paul sarbanes: ben's onto a very important point. i think you have to ask the question, "how much harm is going to be done to the workers in novastan?" as you-- as you do this analysis. krugman: this has to be comparative. if this is a country where the risk of accidents, industrial accidents, is high across the board, to say, well, if it isn't as safe as it is in the united states - then we can't do it-- - sarbanes: no, i didn't say "as safe." no, that-- that need not be your standard. but it seems to me that regardless of the conditions in novastan, if your project is going to kill the workers, you should not do it. - lowe: and-- and -- - krugman: but you're not going to know that. - if you know that, then you don't do it. - with asbestos, you know it. - sarbanes: that's an important point. - heineman: people understand exposure to asbestos and subsequent disease. how much, under the way that they do it, are the workers and their families being exposed to asbestos compared to the safety standards in the united states, and what does

sarbanes of maryland. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. sarbanes: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank him for his work in shepherding us through the process and bringing it to the house floor. i'm delighted that we are going to be voting today on the telework improvements act of 2010, a bill that i introduced sometime ago with bipartisan co-sponsorship. and i want to acknowledge congresswoman norton is here, congressman davis, congressman connolly, jim moran of virginia and other co-sponsors. i do, also, want to salute the fact that we had bipartisan support for in from the outset. congressman wittman, shelly moore capito, and, of course, frank wolf, who has really been a leader on this issue from the git-go. he was working on telework before i even came to congress and understood what a valuable contribution telework can make to our federal work force and its productivity. what this bill will do is expand the

sarbanes p.c. -- mr. sarbanes: i rise today in support of the carbon monoxide poisoning prevention act. carbon monoxide poisoning kills more than 400 people each year and sends more than 20,000 people to hospital emergency rooms for treatment. carbon monoxide can build up in your home when a furnace or other fuel burning appliance isn't functioning properly. what make this is gas particularly dangerous is that you can't see it or smell it. at least with a fire, you can see the flames, smell the smoke, or feel the heat. with carbon monoxide, in many cases, all you start to feel is flu-like symptoms. you have no idea you're facing something even more dangerous. but there is a simple and effective way to come pat carbon monoxide poisoning. installing a carbon monoooks side alarm in your home. h.r. 1796 takes two important steps to promote the use of carbon monoxide alarms in homes and other places. first this legislation makes the voluntary industry standards for carbon monoxide alarms mandatory consumer pro

sarbanes: mr. speaker, again, i urge support of this bill from my colleagues and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2480, as amended. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass senate bill s. 1789. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1789, an act to restore fairness to federal cocaine sentencing. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, will each control 20 minutes

senator sarbanes, thank you very much for coming by this morning. none of us could ever plan these things this way, but obviously the coincidence of having the three nominees here this morning and at some point later today, we will be voting on the financial regulatory reform bill. it is all coming together, ironically in some ways, of having the three of you here. it is a critical part of getting back on our feet again and how well the federal reserve is able to act in dealing with these issues. we are considering five very highly qualified nominees. two others we will be considering later it this morning on the panel. the first panel has three candidates. one has been nominated to a four-year term as vice president of the board. the first will serve as the export-import bank of the united states and the other for the federal finance housing agency. the committee considers the day the nominations of three federal reserve board governors. these positions are extraordinarily important because of the critical role of federal reserve plays in our econo

senator sarbanes, thank you very much for coming by this morning. none of us could ever plan these things this way, but obviously the coincidence of having the three nominees here this morning and at some point later today, we will be voting on the financial regulatory reform bill. it is all coming together, ironically in some ways, of having the three of you here. it is a critical part of getting back on our feet again and how well the federal reserve is able to act in dealing with these issues. we are considering five very highly qualified nominees. two others we will be considering later it this morning on the panel. the first panel has three candidates. one has been nominated to a four-year term as vice president of the board. the first will serve as the export-import bank of the united states and the other for the federal finance housing agency. the committee considers the day the nominations of three federal reserve board governors. these positions are extraordinarily important because of the critical role of federal reserve plays in our econo

sarbanes: you don't seek to immunize the system by doing something that puts a blanket of immunity over everybody. because then that covers the bad actors. and there are a fair number of bad actors. and no one has a greater interest in cleaning out these bad actors than the good actors - in the business community. - minow: you are absolutely right. i think what fred just referred to as the delegitimization of business is because business executives have acted like scoundrels. no no, leslie. we're not gonna find every business run by an honest man. - then that's why you need oversight. - no-- what we then need is, since you know you're gonna to be attacked sooner or later, you should have some ability to have joe write a story that says, "well, on the one hand, it was one in a million, and on the other hand, more warmth or what?" i don't think that washes anymore. i think that, you know, coming back to the auto safety issue, if i read the story and it said, "well, it is saving all the energy that we need to save to make america energy independent and reduce global warming, which is a sub

sarbanes: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the rule and pursuant to it will vote in strong support of the domestic funding portion of the supplemental appropriation, but in reluctant acceptance of the war funding which properties $37 billion to our efforts in afghanistan, most of it going to the troop surge that president obama announced in december of last year. concern about the well-being of our troops makes it difficult to vote against supplemental war funding once the troops that funding is meant to support have already been deployed. while a no vote on the supplemental has a way of forcing re-evaluation of our strategy, denying those funds could jeopardize the safety of our troops. that leaves me little choice in the matter. however, that does not mean that i'm ready to give in to a policy that is open-ended while cost in lives and resources continues to mount. i'm highly skeptical that an extra year and 30,000 additional troops will bring stability and effective governance in a country that for 30 y

court embraced a constitution theory that held unconstitutional the four clause provision of the sarbanes oxley accounting board. it left the board in tact so it was a broad constitutional ruling but minimalist results. the court declined to validate that statute across the board on vagueness grounds. the big exception what this -- was the citizens united case. third, the court seemed like a relatively happy place. we saw the fewest side court decisions in recent years, only about 18% of the cases were 5-4 decisions. last year, about 30% of the cases were 5-4 so that s a fairly significant decline. about 75% of the cases were seven-two or more so broad consensus in the broad majority of cases. in the more interesng cases, there were not consensus. i would like to talk briefly about three cases which i think illustrate different things about the court agreed the first is the citizens united case corporate they are not afraid to go where it beliives police them. citizens united you all know about. involved the constitutional challenge to a provision of the mccain-find cold finance reform ac

>> well, i think the sarbanes oxley accounting board case is one such case case.i think the chief justice set out some very important and broad principless but the remedy that he chose largely kept the accounting board intact. and its functions preserved. >> brown: and paul butler. >> i think that i that is-- . >> brown: go ahead. >> i think that that is one good example of where they could have gone further but they set up important principless and then held their position. >> brown: paul butlering make your case for where you saw them overreaching in your words . >> its most notorious example is the campaign financing case. which they could have decided on narrow grounds the same way they did. but instead they set the whole statute was unconstitutional. they established the first amendment rights for corporations, kind of disturbing law that everybody thought had recently been decided, recently as a couple years ago. and the cross in the desert case. again they could have gone narrow, instead they went broad. they claimed to be minimalist but they are the not at

in other esoteric vehicles of the same way we saw private equity and leverage buyout booms after sarbanes oxley, the last huge show of regulation that we had in the early part of last decade. i think it's very important to notice that. and this money, i mean there's still lots of restive capital out there that is going to look for yield. i don't think the security at thisization market is going to die. these people, like i've said before, wall street gets paid a lot to learn how to gain the system. if it has to move money abroad, so be it. if it has to use special purpose entities, so be it. and that's the prediction that a lot of people are making today. >> brown: so chrystia, in terms of who watches going forward to make sure that those kind of things don't happen or untoward things don't happen, what does the bill bring in terms of regulatory changes, the fed feds-- fed still has-- actually the fed maintains a lot of power and roben referred to that new council, the oversight council. >> yeah, exactly. i mean that is a new thing. and it is really important that there now is a council t

they said it was a sarbanes-oxley for housing. sarbanes-oxley is about as nasty as you can get for "the wall street journal" and here's what they said about subprime lending in 2007. maybe that's what george bush expanded subprime lending. the "wall street journal" said in 2007, complaining about our will, for all the demonizing about 80% of even subprime loans are being paid on time and another 10% only 30 days behind. most new homeowners are low income families who would otherwise not have qualified for a mortgage. in the name of consumer protection, mr. frank's legislation will ensure that far fewer of these will be issued in the future. unfortunately a couple of years too late. we would limit them. i always wanted to do affordable rental housing which that administration opposed. this bill has the biggest package of increased consume brother texts in the history of america and it doesn't ban products or ration products, it says there has to be fair dealing this bill says if a fiduciary responsibility of people selling products

they said it was a sarbanes-oxley for housing. sarbanes-oxley is about as nasty as you can get for "the wall street journal" and here's what they said about subprime lending in 2007. maybe that's what george bush expanded subprime lending. the "wall street journal" said in 2007, complaining about our will, for all the demonizing about 80% of even subprime loans are being paid on time and another 10% only 30 days behind. most new homeowners are low income families who would otherwise not have qualified for a mortgage. in the name of consumer protection, mr. frank's legislation will ensure that far fewer of these will be issued in the future. unfortunately a couple of years too late. we would limit them. i always wanted to do affordable rental housing which that administration opposed. this bill has the biggest package of increased consume brother texts in the history of america and it doesn't ban products or ration products, it says there has to be fair dealing this bill says if a fiduciary responsibility of people selling products

court embraced a constitutional theory that held unconstitutional the four clause provision of the sarbanes oxley accounting board. it left the board in tact so it was a broad constitutional ruling but minimalist results. the court declined to validate that statute across the board on vagueness grounds. the big exception what this -- was the citizens united case. third, the court seemed like a relatively happy place. we saw the fewest side court decisions in recent years, only about 18% of the cases were 5-4 decisions. last year, about 30% of the cases were 5-4 so that s a fairly significant decline. about 75% of the cases were seven-two or more so broad consensus in the broad majority of cases. in the more interesting cases, there were not consensus. i would like to talk briefly about three cases which i think illustrate different things about the court agreed the first is the citizens united case corporate they are not afraid to go where it beliives police them. citizens united you all know about. it involved the constitutional challenge to a provision of the mccain-find cold finance refo

sarbanes: the occupation of this tiny island republic is a symptom that turkey's indifference of intolerance and democratic values. they continue to resettle some 180,000 an tollian turks in the homes and possessions of the 100,000 greeks that was evicted from the occupied territories. the turkish military is eradicating he had lenic and christian heritage with all of the 500 greek orthodox churches there having been looted, desecrated or destroyed. on this the 36th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of cyprus, the united states should demand an immediate withdrawal of the 45,000 turkish soldiers now occupying northern cyprus and should continue to press this issue in every interaction with turkish officials. this should promote a values-based alliance with turkey that will strengthen nato and reinforce collective western security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. a bitter feud

i must thank senator sarbanes who has been an extraordinary mentor to me and my career and showed me that one can be passionately committed to the public address and to one's family. it is an honor to be nominated by president obama to the federal reserve board and i am very grateful. if confirmed, i will dissipate in the essential and difficult work of restraining inflation and maintaining price stability, maximizing sustainable employment and economic growth, and trying to continually reconciled and harmonize these goals. this is a challenging moment for the federal reserve. every member of this committee knows that, even though the worst of the crisis is over, it remains a precarious time for far too many of our families and business. the fed must do its part to restore the underlying strength and vibrancy of the american economy. as maryland's commissioner of financial regulation over the last four years, i worked day and night to cover the devastating effects on our committee of the banking liquidity crisis and high unemployment and underemployment. at the same time, as a front-

court embraced a constitutional theory that held unconstitutional the four clause provision of the sarbanesley accounting board. it left the board in tact so it was a broad constitutional ruling but minimalist results. the court declined to validate that statute across the board on vagueness grnds. the big exception what this -- was the citizens united case. third, the court smed like a relatively happy place. we saw the fewest side court decisions in recent years, only about 18% of the cases were 5-4 decisions. last year, about 30% of the cases were 5-4 so that s a fairly significant decline. about 75% of the cases were seven-two or more so broad consensus in the broad majority of cases. in the more interesting cases, there were not consensus. i would like to talk briefly about three cases wch i think illustrate different things abt the court agreed the first is the citizens united case corporate they areot afraid to go where it beliives police them. citizens united you all know about. it involved the constitutional challenge to a provision of the mccain-find cold finance reform act. in a