day wall street rose on welcome jobs data, last night on the mach el maddow show, she asked jan murkowski to talk about a bill that promises to put more than 2 million people back to work in america. >> it starts with a very simple idea that if you want to create jobs, create them. that if people need to be hired, hire them. if we put money in people's pockets by having jobs, then we're going to stimulate the private sector to do that. this idea of putting 2.3 million people to work right away in doing things that need to be done economists say could lower the unemployment rate about 1.3%, which isn't everything. we have to do better yet, but it's certainly a good start. it's at a very reasonable price. we're talking at about $230 billion over two years. that doesn't count how much we would save with people getting off their unemployment and other benefits they need when they're unemployed. that's just direct costs. some of that would go to the private sector. if school districts want to hire a construction firm to help fix up schools all over the country, that can be done. >> don't miss

. >> no i saw lisa murkowski up there and -- but i had not.she's really a very minor figure in alaska. she's much larger. >> and maybe not just there. >> .yeah maybe not [chuckles]. >> .as it turns out. >> she's .the only part that really affected this book was that she would go aerial wolf hunting if you recall and it had been largely banned up there and many people were breaking laws; they didn't want to give up the killing of wolves and i write a whole chapter about the story of wolves in alaska. a man named aldo.adolph murie who went to mount mckinley and started saving the wolves 'cause the outdoor person.many people thought they were just predators, they were like mange, something you just. >> yep. >> .got rid of. and it took this generation of people. a woman named lois crisler, she lived with wolves up in the arctic and did a program with disney and wrote a book called arctic wild to make people start seeing wolves in a little bit of a different light. walt disney in the 1950s' true life adventures did a lot to save desert ecosystems and the arctic. >> yeah. alaska doesn't see

one murkowskied and another charged and the one charged is the one saying the maintenance man was the one that murdered her. doctor, police believe that a hacksaw was used to dismember lauren giddings. he said his wasn't strong enough to cut a tree so he threw it away. can it still cut a bone? >> depends how it is use and just because he says it is not strong doesn't mean it isn't strong. it has unique teeth on it and the police by this time and the crime lab should have been able to look at the tool marks on the cut bones of the torso that they found and see if it matched the hac ksaw. >> judge jeanine: let's assume that the hacksaw on the bone matches the one that they have, they know it is the same one. he says he threw it away. there is no dna on the hacksaw from the defendant is, that, correct? >> police haven't released that. >> judge jeanine: what kind of killer ends up dismembering his victim? >> usually people with deep psychiatric problems who dismember a body. we had a few in new york city over the years. also has to be done in a place that doesn't leave much in the way of

it says it does not matter much if your name is mikulski or murkowski? would it matter much if your name was obama or busch? taking a glib exam all, universalizing it to imply that elections have no consequences, and are not important to people because they have private interests, because that also clear -- care about what they pay in taxes, whether their child will be a well educated -- fred implies elections to the matter. >> i disagree with that, and of course, if your name is mark kautsky -- murkowski -- was bumped off the ballot in alaska because a small group of extreme voters decided they did not want her to have the nomination. there's a difference to me if your name is bob bennett, a conservative figure whose instinct was to solve problems along or a man who has replaced .n call mike lee, i think it does matter, and i should of other things. we have lots of research that shows that it is not as if nonvoters art this group of apathetic the ignorant people, while voters are engaged and much more involved in fact, the little bit as between voters a

it says it does not matter much if your name is mikulski or murkowski? would it matter much if your name was obama or busch? taking a glib exam all, universalizing it to imply that elections have no consequences, and are not important to people because they have private interests, because that also clear -- care about what they pay in taxes, whether their child will be a well educated -- fred implies elections to the matter. >> i disagree with that, and of course, if your name is mark kautsky -- murkowski -- was bumped off the ballot in alaska because a small group of extreme voters decided they did not want her to have the nomination. there's a difference to me if your name is bob bennett, a conservative figure whose instinct was to solve problems along or a man who has replaced .n call mike lee, i think it does matter, and i should of other things. we have lots of research that shows that it is not as if nonvoters art this group of apathetic the ignorant people, while voters are engaged and much more involved in fact, the little bit as between voters a

i also want to clarify -- senator murkowski from alaska was talking about a children only planned. . children have pre-existing conditions covered. if you are a child, you are allowed to get care. we do not have a children-only plan. that has been taking care of by state plans. that is the reason for an individual mandate. everyone will have to get care. that is the purpose of the individual mandate, so that we cover people with pre-existing conditions. i wanted to clarify a couple of things. i apologize for going over my time. mr. chairman? >> senator merkley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in 2009, expanded by creating more protocols for interaction with the public. a couple months ago in june, ms. miller, you posted public testimony on the rate increase. it was the first public testimony on rate increases in 10 years. were you required to do that by law or was this an interesting experiment? >> this was the first time in 20 years that we conducted a public hearing on a rate filing. this was the first public hearing. we were not required by law to do that. >> you were skeptical about

all right, joining me now is tadik murkowski. great to see you on camera today. tell us what you've been through for the last 24 hours. my apologies to the viewers, it's really painful i know for you to watch that and have that sort of tees. it's painful for us too, because we really want to hear from him. we won't give up. we'll go back to him, bear with us. these satellite problems are difficult when you're having broadcasts like this streaming live to us. when we get the shot back up we'll bring it to you much. the obama administration has a nooyi missions 0 policy that the commerce department reportedly says will cost 60,000 jobs. the administration says it will cost jobs. we'll investigate. a dangerous situation unfolding in california, this rail car burning and a propane tank at the risk of exploding. the latest on firefighters efforts to control the flames. plus the white house rushing to clarify comments by vice president joe biden in china about that country's one child policy. the fallout and the response ahead. >> your policy has been one which i fully

churchman, senator enzi, senator franken, senator murkowski. i have been concerned about the affordability of health insurance. of course as you look at health insurance around the world, you see it that no country has the size of large for-profit radical insurance companies that the united states of america does. if you go further, you see that the 99 the average premiums for family coverage has risen 100 dirty 1% of medical inflation, which should guide this rose to 31%. two years ago in 2009, 57% of people attempting to purchase insurance in the individual market found it difficult or impossible to afford coverage. now as before it the health care plan, while the cost of health insurance continues to rise for individuals, insurance companies, particularly for 10 large for-profit companies enjoy unprecedented profits. in the first quarter of this year, 2011, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies recorded a net profit in a quarter of $3.9 billion. that is another 16% increase from the same quarter the year before. ceo paid for

that is the case i just want to clarify the goal and i also want to clarify because senator for murkowski from atlanta was talking about no children only plan because children now are -- to have pre-existing conditions. if you have preexisting you are allowed to get care, and in minnesota, while we don't have it the children's only plan that has been taken care of by state plans, and that is the reason for an individual mandate that everyone will have to get care. that is the whole purpose of the individual mandate is so that we cover people with pre-existing conditions. i just want to clarify a couple things and i apologize for going over my time, mr. chairman. >> excuse me, senator merkley. >> thank you mr. share. and it is a pleasure to have you will testify today. it was a in 2007 that the legislature passed a bill that made the filing process public and then in 2009 the expand on that for particles for the introduction of the public and then was just this spring were a couple months ago in june, ms. miller, that you hosted this public testimony on the rate increase, and i believe tha

fox news producer tadik murkowski is in tripoli and joins us on the phone with the very latest. we don't know exactly where qaddafi is but we know the streets of tripoli are filled with rebels. what else can you tell us? >> steve, we just went down into the hotel lobby, the reporters are basically in the hotel where we've been for months trying to cover this conflict under heavy scrutiny and basically run into six armed men who say police officers are protecting the hotel but basically say we cannot leave. we're still waiting to go and do our jobs, get out on the streets and report these events. they are saying to us you can't leave and they're citing the fact that there's too many snipers in this area. i'll caution the figure of 95% of the army, 20% in pro government and pro qaddafi hands still including that compound you spoke of which is no more than, you know, a kilometer, half a kilometer behind the hotel where, you know, there's still some holdouts putting up stiff resistance there so right now, we're caught between the lines but we're hoping, you know, that some short tim

senator murkowski has done a lot of work on that and will let her handle those questions. the department of health and human services will write a $250 million for the grants for these rate reviews thaw are mentioning. 46 states have gotten funding. how many of these states claim more stringent policies would lead to decrease overall health care spending in their state? does merely reviewing a rate increase result in lower health care costs? >> we absolutely think there is huge value in reviewing rates and bringing transparency and sunshine to the rate review process and i think some of these examples that we cited earlier, not every state as we have pointed out has prior approval authority. but reviewing and bringing to light the underlying issues associated with a rate increase can have the effect of having insurance companies go back and sharpen their pencil and review the proposed rate increases. review alone is a very powerful tool. many states have prior approval authority, which provides even more protection to consumers but the baseline review is a good place to st