first up is richard joining us from massachusetts. good morning. caller: you'll never see change in our government. our government, they are all a bunch of crooks. that is the way it is. they have their own insurance, but me, i have a pension from the fire department. they are going to take half away because i get my pension. we as americans, we are proud and honest people. but our government is the most corrupt government and the world. thank you for listening. host: your response? guest: i would agree with a lot of that. the government comes from somewhere. these people did not land from mars. we will all have to get more involved with making the government respond. one of the great advances fdr had is that he was being pushed hard by working people in this country there are strikes throughout this nation textile mill strikes and the carolinas. teamsters drivers and minneapolis chasing police of the middle of the city. a whole push going on for economic justice. that will have to happen. we cannot just sit back and watch tv and critique people. w

us back to the phone lines. mark calling from arlington, massachusetts. caller: thank you, c-span, for taking my call. i just had comment specifically about iraq and the press. a lot of people like myself think the best way to support the troops is to bring them back home in the deity. ron paul is the only candidate running for president used that as a promise as elected. neither afghanistan or iraq pose any threat, military or economic, to the united states. there are a lot of people who feel we should of been out there a long time ago. that being said, supporting the troops also when they come back home, to make sure that they have hospitals, therapy, all kinds of help that they need. the highest suicide rate per soldier of any war. but going back to the beginning of the war -- and i think "newsweek" was very fair, but i think the press, the fourth estate really fell asleep at the wheel. the wheat now see that these were not miscalculations on mistakes of intelligence but calculated lies to get us into the war from the bush-cheney administration. guest: well, i think that the debate over the pre-war

us today. this jobs bill that is described by the german from massachusetts is a job elimination bill, not a job creation bill. i urge both republicans and democrats to vote no. >> this is a defining moment. where were you when this legislation came on the floor is going to be something you're going to remember. as a chairman of the ranking members indicated, the lobbying of this by vice president gore, the president, and all people has been tremendous. it is a possibility that they still do not have the votes. there is not fairness factor here. china adds more co2 to the atmosphere each year than any other nation in the world. they have consistently said that they reject any binding international cap on such missions and plan the right to continue to increase its release of greenhouse gases, what the same time, we're going to attempt to pass this legislation. without equivalent efforts by china and india to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the united states stands to lose many hundreds of thousands of jobs to these countries that will profit from this bill today. the proponents of this legislati

us today. this bill, a jobs bill, as described by the gentleman from massachusetts is a job elimination bill, not a job creation bill. i urge my colleagues, both recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mark this day, june 26, 2009, my colleagues we have an opportunity to serve in a historic session of the congress of the united states. we have an opportunity to take action that will make a major difference in the security and independence and environment of our globe as well as our country. we have been given the privilege by our fellow citizens to serve in a time of historic change and meeting challenges that were the subject of this past presidential campaign. in this past presidential campaign, there were three major candidates. you could perhaps name more. but there were two certainly at the end. and the campaign of senator mccain and senator obama had something in common. they were both for comprehensive cap and trade legislation. the candidate you supported and the candidate i supported. they put an agenda of action before the american people that they woul

from massachusetts on the independent line. caller: my remark in this, i think we are using the wrong model for inflation. i think the alan greenspan type of model, where he always insists that if wages go up, that is the cause of inflation. we have seen wages stagnant for 30 years. we have seen an explosion and housing prices -- in housing prices. they'd to devalue the dollar. a dollar that i turned 30 years ago was worth a lot more than it is at today. inflation is down, according to alan greenspan's confederate model. i think we need to use a new contacts, context to determine what causes inflation. inflation on an international level, it is monetary. low wages is not the solution to inflation, it is the cause. i think we have to as a nation, embraces a new business model, and a new social model. i think that is one of the things that barack obama was talking about in his campaign. we are all in this together. this whole exposure of what has been going on in the housing markets and the madoff thing, it shows that when americans come together like we did in world war ii, basically americans have to come

us today. this bill, a jobs bill, as described by the gentleman from massachusetts is a job elimination bill, not a job creation bill. i urge my colleagues, both republicans and democrats, who come from the midwest, who come from rural america to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, it's my privilege to yield to an important member of the committee, mr. engel for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: i thank the chairman for yielding to me and i rise in support of this bill as i supported it in committee. i think this bill goes a great step in the right direction. it will revitalize our economy by creating millions of clean energy jobs, increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and help preserve our planet by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. i want to mention as i did in committee my disappointment that the bill does not contain strong enough language in terms of flex fuel cars in this country. i believe very strongly that

place foirl this, filler , madam president, and our friend from massachusetts i hope is watching this because he battled ten years to get to us this point. if we can make a dent in those 3,000 to 4,000 kids who start smoking every day -- the estimates are 10% will not start because of what we'ring about b to do on this bill. and if we can make a difference on those 400,000 that lose their lives every year and those who contract emphysema and related illnesses, this maybe the most important prevention step we take in the short term on our health care efforts. so for democrats and republicans on both sides of the aisle here who have made this possible, this is a moment they can take great satisfaction in having made a significant contribution to the well-being in america. and so i thank all of them for it, urge a strong vote tomorrow for the adoption of the legislation and then we'll work out -- we may not have to work out differences with the house but if we do to send this bill to the president for his signature hopefully in the next few days, and for the first time in the history of our country, the food and drug administrat

us with our work. i yield back. >> thank you very much. now i allow five minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bernanke i want to discuss another way the public moneys seemed to have flowed to some of these financial institutions. back in march of 2009, a.i.g. disclosed the name of the counter parties, people they had credit swap agreements with, and bank of america was within them. it appears from our records that there were losses in the so-called superior peer senior multisector default swaps, portfolio a.i.g. had, and that it created a liquidity problem. they had obligations if there were problems in that, they had to put more cash in or more security for the obligation. federal reserve board of new york then provided yz 85 billion in a loan to a.i. g testimony here was that then that money was used to buy out the contracts and cancel them. that's how they took care of that obligation. what was of concern to me and others was the counsellor parties appeared to have proceeded 100%, even though testimony from people from a.i.g. said they thought there were a lot of reasons to think they did

us from the shackles of foreign control of our energy, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts rise? ms. tsongas: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. tsongas: madam speaker, global warming is no longer an academic question for scientists to ponder. it's a very real crisis that requires our leadership. this is not a political issue. this is a critical generational responsibility that will take a commitment from congress and from every person in our society. we have a real opportunity this year to prove our commitment by voting for h.r. 2454, the american energy and security act. the renewable technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions exist. the societal will and desire to go clean have been demonstrated, and the political climate to finally create sound public policy is now present. the cost of inaction on this critical challenge is unacceptable and the price too high. a recent study concluded that unchecked defects of climate change could result in a cost of $27

us to make it better. hopefully this amendment will make it better here today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i'd like to yield for the purpose of closing to the individual, along with congressman hoyer, mrs. maloney has championed the bill for the past 15 years. i yield her the remaining time in order to close. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. maloney: may i inquire how much time i have? the chair: 30 seconds. mrs. maloney: i appreciate my colleague's hard work and effort but i rise in opposition to the amendment. the amendment would do absolutely nothing but maintain the status quo. it asks federal employees to continue to cobble together sick and annual leave if they want to get a paycheck while they care for their new child. this policy does not help relatively new employees, younger workers, or those with health problems who have little accrued leave to draw on. it also puts the health and well being of our employees and their families at risk. a new baby typically -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i would request an op

and we used the institute of medicine report along with studies from windberg and others as the basis for making the case for change in massachusetts. we also reasoned that we, blue cross blue shield and other insurers were the ones who purchased the care and we needed to demand change. we had for the first time data in the format and of the nature that would allow us to go to our providers and make the case for change. without being asked so, cleve, where did you get your m.d.? we believe that because of our brand, our members would expect that we would not contract with hospitals and physicians that we knew provided unsafe care or ineffective care. the data suggests that it's as much as 30% of the $13 billion we spend on care in massachusetts for our members may be of questionable value. and then, of course, there's a problem if you spend $13 billion and you pay 90% -- 93% of your claims, there seems to be a problem with that algebra kind of not acknowledging the 30% waste. it became clear that this was a problem that we as an insurer in the community needed to deal with. and, of course, as it's our responsibility to do as member

though he's not with us here in person, we make no mistake about it, we're still led by our chairman, my friend, the senator from massachusetts, senator ted kennedy. his life-long quest has been to ensure that no american regardless of where they live or what they earn be denied affordable high quality health care. i know he wishes he were here today to be presiding over and chairing this committee. as i said, i talked with him earlier this morning. he's doing well. i informed my colleagues he sounded strong and he said he'll be watching the proceedings as they go forward. he also wanted me to remind everyone that people are depending on us to get this done, get this job done, all across the nation, families are struggling to pay medical bills and provide for their families, and the time for action on this issue is now. it is appropriate that this bill was introduced by senator kennedy. for decades congress has been struggling to reform our health care system and for the last 40 years, senator ted kennedy has led that fight. every administration, republican and democratic administration, since the late 1940s under harry truma

us today. this bill, a jobs bill as described by massachusetts, is a job eliminations will not a job creation bill. i urge my colleagues who come from the midwest or rural america to vote no. >> this is a defining moment. where were you when this legislation came on the floor is going to be something you'll remember. as a chairmen has mentioned, the lobbying by the president and all the people has been tremendous. there is a possibility that they still do not have the votes. there is not a fairness factor here. china has about more co2 into the atmosphere every year than any of the nation in the world. they have consistently said they reject any binding international cap on such emissions and claim the right to continue to increase its amount of greenhouse gases. we will still try to pass this legislation. without a public effort by china and india, to limit emissions, we stand to lose many hundreds of thousands of jobs to these countries that will profit from this bill. the proponents of the legislation say we should make unilateral reductions. this will impose more pressure on other countries. i find it hard to believe that china

to think this sad substitute about the massachusetts plan and the people from this state that can expound on that far more greatly the and i can come, will move us forward. we're at a point* now where we will either take this opportunity and move forward and have everybody in the as a matter of constitutional right to healthcare. not health insurance, not policy, health care itself from the moment they are ball ball -- born here are the essentials, 37 pages but we are not going back to the 1994 mistake of 1200 pages. we are saying, number one, ever buy the is afforded health insurance. number two, the rate would be 3.5% of your income. it is not a government run in. it is privately administered no one would be giving up their choice of doctor or hospital or how they want their health -- health service rendered. it would break the employer connection and create one health insurance system, one of which would be devised, we would come together whether we wind combinations of existing health insurance groups or whether we want to do something differently. i want everybody who is thinking about this to start off with number one, this is the most pop

from massachusetts. i know he always has the best interest of the nation and our armed services at heart. but i must oppose the amendment. as much as all of us would like to have our brave men and women home again reunited with their loved ones, we don't have a choice but to keep the troops on the ground in afghanistan for some period of time. the only way we can succeed in afghanistan is to create an environment conducive to development and good governance. our u.s. military is an essential component of that. requiring president obama to develop an exit strategy only a few months after he increased the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan and launched a new strategy would raise questions about our commitment to the afghan people and complicate our efforts to help them create a stable and secure nation in a way that would supersede whatever benefits we could get from the passage of this amendment. i would ask my colleagues to give the president's plan a chance to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gen

massachusetts attorney general to "childproof" the flow of information in our society. children deserve to be protected from inappropriate or harmful material, but the government may not use the guise of protecting children to impose sweeping restrictions on information intended for adults. so we come to the floor and we say, we are doing it for the children. yet we are taking provisions of which the supreme court has already found to be unconstitutional, i.e. commercial speech that is not nearly tailored to a legitimate government interest. in boulder vs. young's drug products corporation, the court stated that efforts to restrict advertising cannot lower disclosure in society, "to the level of the sand box." and citing in the case butler vs. michigan, that, "government may not reduce the adult population to reading only that which is fit for children." so the type of drastic speech sensorship that is contained in this -- censorship that is contained in this legislation is almost certain to lead to challenges in the federal courts and i find that troubling and counterproductive. . to the issue on harm reduction, and this is an issue that once again -- no, strike that on

used to incite violence against american troops. there is no good reason to release these photographs. i wish the rules committee would have allowed this debate as our colleagues from massachusetts said last night, the way the rules committee works, why are we afraid to have this debate. it is unanimous that they believe these photographs should be protected. the president has come out saying it is appropriate to protect these photographs. and we aren't talking about forever, but three years at a time to protect these photographs. i'm disappointed that the rules committee failed to allow the members of this body to express their will as opposed to the will of the chairman of the committee and maybe a couple of others who in their judgment believe that these photographs should, in fact, be released and the consequences that the courts have said that they recognize the validity of the consequences that are set forth in general petraeus' comments as well as general odierno's comments to the courts. the other side believes it is better to have these photographs used as recruitment tools for al qaeda as well as the other uses they will be put to. it's unfortunate the rules committee,

from massachusetts expressed about this offshore wind being crowded out, if you will. i perceive that this greenhouse gas interconnection standard would help solve that problem. because it would essentially allow the usef the federal backstop authority for clean sources, green sources of energy, and i think that would help solve that problem. do you agree with that and is there anything else you could suggest that would help solve that concern? >> well, i think that a stronger step which mr. miller suggested would be to have federal intervention on the loading orders for the use of different kinds of resources, i doubt that that would be politically saleable right now. so i think within the context ever what's doable, i think that the approach that you've outlined is about as strong as it can be. i might add that i think that the greenhouse gas standard to a certain extent over time gets overtaken by the requirements of the cap and trade legislation, assuming that's enacted. but i think your legislation reflects that as well. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair for your cooperation. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will recognize himself for a round of questions. let's go down the line. i

from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i just want to point out the odd situation we have here. we have the world health organization that actually brought us up to a level five, they're now considering going to a level six on this influenza. and yet you had transportation and security and d.h.s. saying they did not think it was not medically necessary for our folks to wear these. you had the centers for disease control here in the united states in atlanta alerting americans just, you know, generally to, you know, cover your mouth, avoid unnecessary travel to mexico, take prudent steps to protect yourself. and yet we had these officers on the border that are screening in 3,000 people per day and they weren't allowing those individuals to wear masks. i think it's -- it points out a terrible incongruity in our policy. we have been trying to get them to change that policy. they would not do it voluntarily. we are put in a position to do this legislatively. mr. chairman, can i ask how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from utah has four minutes remaining. mr. lynch