mr. lewis case, the most recent argument focused primarily on the vagueness issue and the constitutional question, as well, since the court and fox did not a constitutional issue but essentially invited the court to look at the constitutional issue. >> should we wait that determination? >> i do not think it is necessary. either on the apa issue or because of the due process question, this court can come away from its earlier decision without getting into the constitutional issue. however, because of the significant issues involved, it would not be a bad thing for this court to get guidance both for the fcc and all of us on constitutional issues. >> i gather there has never been an enforceable order issued based on an image? >> actually, if you go back to about 1988, there was the first time the fcc issued a fine, as far as i'm concerned, for broadcasting, and this was the broadcast of an art-rated movie on a local television station. the fcc issued a notice of apparent liability but quickly res

mr. lewis i think misspoke in his last few minutes on the floor when he talked about questions that came up during the planning of the super bowl in regards to the video delay. there was discussion, as we discussed at length the last time, about imposing an audio delay. there was no suggestion of using a video delay, because no such delay had ever been used in the past. i will answer any questions you have. i think it is important to notice how the fcc argument has changed over the course of this case. when it was before you the last time, it argued that the distinguishing between images and words is obvious in policies, but unstated. now, after it has argued the fox case, it's argument is that the policy was stated in 1987, which is not so obvious that they ever sighted in any case until 2006 in a different context. that change in emphasis is critical in understanding how the fcc is involved in the post hoc rationalization. secondly, the sec is wrong when it suggests that the -- the fcc is wro

. >> in the most recent argument, and mr. lewis can tell you much more because he was arguing that case, the most recent argument focused primarily on the vagueness issue and the constitutional question, as well, since the court and fox did not a constitutional issue but essentially invited the court to look at the constitutional issue. >> should we wait that determination? >> i do not think it is necessary. either on the apa issue or because of the due process question, this court can come away from its earlier decision without getting into the constitutional issue. however, because of the significant issues involved, it would not be a bad thing for this court to get guidance both for the fcc and all of us on constitutional issues. >> i gather there has never been an enforceable order issued based on an image? >> actually, if you go back to about 1988, there was the first time the fcc issued a fine, as far as i'm concerned, for broadcasting, and this was the broadcast of an art-rated movie on a local television station. the fcc is

price and mr. lewis say there's no basis for the case. he's being unfairly vilified for accountability for the meltdown. he stepped down at ceo of the bank last year. people close to him says he has no intent to settle this case. cuomo's charges made public just about ten minutes after the sec said it's seeking court approval for a settlement with bank of america. having had a $33 million settlement rejected last year, the sec is seeking approval of a $150 settlement over proxy violations including the bank's failure to disclose merrill losses and billions in bonuses paid to merrill employees. attorneyed to koran believes the real loser will be the markets. >> i think that the entities in the market participants ought to be able to accept or expect that there would be continuity of the regulatory approach that they face regardless of whether it's a federal authority or a state authority. >> cuomo's relationship with b of a could be described adds contentio contentious. scott, back to you. >> mary, thanks so much. >>> we have about 45 min

mr. lewis from california, today. mr. kingston, today. mr. thompson, today. mr. shuster today, mr.oran for today and mr. fleeling frelinghuysen for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house to revise and stepped their remarks and include extraneous materials, mr. cummings, maryland, ms. woolsey of california, ms. delauro. mr. defazz yeoh -- defazio. and ms. kaptur from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. . the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 8, 2009, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. cummings of maryland. ms. woolsey of california. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. woolsey: than

the charges were without merit as did lawyers for mr. lewis and mr. price. the sec had access to the same information and found no bases to enter a fraud charge against the firm or individuals. the sec saying it is seeking court approval for a $150 million settlement with the bank over violations of proxy rules. this concerns the bank's failure to disclose per you will's losses to shareholders andst failure to disclose payments of billions in bonuses to payroll employees. they're the judge threw out a $33 million settlement proposed by the two sides. he said if the bank's axe were as egregious as the banks allege, a fine should be imposed. the 150 million in the proposed settlement would be distributed to b of a shareholders and if it is approved the two go to trial. >> we have a rrth remarkable development. the judge saying you're not being tough enough on the individuals and the sec comes back with $150 million instead of 3 million and como charges individuals here. it's a divergent path, isn't it? cuomo wants to run for governor, doesn't he? is i'm sure t

i also want to say, as mr. lewis mentioned ago, i appreciate the inclusion of reinsurance. appreciate the simplicity of your proposal, but it might still allow a significant shifting of profits offshore, outside of the reach of u.s. tax system. domestic companies are upset about this. this is not an issue that was brought to my attention by the afl-cio. this was offered by domestic insurance companies who want something done about it. they do not understand why they have to compete with companies that move offshore. in addition, mr. rangel has been talking about tax reform, and i appreciate the time and effort you put into these. recently, the chairman asked me to look into transfer pricing. i hope that we can were together on these international reforms, because mr. rangel's proposal does encourage companies to stay here and to prosper. now, would you explain briefly the changes and how they have changed since the last budget? >> again, we are trying to balance a simple imperative. we want to make sure there is a level playing field for american companies, so we are not cr

i also want to say, as mr. lewis mentioned ago, i appreciate the inclusion of reinsurance. do appreciate the simplicity of your proposal, but it might still allow a significant shifting of profits offshore, outside of the reach of u.s. tax system. domestic companies are upset about this. this is not an issue that was brought to my attention by the afl-cio. this was offered by domestic insurance companies who want something done about it. they do not understand why they have to compete with companies that move offshore. in addition, mr. rangel has been talking about tax reform, and i appreciate the time and effort you put into these. recently, the chairman asked me to look into transfer pricing. i hope that we can were together on these international reforms, because mr. rangel's proposal does encourage companies to stay here and to prosper. now, would you explain briefly the changes and how they have changed since the last budget? >> again, we are trying to balance a simple imperative. we want to make sure there is a level playing field for american companies, so we are not

i also want to say, as mr. lewis mentioned ago, i appreciate the inclusion of reinsurance.o appreciate the simplicity of your proposal, but it might still allow a significant shifting of profits offshore, outside of the reach of u.s. tax system. domestic companies are upset about this. this is not an issue that was brought to my attention by the afl-cio. this was offered by domestic insurance companies who want something done about it. they do not understand why they have to compete with companies that move offshore. in addition, mr. rangel has been talking about tax reform, and i appreciate the time and effort you put into these. recently, the chairman asked me to look into transfer pricing. i hope that we can were together on these international reforms, because mr. rangel's proposal does encourage companies to stay here and to prosper. now, would you explain briefly the changes and how they have changed since the last budget? >> again, we are trying to balance a simple imperative. we want to make sure there is a level playing field for american companies, so we are not c

lewis. >> thank you, mr. speaker.e great theorist of counterinsurgency, sir robert thompson, over 40 years ago, prisoner abuse is not only morally wrong, it's lethal to any counterinsurgency campaign. i appreciate that the foreign secretary cannot or doesn't wish to comment on the particular case that's currently before the court. but in response to the honorable gentleman kingston, can he address the question of what representations the government made to our american allies more generally when it became known that waterboarding, for example, is being used? >> mr. speaker, i'm very happy to say very clearly that the government as detailed in the successive intelligence and security committee report did follow up both in terms of our own system, the way in which the practices were taken forward. it's also in ways which i set out on the -- what happened. we documented what didn't happen and what should have happened, not in respect to an individual case but in terms of training and guidance for officials. that new orle

mr. speaker, i was on the student of nonviolent coordinating committee. john lewisime. students feared beatings literally in every state of the union except in mississippi but there was nothing like the four young students in greensboro who stepped forward in 1960. and here i come to mississippi in 1963 and i sure you not to sit in but there has not been a single sit-in in mississippi. and so here came a father and husband and said, ok, i will lead mississippians in a sit-in. can i have another minute? mr. johnson: i yield one minute. ms. norton: medgar evers was a student. he was not foolish the way the young students were. he had a lot to risk and he risked it all. he and a very few others stepped forward to do that first sit-in. he paid a price that day. they were beat horribly, and he paid the ultimate price when they took his life in that driveway. it's time for the united states of america now to step forward, the way that medgar evers did, and recognize this one-of-a-kind american hero. and applaud our country and our navy for naming a united states naval shi

mr. brown, massachusetts, has not yet heard from wall street he should keep his phone on. new york state attorney general andrew cuomo today filing civil fraud charges against bank of america, its former ceo ken lewis, and other executives saying the bank purposely misled investors about more than $15 billion in losses at merrill lynch not to mention huge bonuses in order to complete its purchase of that firm in late 2008. that wall street might still need reform in the wake of the near collapse of the u.s. economy, republicans now actively seeking donations from wall street by making the case they would be antireform. "the wall street journal" reporting that house minority leader boehner has been courting jp morgan chase, chief executive james dimon until now a big democratic contributor telling him congressional republicans have stood up to the president's effort to curb pay and impose new regulations and expressing his disappointment that so many on wall street continue to donate their money to democrats. house democrats today countering mr. boehner's claims, congressman waxman chairman of the energy and commerce committee telling huffington post he could think of two specific examples why wall