kucinich raised earlier. mr. kucinich seemed to be hung up on the fact of when there was a significant indicator that merrill lynch was in rapid decline. rather than focus on november of '08. we can go all the way back to fall of '07 when they mounsed an almost $8 billion loss and mr. o neil was forced into retirement. there's a long history of decline here, all be it it accelerated to some degree around the time of your purchase. but there was significant evidence that they had overloaded with collateral debt obligations and other complex derivatives and they were in pretty tough straits for a while. isn't that true? >> yes,sir, it is true. >> let me ask you, there's a couple of e-mails and unfortunately they are very small up there. let me try to help you. one is from chairman bernanke to a selection of the board of reserve governors. and this is december 21st, 2008, around the time that your thinking about this material adverse change being existent or not. this is from chairman bernanke, i think the threat to

kucinich were asking about. i can kind of understand your reaction to discovering there was a $12 billion loss suffered by merrill lynch especially coming after shareholders vote to purchase merrill lynch. i can understand you telling the fed and secretary paulson you were thinking of backing out of of the deal. i can understand that. that was based upon your expertise and your experience. i cannot understand the agreement you reported that you made with treasury and the fed which they both denied to disclose the $12 billion loss. if the loss made this horrible business deal to acquire merrill lynch, why did you still do it? and i know you've told us over and over again. but let's be frank. i mean, and i'm wondering, how do you determine what is -- you must disclose. we have shareholders here who are concerned. you're about to go into a deal with a company that is worse off than is made to believe. and it just seems to me that and a person with your experience, there are a lot of people in this situation and i d

kucinich: i rise to invite the chairman to engage in a colloquy with me. mr. chairman, i wish to respectfully convey that i have three conserves with some of the practices employed by the virtual army experience, a high-tech traveling exhibit employed by the army as a -- as a recruiting tool. first, children as young as 13 years old are participating in the virtual army experience which paints an inaccurate picture of war by glorifying it while sanitizing the real effects. more than a mere video game, it includes interactions with real veterans who appear to be in perfect health. it also requires that the user, regardless of age, share personal information as a condition of participation. i think that we can find common ground on these issues. specifically i think we can and i believe that we can agree that the virtual army experience video game must be revalidated to ensure that its age-appropriate rating is accurate in the context of how it's being employed. that the virtual army experience content should be reviewed to ensure it accurately reflects the cons

very recently i think it was on dennis kucinich been interviewed and if you recall during this whole time that we were throwing money at banks and brokerage houses and god knows to the democrats in congress, the party frank etc., stated that whenever the subject came up were not going to nationalize banks and it was not our purpose etc. etc.. dennis kucinich about a week and half are so adel is being interviewed and was asked a question, barack obama and the democrats in congress have decided that a ceo or any other officer in a bank for any other company receiving government funds was going to have a salary cap a $500,000. kucinich was asked about this analyst this fair or corrupt and he sat there and pointed at bill clinton and said, the had a choice whether they took our money or not and to take it we all knew. what is your opinion? >> well, let's not pretend that a ceo who when he took over, whose stock was selling at $50 a share and today is selling at $2 a share, let's not pretend he deserves $20 million a year because of anybody else ran the company into the ground --. [applau

kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: i have a question to my friends and that is how do we support the troops by keeping them in a war that's based on lies? how do we support the troops by keeping them in another war which keeps expanding and they are getting shot at on all sides? how do we support the troops by festering a war on the afghan border with pakistan and put them in even more peril because they don't have the support? how do we support the troops? we support them by bringing them home. that's what we should be appropriating money for not to keep them there. beyond that isn't it interesting, we've got another $80 billion here for war. but we don't have money to keep people in their homes because there are still $13 million americans losing their homes. we don't have money for the 50 million americans that don't have health care. we don't have money to save jobs. we don't have money to save our steel mills and auto plants. what we have is we have money for war. support the troops indeed. america has t

that was why i immediately reached for the ideal of democracy in talking to congressman kucinich. this argument that is often made that a public plan would undermine or destroy private insurance i think is absolutely backwards. it will change the business of private insurance but it won't put private insurance out of business. and i think there's two reasons to emphasize why that's the case. first of all, remember, that the core of this legislation and this approach is to build unemployment-based coverage and encourage employers to provide insurance which is why i emphasize requiring that employers either prior health insurance or help fund coverage for their workers which will prevent the kind of erosion for the point of base coverage that is often a source of concern. second of all, the public plan would be an option within the exchange. alongside private plans and that's why i think it's so crucial because as i said, it would be a benchmark for the private plans creating accountability where it often doesn't exist. and in your own home state i believe the largest insurer has 80

kucinich raised earlier. mr. kucinich seemed to be hung up on the fact of when there was a significant indicator that merrill lynch was in rapid decline. rather than focus on november of '08. we can go all the way back to fall of '07 when they mounsed an almost $8 billion loss and mr. o neil was forced into retirement. there's a long history of decline here, all be it it accelerated to some degree around the time of there was significant evidence that they had overloaded with collateral debt obligatio

kucinich has indicated, you know, bank of america had its problems too at this time. but tell me what your strategy was and your negotiations there and what was the motivating force behind your decision to put forth this mac? >> thank you, and thanks for reminding us about -- we were in the middle of a pretty bad financial crisis and we had people of good intentions despite what they've said about me. the -- we grew more and more convinced that there was a distinct possibility that we had a mac as a result of these accelerated losses. >> you didn't disclose that to your shareholders though? >> but the acceleration really took place about a week after -- that's when you saw massive acceleration, not necessarily those days but as a result of the forecast increasing and. so there was -- there was not some wild bluff. we thought we had the real possibility of a mac. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. mchenry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. were there specific details that the federal reserve and treasury told you not to disclose to your share

kucinich: madam speaker, i request permission to address the house and -- for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. kucinich: millions of americans have been and are under the threat of wild weather changes, scorching heat, extraordinary cold and food and security. we're running out of time to craft practical, workable solutions to moderate the effects of global climate change brought on by global greenhouse gases. we're past the tipping point and instead of asking about saving ourselves we talk about saving the coal industry. our first steps on the path towards a clean energy future will leave footprints caked in coal because under the bill u.s. fossel emissions will not fall until 2030. and they'll have the licensing of 25 new coal fire plants. it guarantees coal's future by spending $60 billion on an unproven leaky technology where co-2 is pumped into the ground. we can still save ourselves and the planet or we can save the coal industry. we can have a carbon-free and nuclear-free world which comes into harmony with nature's god with microtechnologies which wi

kucinich: it's good our administration is reaching out to the muslim world. it's bad to spend another $100 billion to keep wars going which will kill innocent muslims in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. it's good we try to create an incentive for people to buy efficient cars. it's bad the car vouchers will not be expressly for the purpose -- and purchase for cars made in america. it's even worse that we tie such an incentive to a war-funding bill. cash for clunkers and bunkers in the same bill. cash for more war in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. cash to help china sell its cars to americans. meanwhile, back in the u.s. of a, factories and dealers are closing. people are losing their jobs, their businesses, their homes, their retirement security. who are these people who are coming up with these innovative ideas to keep wars going and to move jobs out of america? who are these people? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute

without also increasing its transparency in the hallways that this committee has proposed to the kucinich amendment. wanted thank the chairman for the opportunity to work with you on this hearing and i look forward to mr. bernanke's testimony and i want to thank testimony and i want to thank you search for being here today. >> i thank the gentleman from ohio. we will now yield five minutes to the ranking member of the policies of committee, congressman jordan of the way. >> thank you for holding today's hearing on the government's involvement in the bank of america deal to purchase merrill lynch. i appreciate chairman bernanke's danced the burkas testimony is important to bring transparence into the role of the federal government in the transaction and the overall financial crisis. i'm troubled by the information and documents the committee's investigation has uncovered. they show mr. bernanke, mr. paulson, ken lewis and his board of directors in order to force the bank of america to acquire merrill lynch for going recognize the actions took place and significant economic challenges and u

kucinich: good morning, mr. speaker. i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no capability of attacking the united states, had no role in 9/11. each and every statement made by the previous administration in support of going to war turned out to be false. yet here we are, a new administration and the same old war. an expansion of the war in afghanistan. we cannot afford these wars spiritually. they are wars of aggression and they're based on lies. we cannot afford these wars financially. they add trillions to our national debt and destroy our domestic agenda. we cannot afford the human costs of these wars, the loss of lives of our beloved troops and the loss of innocent civilians in afghanistan and pakistan. so why do we do this? why do we keep funding wars since they're so obviously against truth and justice and when they undermine our military? these are matters of heart and conscience which must be explored. our abil

kucinich: request permission to address the house for one minute. despite agreements over funding for the monetary fund and closure of the guantanamo bay detention facility, the primary inintent of the supplemental is to continue funding the wars in iraq and afghanistan. as members who remain opposed to the bill, we need to make sure and make clear our opposition and work to defeat the bill. it's notable that attempts to make important changes to the legislation, such as a call for an exit strategy from afghanistan or demands for increased transparency or account built to the i.m.f. have been rebuffed. it ensures the continued occupation, there by undermining the stated withdrawal. funds for iraq have been dedicated to bringing our troops home and the contractors home as well. it's time to end this war. no to any more funds for the war in afghanistan and war in iraq and no to any legislation if they try to tie it to war funding. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? if not, the chair lays before the house the following pers

democrats like dennis kucinich and marcy kaptur, i may not agree with them often, but i believe they should be able to participate in the process. we have republicans like david nunes and others, mr. broun who just spoke, mr. rogers, mr. calvert, others who want to have a chance to stand up and guess what, madam speaker, they unfortunately are denied that in this process. justice felix frankfurter in 1943 made the following statement. he said the history of liberty is largely due to the history of procedural safeguards. now, madam speaker, i believe that the federal government is too big and spends too much as our leader boehner regularly says. i believe we should have a right to bring about those reductions so we can get our economy back on track to ensure that americans aren't going to lose their jobs, their businesses, and their homes. and we are denied that chance today. but, i want to say to my democratic colleagues and my republican colleagues, madam speaker, we have an opportunity , and it is before us right now. all we need to do is vote no on the previous question and what w

. >> chairman, sub committee chairman kucinich, ranking member jordan. my name is kent lewis. i'm chief executive officer of bank of america. this committee is reviewing important issues. i hope my remarks will be helpful to you. our business lines include deposits, welcomed investment management, corporate investment banking, credit cards and mortgages. we have a deep commitment to serving all the communities in which we operate. we have committed to land and invest $1.5 trillion in the community over the next ten years. the financial services industry went underwent turmoil in 2008. earned a a profit of $4.2 billion for the year. we made two significant acquisitions. countrywide and merrill lynch. it does not appear to beny debate these were in the best interest of the financial system, the economy and the country. the failure of countrywide could have destabilized an already crippled market. merrill lynch could have caused havoc when assessing a government-style bailout. these acquisitions, those, were also in the best interest of bank of america and shareholders. certainly

for five minutes, and then the gentleman from cleveland who is done a fantastic job, congressman kucinich. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman and chairman bernanke, contrary to the popularly held belief that the government went too far in the bank of america and merrill lynch dealed, our investigation reveals what is remarkable is what the government did not do. in two meetings in december 2008, bank of america's ken lewis asserted that he had only recently become aware of the deteriorating situation at merrill lynch. he asserted that he believed he could justify invoking the material and if that was to back out of the deal. and he asserted he needed considerable help from the government, including $13 billion more in new cash as well as protection from merrill lynch's losses. staff and officials at the fed looked more closely at the basis for louis' and determine, and this is a quote that there were somewhat suspect. the fed found in contribution to the representation that bank of america failed to do adequate due diligence in acquiring merrill lynch. the fed found that bank of america

kucinich for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, our investigation also finds fed officials believe that you were potentially libel for violating security laws by withholding material information in your possession from shareholders before the vote to prove the merger with merrill lynch in december 5th, 2008. mr. lewis, please look at the following e-mail from the fed's general council to chairman bernanke on december 23rd 2008. quote, a different question that doesn't seem to be the one lewis is focused on is related to disclosure. management may be exposed if it doesn't properly disclose information that is material to investors. this potential liability here will be whether he knew or reasonably should have known the magnitude of merrill lynch losses when bank of america made its disclosure to get the shareholder vote on a merrill lynch deal in early december. mr. lewis, did bank of america supplement the proxy solicitation it sent to shareholders with what the company learned in november about

progressives like dennis kucinich will have trouble going back to their constituents and say i made a pledge to never vote for any war finding that did not have any troop withdrawal provisions and not operate with that. i think they are right because if they do that, that means they were hypocrites. and it means they were just demagoguing the war for political purposes. i think that is wrong and they think that is wrong, and i hope they stand together. host: our guest will be with us for about a half hour if you wanted to ask her questions about the war supplemental bill. you can send us an e-mail and a at twitter it is c-spamwj. talk about the hesitancy to support this. guest: we are being told we cannot have health care because we don't have the money. we are told we cannot bail out california because we don't have the money. people in california cannot be treated for breast cancer or cervical cancer because we don't have the money. how do we justify backing $108 billion loans to bill european banks out of the same situation we did -- to bail european banks out of the same situation

kucinich: science tells us we must begin to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in the next five to 10 years. but according to an analysis by offsets expert and stanford law professor, it is possible that we could see no reduction of co-2 emissions until the year 2040 because of offsets and unlimited banking of allowances in the new energy and environment bill. the bill allows $2 billion -- two billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. supporters of the bill point out that coal use will increase by 2020 because electric utilities will continue to use dirty coal, the prime source of pollution. with two billion tons of offsets per year, we're told that it will reduce carbon emissions at places other than their generating plants. so they really don't have to decrease their emissions and coal fired co-2 emissions will increase through 2025. no wonder there are 26 active coal plant applications. increased co-2 emissions will be our gift to the next generation. apparently the planet is not melting. with this bill it's just getting better for polluters. . the speaker pro tempore: for what pur

kucinich: thank you. we all want to protect our planet. but will the american clean energy and security act of 2009 do that? i don't think so. the pollution targets are inadequate. regulatory authority is stripped from the e.p.a. the bill relies on huge numbers of carbon offsets. for example, it says you can have two billion tons a year of carbon offsets which is roughly equivalent to 30% of all u.s. greenhouse gas emissions. recent analysis suggests it might be 2026 until we see the emissions decline below 2005 levels. the renewable targets are not strong enough. a recent analysis by the union are concerned -- of concerned scientists indicate this target provides no new renewable energy over business as usual projections. dirty energy options qualify as renewable, including biomass burners and trash incineraters. it gives a significant number of pollution permits away free. it opens up a carbon derivatives market in the u.s. and this bill would help establish one of the largest derivative markets in the world, without adequate oversight o

kucinich for five minutes. >> we also find that federal officials were potentially liable for violating securities laws by holding material information in your possession from shareholders before the vote to approve the merger with merrill lynch on december 5, 2008. mr. lewis, a look at the following e-mail from the fed's general counsel to german bernanke. a different question that does not seem to be the one lewis is focused on it is related to disclosure. management may be exposed if it does not disclose information material to investors. his potential liability will be whether he knew or reasonably should have known the magnitude of the losses when bankamerica made its disclosure to get the shareholder vote on the merrill lynch deal in early december. mr. lewis, did bank of america supplement the proxy solicitation it sent to shareholders that the cover -- company learned in mid november about the rapidly mounting losses at merrill lynch before the shareholder vote on december 5. losses at merrill lynch before the shareholder votes on december 5th? >> congressman, if we take disclos

kucinich. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lewis, we would hope a ceo would have a good memory and responsibility to take responsibilities for his actions. you stated in response to my previous question that you did not recall asking for a letter from the government stating that bank of america was ordered to proceed with the purchase of merrill lynch. this is the linchpin of clarifying whether you were threatened by the fed or whether the fed was tough with you because you were threatening to be irresponsible. i want to direct your attention to an e-mail response from the fed's general council to chairman bernanke's e-mail which i previously disclosed. mr. chairman, says, i don't think it's necessary or appropriate for us to give lewis a letter along the lines he asked. first, we didn't order him to go forward. we simply explained our views and what the market reaction would be and left the decision to him. second, making hard decisions is what he gets paid for and only he has full information needed to make the decision so w

kucinich, as well as yourself and other members of this body sent a letter to the administration saying we want t.d. toe the auto task force to revert back to an advisory capacity. many of us remember the 1970's when a congressionally led assistance of the chrysler corporation brought the stake holders together in an equitable process and resulted not only in the survival of the company but with lee iacocca presenting a check for the loans plus interest to president reagan. mr. latourette: could i inquire how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 14 minutes. mr. latourette: thank you. i want to finish clue the travel edition, again, the game of clue, manufacturers by hasbr, -- hasbro, the weapon, not the pen but the ax to make several thousand people unemployed and in one of these rooms, around the board, mr. nardelli, larry summers, senior advisor on the economy to the president, president obama, of course. over here, ron bloom, who i talked about, here's mr. geithner, secretary of the treasury. here is former president bush. so this group forms our new clue tra

kucinich. >> i thank the gentleman. chairman bernanke, your staff believed bank of america knew about milledge's accelerating losses in mid november. for months before coming to you, and weeks before the shareholders voted to approve the merger. those fourth quarter losses rose over 15 billion out of the pockets of bank of america's shareholders. but i want to ask did the fed know about those accelerating losses before the fed approved the merger at the end of november? >> no, i don't think we did. >> may i introduce into the evidence this e-mail which is from the new york fed to autrey of merrill lynch dated wednesday, september 17. it says hope this gets to you. our management, that is the new york fed, has asked to continue the flash report on a daily basis and i am sure with the sec. so the fed was receiving detailed information by which they could have concluded that the overwhelming losses at merrill lynch were more than problematic and that the fed could have done something if they chose. now, are you familiar wi

kucinich i think has been among the most fierce and articulate advocates of single payer is recognized. >> gentle, not years. [laughter] there's been a lot of talk about rationing and during the war, people have rations. imagine during wartime if one out of six americans who are getting rations during a critical period when the war, imagine if one out of 61 of able to get rations and they just starved. well, one of six americans starving for health care, 50 million americans can't get any health care at all. now, dr. gratzer, you tried to make the case for rationing in canada worse than it is in the u.s.. do you know what statistics canada and a lot to the u.s. census says the wait time is across canada for elective surgery? >> why don't you inform us. >> it's four weeks. >> why does canada say to the wheat time for diagnostic imaging like mri? >> i can tell you the government recently looked at that -- >> it's three weeks. >> how many uninsured are there in canada? >> probably relatively few. >> non-or view. how many bankruptcies or there in canada? >> it depends how you define the --

kucinich: we're destroying our nation's integrity with the war supplemental. instead of ending wars in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan now by appropriating only enough money to bring our troops home, congress abdicates its constitutional authority, defers to the president and asks for a report, that's right, all we're asking for is a report on when the president will end the war. there's money, too, for the i.m.f., presumably to bail out private european banks, billions for the i.m.f. so they can force low and middle income nations to cut jobs, wages, health care and retirement security, just like corporate america does to our constituents. and there's money to incentivize the purchase of more cars, but not necessarily from the u.s. because a by america mandate was not allowed. another $106 billion and all we get is a lousy war. pretty soon that's going to be about the only thing made in america, war. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> yes, mr. speaker. by direction of

kucinich: are insufficient. we can take market based approaches that protect the planet, respect nature through incentivizing the mass production and worldwide distribution of american made wind and solar microtechnologies, lowering our carbon footprint, lowering our energy cost, and rallying the

kucinich work together on the exact same issue. we believe that the free flow of tremendous, tremendous green technology around the world will in fact dramatically improve our economy and the standard of living and quality of life for the american people and for the rest of the world. defeat this rule so that we can bring back some of the 224 brilliant ideas that were offered but totally denied by this majority. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. . ms. matsui: has the gentleman yielded back all his time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded babbling all his time. the gentlewoman is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. ms. matsui: madam speaker, i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. ms. matsui: the rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us to highlight our current energy policy challenges and a vision for a better tomorrow. the bill contains expedited procedures for consideration of a