reprehensible, grotesque crimes of child sex abuse and exploitation. i agree we need to work together which is why the national group tackles section of violence has been set up to work together across agencies and authorities to bear down on these reprehensible crimes. >> sorry, thank you, mr. speaker. last weekend i had the pleasure of visiting a local primary school in my constituency. they have moved to the nail to institute preschool bills very successful.

will the prime minister take time to congratulate all the primary schools in my constituency and across england have done such fantastic job delivering on his policy? >> trundle of course i like to congratulate everyone in primary school. the primary schools across the country who have despite all the steps and all the cynicism of the contrary delivered healthy, free school meals. the health benefits are considerable and a delighted to be doing this across the country. >> can be deputy prime minister tell us why with crude oil at the lowest below $17 that is not reflected out the palms of? >> mr. speaker, i know my right honorable friend the chancellor and the secretary of treasury have raised this with the industry because we all want to see lower shifts in oil prices across the world reflected in oil prices. that is something we must

continue to focus on in our dealings with all of the oil countries. >> peter bone. >> mr. speaker, we should be clear that's not wrong to express concern about the skillet people coming into this country. people have understandably become frustrated. it boils down to one word, control. does the stand in prime minister agree with the prime minister that those were his words to? i think there are some important controls that we do need to improve and strengthen so that is why for instance, i believe it is essential that we reintroduce the proper board of control, the exit checks that used to exist out of borders that were removed by previous government. it's something i've visit within the coalition agreement myself but we are now on track to do that so just as we count people in, we count them out as well. that is so important those conditional a controls because we can then discover who has

overstayed. it's one of the biggest problems of people overstaying the presence here in united kingdom. >> order. point of order. >> mr. speaker, is it not for the deputy prime minister to meet -- >> we will now leave the british house of commons as members move onto other business but you've been watching prime minister's question time air like wednesday's department is in session. a reminder you can see this weeks session and again sunday nights at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org and click on series to get every program we've ever in the british house of commons since october of 1989. we invite your comments about prime minister's questions via twitter using hashtag pmqs. spent today the house select committee on benghazi is

testament on the 2012 attack on the u.s. consulate in the libya. that killed four americans including ambassador chris stevens. witnesses include assistant secretary of state the diplomatic security greg starr and state department inspector general. live coverage at tinian eastern on c-span3. >> here are a few of the comes with recent receive from our viewers. >> i am very interested in this program of the american indians. i didn't watch the whole thing. i came in and found it on when i turned the tv on and watched what i could for about an hour and a half or two hours. this program is absolutely wonderful, and if it's going to be on again to an even bigger

audience by notifying all the local genealogical societies and asking them to spread the word. something i've never seen on it before. and i do watch a lot of c-span. thank you. >> i'm calling from greensburg, pennsylvania, about american history tv. i love that channel. every weekend i watch it almost religiously. i love all the history stuff you have to. please give us more history programs, history in the sense of, you know, like something before 1950 or 1960. if you want to these political commentary type things from the 1970s on, that's fine later or during the week or something, but not during the history

weekend. and i really love your history lectures. i would like to have another chance to do that, or even see it again several months later, like today instead of the reaganite that you have on your ranting about how bad the government is. >> i love c-span. i love the nonfiction books, and i love it when you have the book fairs. i am always delighted on the weekends watching c-span. it's the best thing i did and it's the most fun. my son teaches history in a junior college, and i never used to be interested in a whole lot of history. now i am so thank you very much. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at (202) 626-3400. e-mail us at comments to

c-span.org or send us a tweet at c-span hashtag comments. joe nasise than conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> tuesday, the senate intelligence committee chair dianne feinstein authorized the release of a report on the cia's interrogation of terrorism detainees after the 9/11 attacks. the 6000 page report details instances of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods. next, senator feinstein talks about the report on the senate floor. remarks are followed by senators mccain and rockefeller. this is 90 minutes. >> mr. president, i want to thank the leader for his words and his support. they are extraordinarily welcomed and appreciated. today a 500-page executive summary of the senate intelligence committee's five and a half year review of the

cia's detention and interrogation program, which was conducted between 2002 and 2009, is being released publicly. the executive summary, which is going out today, is backed up by a 6,700 page classified and unredacted report, which can be released if necessary at a later time. the report released today examines the cia's secret overseas detention of at least 119 individuals and the use of coercive interrogation techniques, in some cases amounting to torture. over the past couple of weeks, i have gone through a great deal of introspection about whether to delay the release of this report to a later time. this clearly is a period of

turmoil and instability in many parts of the world. unfortunately, that's going to continue for the foreseeable future, whether this report is released or not. there are those who will seize upon the report and say see what americans did, and they will try to use it to justify evil actions or to incite more violence. we cannot prevent that. but history will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say never again. there may never be the right time to release this report. the instability we see today will not be resolved in months or years. but this report is too important to shelve indefinitely. my determination to release it has also increased due to a campaign of mistaken statements

and press articles launched against the report before anyone has had the chance to read it. as a matter of fact, the report is just now, as i speak, being released. this is what it looks like. senator chambliss asked me if we could have the minority report bound with the majority report. for this draft, that is not possible. but in the final draft, it will be bound together. but this is what the summary of the 6,000 pages look like. my words give me no pleasure. i am releasing this report because i know there are thousands of employees at the cia who do not condone what i will speak about this morning, and who work day in and out, day and night, long hours, within the law for america's security in what is certainly a difficult world.

my colleagues on the intelligence committee and i are proud of them, just as everyone in this chamber is, and we will always support them. in reviewing the study in the past few days with the decision looming over the public release, i was struck by a quote, found on page 126 of the executive summary. it cites the former cia inspector general, john helgerson, who in 2005 wrote the following to the then-director of the cia, which clearly states the situation with respect to this report years later as well. we have found that the agency over the decades has continued to get itself in messes related to interrogation programs for one overriding reason. we do not document and learn

from our experience, each generation of officers is left to improvise anew, with problematic results for our officers as individuals and for our agency. i believe that to be true. i agree with mr. helgerson. his comments are still true today. but this must change. on march 11, 2009, the committee voted 14-1 to begin a review of the cia's detention and interrogation program. over the past five years, a small team of committee investigators pored over the more than 6.3 million pages of cia records the leader spoke about to complete this report, or what we call the study. it shows that the cia's actions a decade ago are a stain on our

values and on our history. the release of this 500-page summary of our report cannot remove that stain, but it can and does say to our people, and the world, that america is big enough to admit when it's wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes. releasing this report is an important step to restore our values and show the world that we are in fact a just and lawful society. over the next hour, i'd like to lay out for senators and the american public the report's key findings and conclusions. and i ask that when i complete this, senator mccain be recognized. before i get to the substance of the report, i'd like to make a few comments about why it's so important that we make this study public. all of us have vivid memories of

that tuesday morning when terror struck new york, washington and pennsylvania. make no mistake, on september 11, 2001 war was declared on the united states. terrorists struck our financial center. they struck our military center. and they tried to strike our political center and would have, had brave and courageous passengers not brought down the plane. we still vividly remember the mix of outrage and deep despair and sadness as we watched from washington. smoke rising from the pentagon. the passenger plane lying in a pennsylvania field. the sound of bodies striking canopies at ground level as innocents jumped to the ground below from the world trade center. mass terror that we often see

abroad had struck in our front yard, killing 3,000 innocent men, women, and children. what happened? we came together as a nation, with one singular mission: bring those who committed these acts to justice. but it's at this point where the values of america come into play, where the rule of law and the fundamental principles of right and wrong become important. in 1990 the united states senate ratified the convention against torture. the convention makes clear that this ban against torture is absolute. it says no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal

political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. nonetheless, it was argued that the need for information on terrorist plots after 9/11 made extraordinary interrogation techniques necessary. even if one were to set aside all of the moral arguments, our review was a meticulous and detailed examination of records. it finds that coercive interrogation techniques did not produce the vital, otherwise unavailable intelligence the cia has claimed. i will go into further detail on this issue in a moment. but let me make clear, these comments are not a condemnation of the cia as a whole. the cia plays an incredibly important part in our nation's security and has thousands of

dedicated and talented employees. what we have found is that a surprisingly few people were responsible for designing, carrying out, and managing this program. two contractors developed and led the interrogations. there was little effective oversight. analysts, analysts, on occasion, gave operational orders about interrogations and cia management of the program was weak and diffuse. our final report was approved by a bipartisan vote of 9-6 in december 2012 and exposes brutality in stark contrast to our values as a nation. this effort was focused on the actions of the cia from late

2001 to january of 2009. the report does not include considerable detail on the cia's -- the report does include considerable detail on the cia's interactions with the white house; the departments of justice, state, and defense; and the senate intelligence committee. the review is based on contemporaneous records and documents during the time the program was in place and active. now, these documents are important because they aren't based on recollection, they aren't based on revision and they aren't a rationalization a decade later. it's these documents, referenced repeatedly in thousands of footnotes, that provide the factual basis for the study's conclusions. the committee's majority staff

reviewed more than 6.3 million pages of these documents provided by the cia, as well as records from other departments and agencies. these records include: finished intelligence assessments, cia operational and intelligence cables, memoranda, e-mails, real-time chat sessions, inspector general reports, testimony before congress, pictures, and other internal records. it's true we didn't conduct our own interviews. let me tell you why that was the case. in 2009, there was an ongoing review by doj special prosecutor john durham. on august 24, attorney general eric holder expanded that review. this occurred six months after

our study had begun. durham's original investigation of the cia's destruction of interrogation videotapes was broadened to include possible criminal actions of cia employees in the course of cia detention and interrogation activities. at the time, the committee's vice chairman kit bond withdrew the minority's participation in the study, citing the attorney general's expanded investigation as the reason. the department of justice refused to coordinate its investigation with the intelligence committee's review. as a result, possible interviewees could be subject to additional liability if they were interviewed. and the cia, citing the attorney general's investigation, would not instruct its employees to participate in our interviews.

notwithstanding this, i am really confident of the factual accuracy and comprehensive nature of this report for three reasons. first, it's the 6.3 million pages of documents reviewed, and they reveal records of actions as those actions took place, not through recollections more than a decade later. second, the cia and cia senior officers have taken the opportunity to explain their views on cia detention and interrogation operations. they have done this in on-the-record statements in classified committee hearings, written testimony and answers to questions, and through the formal response to the committee in june 2013 after reading the study. and third, the committee had

access to, and utilized, an extensive set of reports of interviews conducted by the cia inspector general and the cia's oral history program. so while we could not conduct new interviews of individuals, we did utilize transcripts or summaries of interviews of those directly engaged in detention and interrogation operations. these interviews occurred at the time the program was operational and covered the exact topics we would have asked about had we conducted interviews ourselves. those interview reports and transcripts included, but were not limited to, the following: george tenet, director of the cia when the agency took custody and interrogated the majority of

detainees; jose rodriguez, director of the cia counterterrorism center, a key player in the program; cia general counsel scott muller; cia deputy director of operations james pavitt; cia acting general counsel john rizzo; cia deputy director john mclaughlin; and a variety of interrogators, lawyers, medical personnel, senior counterterrorism analysts and managers of the detention and interrogation program. the best place to start, about how we got into this, and i'm delighted senator rockefeller is on the floor, is a little more than eight years ago, on september 6, 2006, when the committee met to be briefed by then director michael hayden. at that 2006 meeting, the full committee learned for the first

time, for the first time, of the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, or eits. it was a short meeting, in part because president bush was making a public speech later that day, disclosing officially for the first time the existence of cia black sites and announcing the transfer of 14 detainees from cia custody to guantanamo bay, cuba. it was the first time the interrogation program was explained to the full committee as details had previously been limited to the chairman and vice chairman. then, on december 7, 2007, the new york times reported that cia personnel in 2005 had destroyed videotapes of the interrogation of two cia detainees: the cia's

first detainee, abu zubaydah, as well as abd al-rahim al-nashiri. the committee had not been informed of the destruction of the tapes. days later, on december 11, 2007, the committee held a hearing on the destruction of the videotapes. director hayden, the primary witness, testified that the cia had concluded that the destruction of videotapes was acceptable, in part, because congress had not yet requested to see them. director hayden stated that, if the committee had asked for the videotapes, they would have been provided. but, of course, the committee had not known that the videotapes existed. and we now know from cia emails and records that the videotapes

were destroyed shortly after ior cia attorneys raised concerns that congress might find out about the tapes. in any case, at that same december 11th committee hearing, director hayden told the committee that cia cables related to the interrogation sessions depicted in the videotapes were, and i quote, a more than adequate representation of the tapes and therefore, if you want them, we'll give you access to them. senator rockefeller, then chairman of committee, designated two members of the committee staff to review the cables describing the interrogation sessions of abu zubaydah and al-nashiri. senator bond, then vice chairman, similarly directed two

of his staffers to review the cables. the designated staff members completed their review and compiled a summary of the content of the cia cables by early 2009, by which time i had become chairman. the description in the cables of cia's interrogations and the treatment of detainees presented a starkly different picture from director hayden's testimony before the committee. they described brutal, round-the-clock interrogations, especially of abu zubaydah, in which multiple coercive techniques were used in combination and with substantial repetition. it was an ugly, visceral description. the summary also indicated that abu zubaydah and train 11 did

not come as a result of the use of the so-called eit's, provide the kind of intelligence that led the cia to stop terrorist plots or arrest additional suspects. as a result, i think it's fair to say the entire committee was concerned, and it approved the scope of an investigation by a vote of 14-1, and the work you began. in my march 11, 2014, 4 speech about the study, i described how in 2009 the committee came to an agreement with the new cia director, leon panetta, for access to documents and other records about the cia's detention and interrogation program, so i won't repeat that here. from 2009 until 2012, our staff conducted a massive and

unprecedented review of cia records. draft sections of the report were produced by late 2011 and shared with the full committee. the final report was completed in december 2012 and approved by the committee by a bipartisan vote of 9-6. after that vote i set the full report to the president and asked the administration to provide comments on it before it was released. .. responded, "i directed them that if the c.i.a. pointed out any error in our report, we would fix it. and we did fix one bullet point that did not impact our findings and conclusions. if the c.i.a. came to a different conclusion than the report did, we would note that in the report and explain our reasons for disagreeing, if we disagreed. and you will see some of that documented in the footnotes of

that executive summary as well as in the 6,000 pages. in april 2014, the committee prepared an updated version of the full study and voted 12-3 to declassify and release the executive summary, findings, and conclusions and minority and additional views. additional views. on august 1 weei received a declassified version from the executive branch. it was apparent the redactions to our report prevent ad clear and understandable reading of the study and prevented us from substantiating the findings an conclusions. so we obviously objected. for the past four months the committee and the cia, the director of national intelligence and the white house have engaged in a lengthy negotiation over the redactions

to the report.ave we have been able to include some more information in the report today without sacrificing sources and methods of our, or our national security. i'd like to ask following myt remarks that a letter from the white house dated yesterday conveying the report also points out that the report is 93% complete and that the redactions amount to 7% of the bulk of the report.ff >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman.ha mr. president, this has been a long process. the work began seven years ago when senator rockefeller directed committee staff to review the cia cables describing the interrogation sessions of abu zabadah and that theory.

it t has been difficult and i believe documentations and ther findings conclusions will make clear how this program was morally, legally, administratively misguided and this nation should never engage in gauge in these tactics. let me now turn to the contents of this study. as i noted we have 20 findings and conclusions which fall into four general categories. the first the cia's enhanced interrogation techniques were not an effective way to gather intelligence information. second, the cia provided extensive ats of inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to the white house, the department of justice, congress, the cia inspector general, the media and the american public. third, the cia's management of

the program was inadequate and deeply flawed. and fourth, the cia program was far more brutal than people were led to believe. let me describe each category in more detail. the first set of findings and conclusions concern the effectiveness or lack thereof of the interrogation program. the committee found that the cia's coercive interrogation techniques were not an effective means of acquiring accurate intelligence or gaining detainee cooperation. cia and other defenders of the program have repeatedly claim use of so-called interrogation techniques was necessary to fet detainees to provide critical information and to bring detainees to a quote, state of compliance, end quote, in which they would cooperate and provido

information.e the study concludes that both claims are inaccurate. the report is very specific in how it evaluates the cia's claims on the effectiveness and necessity of its enhanced interrogation techniques specifically, we used the cia's own definition of effectiveness as ratified and approved by the department of justice's office of legalfe counsel. the cia's claims that the eits were necessary to obtain, quote, otherwise available, end quote, information that could not be obtained from any other source to stopst terrorist attacks and save american lives. that is a claim we conclude is inaccurate. we took 20 examples of the cia itself claimed to show the

success of these interrogations. these include cases of terrorist plots stopped or terrorists captured. the ciaed. used these examples t presentations to the white house, in testimony to congress, in submissions to the department of justice and ultimately to the american people. some ofim the claims are well-known. the capture of khalid sheikh mohammed. the prevention of attacks against the library tower of los angeles and the takedown of osama bin laden.he other claims were made only in classified settings, to the white house, congress, and the department of justice. in each case the cia claimed that critical and unique information came from one or

more detainees in its custody after they were subjected to the cia'ss. coercive techniques andn that information led to specifiu counter terrorism success. our staff reviewed everyone of the 20 cases and not a single case holds up. in every single one of thesese cases at least one of the following was true. one, the intelligence community had information separate from the use of eits that led toe the terrorist disruption or capture. two, information from a detainee subjected to eits played no role in the claimed disruption or capture. and three, the purported terrorist plot either did not exist or posed no real threat to americans or united statescs

interests. some critics have suggested the study concludes that no intelligence was ever provided from any detainee the cia held. that is false. and the study makes no such claim. what is true is that actionable intelligence, that was quote, otherwise unavailable, otherwise unavailable, was not obtained using these coercive interrogation techniques. the report also chronicles where the use of interrogation techniques that do not involve physical force were effective. specifically the report provides examples where interrogators han sufficient information to confront detainees with facts,er no when they were lying and when they, and where they applied rapport-building techniques that were developed and honed by the

united states military, the fbi and more recently the inneragency high value detainee interrogation group called the h hhaig. let me make.a a couple commentsn claimed effectiveness of cia interrogations. at no time did the cia's coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of intelligence on an imminent threat many believe was the justification for the use of these techniques.om the committee never found and example of this hypothetical ticking time bomb scenario. o the use of coercive technique methods regularly resulted in fabricated information. sometimes the cia actually knew detainees were lying. other times the cia acted onma

false information, diverting resources and leading officers or contractors to falsely believe they were acquiring unique or actionable intelligence and that its interrogations were working when they were not. internally cia officers often called into question the effectiveness of the cia's interrogation it being thicks, noting how the techniques failed to elicit detainee cooperation, or produce accurate information. the report include numerous examples of cia officers questioning the agency's claims but these contradictions were marginalized and not presented externally. the second set ofe findings and conclusions is that the cia provided extensive inaccuratein information about the program

and its effectiveness to the white house, the department of justice, congress, the cia inspector general, theed media, and the american public. this conclusion is somewhat personal for me. i remember clearly when director hayden briefed the intelligencer committee for the first time on the so-called eits at that september 2006 committee meeting. he referred specifically to a quote, tummy slap, end quote, among other techniques and presented the entire set of techniques as minimally harmful and implied in a highly clinical and professional manner. they were not. the committee's report demonstrates that these techniques were physically very harmful and that the constraints that existed on paper in washington did not match the way

techniques were used at cia sites around the world. a particular note was the treatment of abu zabadah over a span of 17 days in august of 2002. this involved non-stop interrogation and abuse, 24/7, from august 4th, to august 21st. and included multiple forms of deprivation and physical assault. the description of this period first written up by our staff in early 2009 while senator rockefeller was chairman is whao prompted this full review. but the inaccurate and incomplete descriptions go far beyond that. the cia provided inaccurate memoranda and explanations to the department of justice while its legal counsel was

considering the galty of the coercive techniques. in those communications to the department of justice the cia claimed the following. that - the coercive techniques would not be used with excessive reputation. detainees would always have an opportunity to provide information prior to the use of the techniques. the techniques were to be used in progression, starting withrt the least aggressive and proceeding only if needed.d. medical personnel would makeso sure that interrogations wouldn't cause serious harm, and they could intervene at anytime to stop interrogations. investigation, interrogators were carefully vetted and highly-trained and eachd technique was to be used in a specific way without deviation. and only with specific approval

for the eninterrogator and detainee involved. none of these assurances which the department of justice relied on to form its legal opinions were consistently or evened routinely carried out. in many cases important information was withheld from policymakers. for example, foreign intelligence committee chairman bob graham asked a number of questions after he was first briefed in september of 2002 but the cia refused to answer them, effectively stonewalling him until heat left the committee at the end of the year. in another example the cia in coordination with white house officials and staff initially withheld information of the cia's interrogation techniques from secretary of state colin powell and secretary of defense

donald rumsfeld. there are cia records stating that colin powell wasn't told about the program at first because there were concerns that, and i quote, powell would blow his stack if he wereie briefed. source, email from john rizzo, dated july 31, 2003. cia records clearly indicate and definitely that after he was briefed on the cia's first detainee abu zabadah, the cia didn't tell president bush about the full nature of the eitspr until april 2006. that's what the records indicate. the cia similarly withheldar information or provided falsee information to the cia inspector general during his conduct of a special review by the ig in

2004. incomplete and inaccurate information from the cia was used in documents provided to the department of justice and as a basis for president bush's whichin he publicly acknowledged the cia program for the first time. in all of these cases other cia officers acknowledged internally, they acknowledged internally that information the cia had provided was wrong. the cia also misled other cia white house officials. when vice president cheney's counsel david addington asked cia counsel general scott mueller in 2003 about the cia videotaping of waterboarding detainees, mueller deliberately

told him that videotapes, quote, were not being made, end quote, but did not disclose videotapes of previous waterboardingg sessions had been made and still existed. source, email from scott mueller dated june 7, 2003. there are many, many more examples in the committee's report, all are documentedded. the third set of findings andus conclusions notes the various ways cia management and detention of the interrogation program from its inception to its formal termination in january of '09 was inadequate and deeply flawed. there is no doubt that the detention interrogation program was by any measure a major cia undertaking. it raised significant legal andi policy issues and involved significant resources andesou funding. it was not however, managed as a

significant cia program. instead, it had limited oversight and lacked formal direction and management. for example, in the six months between being granted detention authority and taking custody of its first detainee, abu zabadah, the cia had not identified and prepared a suitable detention site. it had not researched effective interrogation techniques, or developed a legal basis for the use of interrogation techniques outside of the rapport-building techniques that were official cia policy until that time. in fact there is no indication that the cia reviewed its own history. that's just what helgerson was saying in 05 with coercive

interrogation tactics. as the executive summary notes thatad the cia had engaged in rough interrogation in the past. in fact the cia had previously sent a letter to the intelligence committee in 1989 and here is the quote. that inhumane, physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers, end quote. q that was a letter from john holger son, cia director of congressional affairs, dated january 8th, 1989. however in late 2001 and two, rather than research interrogation practices and coordinate with other parts of the government with extensive expertise in detention and interrogation of terrorist attacks, the cia engaged two

contract psychologists who had never conducted interrogations themselves or ever operated detention facilities. as the cia captured or obtained c detainees in 2002 itac maintained separate lines of management in headquarters for different facilities. no individual or office was in charge of the detention and interrogation program until january of 2003 by which point more than 1/3 of cia detaineesn identified in our review had been detained and interrogated. one clear example of flawed cia management was the poorly-managed detention facility referred to in our report by the code name, cobalt.

to hide the actual name of the facility. it began operations in september of september of 2000 go. much the fa -- 2000 two. the facility had few formal records of the detainees. excuse me. the facility kept few formal records of the detainees housed there and untrained cia officers conducted frequent, unauthorized, unsupervised, interrogations using techniques that were not and never became part of the cia's formal enhanced interrogation program.a thece cia place ad junior officr with no relevant experience in charge of the site. in november 2002, and other wise healthy detainee who was being held mostly nude, and chained to a concrete floor, died at the

facility from what is to have been hypothermia. in interviews conducted in 2003 by the cia officer of thein inspector general, cia'sal leadership acknowledged that they had little or no awareness of operations at this specific cia detention site. and some cia officials, excuse me, senior officials, believed erroneously that enhanced interrogation techniques were not used there. the cia in its june 2013 response to the committee's report agreed that there were management failures in the program but asserted that they were corrected by early 2003. while the study found that management failures improved somewhat, we found they persisted till the end of the program. among the numerous management short comings identified in the

report are the following. the cia used poorly-trained and non-vetted personnel. individuals were deployed in particular interrogators without relevant training or experience. during the cia's redactions to this report there are limits what i can say in this regard but it's a clear fact that the cia deployed officers who hadso history of personal, ethical and professional problems of a serious nature. these included histories of violence and abusive treatment of others and should have called into question their employment withio the united stateser government, let alone their suitability to participate in a sensitive cia covert action program. the two contractors that cia allowed to develop, operate, and assess its interrogation

operations conducted numerous inherently governmental functions that never should have been outsourced to contractors. these contractors are referred in the report in special pseudonyms. zweig gert and dunbar. they developed a list of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that cia employed. they personally conducted interrogations of some of the cia's most significant detainees, using the techniques including the waterboarding of abu zabaydah, khalid sheikh mohammed and al-nashiri. the contractors provided official valuations of whether detainee's psychological states allowed for the continued use of the enhanced techniques. even for some detainees, they themselves were interrogating or had interrogated.

evaluating the psychological state of the very detainees they were interrogating is a clearntr conflict of interest and a violation of professionaln guidelines.valu the cia relied on these two contractors to evaluate the interrogation program they devised and in which they had obvious financial interests, c again a clear conflict of interest and avoidance of responsibility by the cia. in 2005 the two contractors form ad company specifically for the purpose of expanding their work with the cia. from '05 to '08 the cia outsourced almost all aspects of its detention and interrogation program to this country as part of a contract valued at more than $180 million.

ultimately not all contract options were ex-sered. -- exercised. however the cia paid these two contractors and their company more than $80in. of the 119 individuals found to detained by the cia during the life of the program,d the committee found that at least 26 were wrongfully held. these are cases where the cia itself determined it had not met the standard for detention set out in the 2001 memorandum of notification. which governs a covert action. detainees often remained in custody for months after the cia released.c. cia record provide insufficientn information to justify the o detention of many other dough taken east.

due to poor record-keeping, a full accounting of how many specific detaineeses were held and how they were specifically treated while in custody may never be known. similarly in specific instances we found enhanced detention interrogation techniques were used without authorization in a manner far different and more brutal than had been authorized by the office of legal counsel and conducted by personnel not approved to use them on detainees. questions on how and when to apply techniques were ad hoc and not in a manner prescribed by the cia in written descriptions and testimony about the program. detainees were often subject to harsh and brutal interrogation.

and treatment because cia analysts believed often in error, that they knew more information than what they had provided. sometimes cia managers and interrogators in the field were uncomfortable with what they were being asked to do andin recommended ending the abuse of a detainee. repeatedly in such cases they were overruled by people at cia headquarters who thought they knew better such as by analysts with no line authority. this shows again how a relatively small number of cia personnel, perhaps 40 to 50, were making decisions on detention and interrogation despite the better judgments of other cia officers.rt theh 4th and final set of findings and conclusions concern

how the interrogations of cia detainees were absolutely brutal, far worse than the cia represented them to policymakers and others. beginning with the first detainee, abu zabaydah and continuing with numerous others, the cia applied its so-called enhanced interrogationed techniques in combination and in near-stop fashion for days and even weeks at a time on one detainee. cia detainees were subjected to the immediately, deep perped, physically struck and put inon painful serious stress positions for long periods of time. they were deprived of sleep for days. in one case, up to 180 hours. that is seven 1/2 days over a week with no sleep. usually standing or in stressit

positions, at times, with their hands tied together over their heads, shaneed to the ceiling. in the cobalt facility i previously mentioned, interrogators and guards used what they called rough takedowns in which a detainee was grabbed from his cell, clothes cut off,f hooded and dragged up and down n dirt hallway while being slapped and punched. the cia led several detainees to believe they would never bee allowed to leave cia custody alive. suggesting to abu zabaydah that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box. that's a cia cable from august 12, 2002. according to another cia cable cia officers also planned to cremate zubaydah should he notdh survive his interrogation. source, cia cable,