carbon emission standards and california standards for light-duty vehicles. these provisions were dropped in the reported bill after the administration reached an agreement on light-duty fuel economy standards with auto makers in california. that's not all. there are other fuel efficiency standards. we not only have to reduce emissions, we also have to conserve and this bill does it. does it do enough? probably not. but guess what? we need your input and advice. . the bill also has three primary programs for reducing carbon emissions that create global warming. a cap on large domestic sources, two, a program to reduce tropical deforestation, and, three, an offset program. let me talk a little bit about the carbon capping emissions from large sources. starting in 2012, aces establishes annual tonnage limits on carbon and other global warming pollutants from large sources like electric utilities and oil refibers. under these limits, carbon pollution for large sources must be reduced by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. this is an

much of the marketplace is standardized. there are various estimates and i haven't seen very good data but over half the market is certainly standardized and some would say a lot more and even on the customized site sometimes it is just one month off, but on the truly exotic, if it is highly customized, i think that beyond that which has chair schapiro talked about i think it would be inappropriate to have higher capital, higher-margin standards for the dealer. he mentioned the letter earlier from caterpillar. i think they could absolutely customize and make sure they hedge their risks but if the risk is a little different than the standard, well it's probably almost the same capital but if the risk is quite different than it's hard to value that risk and then the dealer on the other side might have to put up even more capital. in that regard. but risk if i might say is risk, and it's highly standardized we want to make sure the dealers have enough cushion and tough markets. >> so are we saying or inability to standardize th

we continue to work closely with the international accounting standards board and other national standards-- i told you about china -- to try to get to this goal of high quality standards that would support quality reporting ñ we'll pursue that. the determination of timing and that who could use these things, that rests with the s.e.c. >> we are just about out of time. before i ask the last question, let me remind our members of future speakers. on july 1, discussing the star history. july 11, discussing resent development in u.s. national security. and july 10, bounder and chief trial founder will be with us. and let me give you the traditional mug. >> i earned it. we have one more here. some saw the perils before the financial collapse. what do you foresee as the next problem in your world? >> i think the next issue that i see is dealing with loans and loan accounting. that's going to be part of our financial instruments project. right now loans are what are called an incurred loss model. that's been clear that that's the -- the provisions there have lagged. the downward spiral. i think

instead of the appropriate standards? lire thank you for addressing that i put that in my a testimony we should not put nonstandard three should have the agency right the standards that are most appropriate that all producers should follow. as soon as we have mentioned standards the first thing that will happen someone we'll say that is not a good enough so if we go down this path make sure that agency rights the most appropriate standards. >> industry need 70. if we have paid language there is uncertainty and with that comes higher risk because of trying to comply. i appreciate that. ms. bailey, what was surprising in the draft i cannot talk about it hearings

risk by having central clearing on the standardized products. also bringing the standardized products onto regulated trading venues whether they be full exchanges or electronic platforms and this will lower risk and further enhance transparency. to fully achieve these objectives we must enact both of these complementary regimes. regulating both the traders and the trades will ensure we cover both the actors and the stages upon which they create the significant risk. unfortunate-- i'm fortunate to have a partner, sec chair mary schapiro. she brings a valuable expertise which gives me confidence we will be able to work together on what is bound to be a lot of challenges moving forward. we have not only this but we are going to be working together in advising congress and the administration on how cases can best harmonize some of the roles between the securities and futures world, cover gaps in our regulatory oversight. president obama's says called to strengthen market integrity, low-risk and protect investors and i look forward to working with me

any standard or standards that the secretary determined to be substantially equivalent to such checklist and the green building rating systems. . so a lot of power without any congressional oversight. now i really hate to do this, but when you file a 3---- 300-page amendment at 3:09 a.m., the american people have a right to know what's in this bill. they have a right to know what we're voting on. let me get to the bottom of page 155. revision of a -- of appraising standards. each federal financial institution regulatory agency shall not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this act revise its standards for the performance of real estate appraisers in connection with federally related transactions under the jurisdiction of the agency to comply with the requirement under the amendments made by paragraph 1 of this section. so now we have to retrain every appraiser in america so that they understand this law, so they know how to properly appraise the value of someone's property. oh. oh, i haven't finished. and they need to meet the requirements established pursuant to sub

set the role and would be set out for customized standardized products as well. so i wouldn't in addition a trade by trade circumstance or contract by contract. >> but the nature of this system and a reason why you got some legs underneath that is because it was so adaptable at the end it had its downside and then you add stupidity and greed and they really went south. but as senator draper and shareholders could benefit from this process and it seems to me if you run into anything that isn't standardized you run into the bureaucracy. >> i appreciate your concern and share your concern but i think for a clearer rules of the road the regulators can lay out what capital margin is appropriate for the customized products. on eight do believe we benefit as an economy and society that commercial enterprises can hedge the risks they are faced with and focus on producing a product or a surface for the public and hedge risk. that is with the cftc has been overseeing for decades and agriculture and energy financial markets. i think we have to promote that but at the same t

we set a standard. then we are going to expect to put that out and now we are going to have a national standard for care that is going to be involved because the liability situation if you go against the national standard of care, even though you may be justified, and you are going to expose every position in this country who does not do exactly that way, even though the patient should not have it done that way, to liability. that is why i object. we have said that there is now one right way to do this and it is the government's way based on iconic professors and doctors and medicine. it is still disregarding the patient's history, the clinical history, the experience of the physician, and all those combined, which is called the art of medicine. >> according to all of your sections, where we talk about national quality standards. we are talking about patient safety. we are talking of the reduction of medical errors. we are talking about negligence and intent. i sincerely disagree with you. what you do h

i'm not talking about training to safety minim standard i'm talking about a separate standard of capability. and so the major question that we started with today is the faa said in the mid- 1990s one standard, and passengers would get on an airplane, when they walk in the airplane door should expect the same standard on the cockpit of a commuter carrier or a network carrier. i think mr. prater says he believes the enforcement to that standard is not as rigorous as passengers would expect or as we would expect. mr. may, which were impression of that? >> mr. chairman, we all adhere to 121 which is a single standard that was established in 1995. i think the reality is that mainline carriers more regularly far exceed that standard in 121 that our regional partners do. we have with virtually no exceptions local programs, asap programs, more robust training, etc. and as part of the recommendations that we have made before you today, and announced last week, at the faa we would suggest that many of those programs be instituted at the regional level for our partners. >> let me ask you. fact is it i

, standards not only that enhance public safety and promote global trade. its first published test code was entitled -- quote -- "code for the conduct of trial of steam boilers." since then amse has pressure vessel technology, elevators and escalators, gas pipelines, engineering drawing practices and other processes and processes. asme codes and standards as well as conformity assessment programs are used in more than 100 countries. does engineering sound boring to you? let's hope that american youth doesn't think so. we need to excite the minds of thousands of young americans about the possibilities of being an engineer. engineers have always been the world's problem solverrers. it is impossible to know the effect asme's effect and codes have had on global development. during the period of rising industrialization as machines were expand and used in complexity on farms an fact sis, asme ensured the safety of engineers an workers using these machines. today these codes and standards are continued to be revised and updated to reflect changes in technology. a

or the congruent and proportionality standard? what are your views on justice scalia's skarbgtization that the -- quote -- "congruence and proportionality standard is a flabby test and an invitation to judicial arrest by trarryness and policy -- arbitrariness and policy-driven decision making where justice scalia says that is a standard which is so vague? third, do you agree with chief justice rehnquist's conclusion that the violence against women legislation was unconstitutional because of congress's method of reasoning? fourth, do you agree with the division of constitutional authority between congress and the supreme court's articulated by chief justice roberts in his responses cited in this letter to questions posed at his hearing by senator dewine and myself? i do believe that there will be an opportunity for very important issues to be presented to the nominee based on what i have seen of her, in reviewing her record, and the meeting that i had with her, i have noted her excellent resume and looking forward to giving her an

i think number three, we need to put in a new training standard, if you will. there's along open npr and on training at the faa. i think probably it would be wise for the faa to implement a rulemaking committee and take a hard look at aqp programs, advanced qualification programs, if you will, that have been developed by mainline carriers. could be mentors and transported to regional carriers to improve safety in terms of training. number four, i think you need to take or have the direct the faa to take a hard look at how they better enforce a sterile cockpit rule. we recognize that there are privacy issues involved here, but i think there needs to be some kind of monitoring of cockpit tapes on a frequent basis. >> just random auditing? >> .com at some point. and i suspect, captain printer would acknowledge that as long as we protect the privacy of the pilots, there's a way that can be done. next, i think you need to have a very specific program promulgated by the faa on records so that when a carrier goes out to higher an individual pilot, they have access to

but i think the standard is the standard this court has generally applied giving deference to state supreme court decisions. >> but is it in line with article 2, i'm not so sure. i mean, i would have thought that was the standard when it contemplates it is plenary power in the legislature, does that not mean that the court has to in interpreting a legislative act give special deference to the legislature's choices insofar as a presidential election is concerned? i would think that is a tenable view anyway. and speebl -- especially with concerns in line with section 5. >> in interpreting the florida law, i think the court needs to take into account the fact that the legislature does have this plenary power. i think when the florida supreme court does that, if it does so, within the normal ambit of judicial interpretation, that is a subject for florida's supreme court to take. >> responding as though there were no special burden to show some deference to legislative choices and this one context, not when the courts review laws generally for general elections but in the context of selection of

and relax county -- standard in palm beach county. the population should get equal. when plymouth kicks out 75 for signature mismatching in 31 counties in the state kicked out nunn, we have made our case. you cannot make it any better than that. >> good time has expired. >> i would like to frame the questions of that it can be answered. i am still having problem with you saying we are a substantial compliance state. there is language i do not think you can overcome. i will give language from one source. it says if the stage -- statute or directory the argument would be of some force. it has no application here because the statute is mandatory. the court goes on to express concern about lowering the bar altogether because of a flaw in it. the absentee statue is different ♪ from the coming electio law and -- the absence to the statute is different from the, the election law. -- the absentee statute is different from the common election law. >> you may proceed. >> thank you. i am here on behalf of al franken. i would like to note one of

the purpose is to prohibt the use of comparative effectiveness research by providing the standard of care in state and federal courts. now, what i'm concerned about, i believe patients and providers should better understand their care and be confident of its efficacy but never lose sight of the fact or of the basic understanding that medicine is simply not an exact science. we're all different beings and we sometimes need different therapies, some drugs work for some people, some work for others, some don't work for some people as well. there's a varability that affects their treatment outcomes and only within the confines of the physician/patient relationship should treatment decisions be made. we must preserve and protect that physician/patient relationship. what might work for one person or even many patients does not mean it will work for every patient. allows physicians to practice medicine without the fear of frivolous lawsuits and add more medicine through frivolous liability lawsuits. in my earlier life, much earlier life, i did some medical liability defense work, defending

that is my standard. a talented person, no way that a conservative republicans would have picked her to be on the supreme court. and i think that is what senator obama was trying to say. my base does not like roberts, and i am not running for higher office, so i will not vote for them. the people i'm trying to please here do not like the nominee. he used a standard making it impossible, i think, for a person of the opposite party to be able to confirm a nominee of someone of the other party. there was a different day, when we did not do it that way. justice ginsberg. 96-3. the general counsel. 96-3. justice scalia, very conservative. 98-0. what happened to those days? that is not the senate i have been part of. i would like to go back to that. but i've lived in a world where it may be very difficult to do that. and if i use the ginsberg-scalia standard, she has a chance of getting my vote. if i use the senator obama's standard, there is no way she will get my vote. the hurdle she would have to overcome if

or quality health care standards.quality health care standards could be any number of things, one of which could be the development that the effectiveness of various checklists like the famous now checklist that you know and i know has really improved outcomes in surgical arenas. and actually saved lives. i think michigan told us it saved $200 million. so it's not the clinical practice that i worry about in your amendment. it's the quality health care standards that i worry about. >> may i ask you a question? >> i'd like to just finish because we could have endless questions. >> we need to have endless questions -- >> but they are also -- so i'm coming back, though, what is it about quality health care standards? you've said over and over, using the same arguments and now i know them, you know them, we all know them. on clinical practice. let's go to the quality health standards. what is it that you -- >> federal and private health plan reports a recommendation shall not be construed as mandates. that's a big differen

increase transparency and standardization of derivative contracts will help, and must be accomplished. however, how far standardization requirements should go depends on whether there are two economic benefits to the custom products that outweigh the costs and risks associated with them. so far, specifics and credible evidence on that point is then. a credit derivatives may present the toughest questions. should these products be treated as insurance, with proper reserves? should the bear have an insurable interest, and have to suffer actual losses or deliver the references referred@@@@@@@ r effectively enforce the rules. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator bunning. senator crapo comment you have an opening statement? >> thank you for holding this hearing. i believe although there is a breath of derivative action in our economy, i believe that a significant amount, if not a significant majority of the amount of those transactions falls under the jurisdiction of this committee and i appreciate your attention to that. i also agree with the comments that but the chairman and ran

the you believe there are 2 standards? >> i will say it succinctly. we have one level of regulation, we do not have one level of safety. >> different levels of enforcement. they you agree with that, mr. may? >> i agree to this extent. 121 is the single stad

i'm talking about a separate standard of capability. the major question that started with a day is, the faa said in the mid-1990s, that when passengers walked to the airplane or, they should expect the same standard on the cockpit of a carrier or a network carrier. i think mr. prager says that he believes the enforcement of the standard is not as rigorous as passengers would expect or as we would expect. >> mr. chairman, we all adhere to the single standard that was established in 1995 the reality is, main line characters more regularly far exceed that standard than our regional partners do. we have, with virtually no exceptions, programs and more robust trading. as part of the recommendations we have made before you today and in the house last week we would suggest that many of those programs be instituted at the regional level for our partners. >> the fact is, it is your name on the fuselages of these airplanes. in many cases, you own the regional carrier or own substantial portions of equity. it would seem to me that it would be in t

a very upstanding judge that required osha it proposed a standard of one microgram. so still at all levels that would be increased risk but far better than a level of 52. no one microgram there are still several and lung cancer deaths for every room thousand workers and osha said please, if anybody has any information of workers exposed at lower levels because they're all done on old factories. of course, industry use this to save the old studies are not relevant the new factories are cleaner you cannot go forward until you have studies of new factories. so osha bigger new data the national association of american manufacturers a great supporter of worker rights complained and said oh shut is that relating on 35 year profiles and italy reliance onto outdated studies and should continue to study the effects at lower levels. more study. more study. just as the comment period was closing i was asking my students about this because it was a great teaching opportunity i read the study in the "journal" of occupational medicine that the conclusion that the absence of the el

chairman, we all adhere to 4121 which is the single standard established in 1995.i think that the reality is that mainline carriers more regularly far exceeded that standard in in 121 than our regional partners do. we have with virtually no exceptions of local programs, asap programs, more robust training etc., and as part of the recommendations that we have made before you today and in the house last week and the faa, we would suggest that many of those programs be instituted at the regional level for our partners. >> but let me ask, the fact is is your name, that is the name of your company said to represent on the fuselages of these airplanes. >> that's, correct. >> and in many cases you own the regional carrier our own substantial portions of the regional carrier. and so it would seem to me that it would be in the interest of the network carriers to require the things you have recommended today prior two these recommendations. >> i understand that's thought, senator. there was actually a proposal made by ntsb back in about 1994 when this whole debate came to pa

in the first place it is an interconnection standard. it does not govern what electrons are on the line because if everybody is pointed at the cannot distinguish between green and brown electrons but if we are going to provide some additional authority to cite and pay for special new transmission lines to benefit renewable energy, let's make sure that the generation that is hooked up to it is not conventional call. so, what we have suggested is that since you are going to need probably guess to balance renewable energy on these lines, that up to a single site gas turbine, emission level would be acceptable to connect to these lines but above that would not. that seems like a fairly straightforward way to approach that. with regard to the question of competition with local resources, i think what should be important, and i think inevitably what happened if the states are driving this planning process, even on an interconnection wide basis, is that they have taken into consideration state policies, considering local resources and use deliv

we believe federal minimum standards, many of us run national businesses. we unlike the profit and casualty industry, we price a product one time for all 50 states. our producers are often national. our producers often have customers move from one state to another. so when someone suggests that federal minimum standards is the answer, what that means is those minimum standards will be met but there will be still be 51 different sets of rules and regulations that we must file product approves for and design products around and producers must license for. so we think that that's solves very little, if anything. >> mr. skinner, listening to your reports, when we think about it and you're talking about working with all of the different countries that you're working with, we have to work with all of the states. and i would tend to think working with the states on the same level is like working with a country. and i think that's going to be our -- what we're going to have to solve. obviously, a lot of the insurance companies do want to do global marketing. they a

a need for uniform standards and practices is as urgent today. at a press conference today after the ruling, the president obama was asked about his is administration's position on state secrets. he responded, i think that the state secrets doctrine should be modified. searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases so that a judge can review information without being in open court, there should be additional tools so that it is not such a blunt instrument. congress should provide those additional tools. >> i will begin the questioning by recognizing myself for five minutes. judge, during the subcommittee in the last congress, your testimony last year as supporting requirements had system -- a substantial way -- wait, the government seeks to withhold as a state secret. is that accurate? do you believe we should recall -- require that the courts grant automatic deference? that is the standard in the senate companion bill, but not this one. >> when i was here before the house judiciary committee last year, you did not have a bill yet. we w

to, a professional standards in the cockpit. number three, a training standards and performance and fourth, the mentoring relationships between mainline characters in regional partners. the air accident and loss of air france remind us we cannot arrest on our laurels we must remain alert and diligent to our challenges. we have to work to enhance the air safety within the system. this is a business where one mistake is one mistake to many. senator dorgan, a senator demint and members of the committee this concludes my repaired days prepared remarks of a happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much for being with us will now hear from calvin scovel and you may proceed. >> chairman dorgan ranking member demand and members of the subcommittee we appreciate the opportunity to testify safety is a responsibility shared among faa aircraft manufacturers airports and together all four for a series of overlapping controls to keep the system safe. the past several years have said what of the safest periods however the

compliance standard in the state of michigan.ew transmission development should meet three common sense principles. number one, benefits of proposed project should exceed the cost by a reasonable margin. number two, proposed project should be similar or should be superior to other alternatives which would include distribution solutions, perhaps lower voltage thanks mission and generation absolutions. cost should be fairly allocated to the beneficiaries of the project as determined through the planning process. i would concede that these principles are complex to apply and, therefore, need an independent planning authority of some sort to apply them, a regional transmission organization or a group of rtos, for example, to conduct the evaluation. now, they cannot be objectively performed by market participants including independent transmission owners that have a vested interest in new transmission. in our view overly generous incentives have created a rush to create transmission often not justified on a cost benefit basis. i provi

>> he determined that the trial court's standard is correct, then it is a different standard than was applied on election night and you have a due process violation. >> what was the expectation of a voter, what would have been the expectation of the voter when they cast their ballots? would they have the expectation of compliance with what ever they did on election night or would they have expectation of compliance with the statute? >> all i can tell you is that every voter here, forget the 4400, everyone of them did the best job they could do to get their votes counted, which brings up the issue that the ones that were ejected did not know about it and i don't know. >> i am going to pause here and just ask, is there any evidence of any fraud, any favoritism, or anything other than the elections in minnesota tried to do the best job possible? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. then there is no voter fraud, no election fraud. if you go back to erlandson, is this a right or a privilege, the court didn't resolve that question. what is happening now, there's a great motion in this country

standard that determine who the seven companies were? >> in the regulation itself actually mentions the specific names of the programs that they're under, but i think your question marcos to what's the logic and rationale and i think our feeling is the sum of the things we have done, some of the facilities that were set up are said to be generally accessible to company's financial the institutions that large and they are often set up because we think that there is a positive a public purpose in them participating. we think whether a community bank, in community banks want to not have more capital that they wanted to do less loans, we believe that it is in the interest of recovery to have stronger capitalization of banks and stronger lending profile so those are generally accessible programs. where a company comes to the u.s. government and the u.s. taxpayer and requires exceptional assistance that is not being offered to their peers because they face an enormous threat to their fundamental financial stability that we find to have such an

reporting standards. we have undertaken a solvency modernization initiative that will examine areas appropriate for refinement. we work internationally with the g-20 forum, oacd and others. we work collaboratively with our counterparts to develop and improve international standards. we brought our foreign counterparts to the united states and developed a standardized mou to allow for international information sharing. with the world's most competitive, mature marketplace, we, your states, are the gold standard for regulation in developing countries. through the holding company act we monitor release of capital from an insurer and support our system of multijurisdictional regulation. our expertise can be applied to international cross-border transacti transaction, but all insurers operating in our country must be independently viable. our financial analysis working group coordinates leading financial regulators from multiple states for the purpose of monitoring and analyzing and coordinating action involvi

host: on the issue of fuel standards, cafe standards, the president announced he was ramping up both the mileage and a timetable. what is your organization's view on the policy changes? caller: we went to the administration and encourage them to develop -- at the time we had three different voices on standards. we have traditionally the department transportation, that the industry's dealt with on cafe standards. the recent supreme court decision now introduced epa into tailpipe emissions. then you had third, california and 13 other states, that were introducing even a third set of standards. so it was important we harmonize, we actually approached the administration and said, look, let us go to the table work this out and they did. host: your organization was at the table? guest: yes. we were, as individual companies, they worked very closely with the agencies in the state and pulled the stakeholders together, and shows with strong leadership you can bridge the differences. host: fort wayne, new jersey. good morning to richard. caller: for a lead, new jersey. thank you. it is fort le

we had three standards, that the industry dealt. on supreme courts they entered the emissions and california and other parts of the united states have a third set of standards. it's important that we harmonize those. and we approached the administration and let's get to the table and work this out and they did. host: and your organization was at that table? guest: yes, we were as the individual companies. they worked closely with the industries and state and pulled these stakeholders together. so you can bridge these differences. host: fort wayne, new jersey. go ahead on democratic line. caller: it's fort lee, new jersey. i have a ford fiesta, 1988, my friend gave to me because he couldn't get anything on the trade-in. and he gave it to me and i have been driving it for four to five years, and i get 49 miles to the gallon. that's a 1988 ford. i don't understand why there is difficulty to have new cars get good mileage like i get from a 1988. also i would like to ask quickly, if there is a tie-in between the oil industry and the auto

a go standard today? if that was the standard when the republicans were in the majority in the senate why would it not be a standard weapon thee democrats are in the majority. we're talking about the same supreme court, we're talking about the same lifetime appointments that senator sessions was referring to. the chairman of the judiciary committee today said back then we need to consider this nop nation anomination as thoroughld carefully as the american people deserve. it's going to take time. that was senator leahy then. he also said it makes sense that we take time to do it right. i think the american people deserve nothing less. and he also said we want to do it right and we don't want to do it fast of thit fast. if that was the standard who years ago when the republicans in the majority i don't know why it isn't the standard today. i don't know what our friends on the majority are fearful of. this nominee certainly has already been confirmed by the senate twice, she has an extensive record which is

in broward county with the unrealized standard in on beach county and said a population should have equaled. when plymouth kicks out 75 for signature mismatching and 31 counties in the state kick out non, we've made our case. can't make it any better than a. >> council, your time has expired. >> i would like to frame a question so i can get an answer, if i may. council, i'm still having problems with your saying we're a substantial compliance state. and i mean as loud as you speak on this issue there's language that i don't think you can overcome. i will give language again from wickelman that says if the statute or directory, the argument would be of some forest, but it has no application here because the statute is mandatory. and in the court goes on to express concern about letting the buyer stone altogethealtogether because of fraud and then it says the absentee vote the statute is an variation of the general election law. it's different from the common law election law, and should be strictly construed. so when you come back, i mean, i've got to deal with this language. and i m

the regulators have a natural interest in the accounting standards we set. likewise investors have an impact on the regulatory requirements and in actions. in that regard, i would like to commend the fed and bank regulators with the rault of the resent bank tests. as the policy and investors or citizens of this great country, we all share a deep interest in the strength and stability of our financial system and the economy. public policy in the focus of the setting and regulation in helping achieve these goals are some what different. our focus is on the communication of relevant transparent and unbiased financial transparent si. that information is aimed at informing financial decisions across the economy. the reporting contributes to financial security by reducing the level of uncertainity in the system. the equally important regulation on banks on overall financial stability of the system. now, given our different missions and focus, it's not surprising that we would have different perspectives on different accounting and reporting matters. for example, b

the required osha to issue new standards. osha extended 1 microgram come as the still up the levels the studies done would be increased risk of lung cancer but far lot better than the level of 52. at when michael graham they figured out you can still get 71 cancer deaths for every 1,000 workers but of these they were better. osha said please give us anybody who has information about workers exposed to low levels because of the studies were done on old factories where people had higher levels of exposure. industry use this as a way to say, these old studies are not relevant. the new factories are much cleaner. you cannot go forward until you have the studies of the new factories, so the national association of manufacturers a great supporter of workers' rights, complaint untold oh shut, osher is relying on 3250-year-old exposure profiles. osha only relies-- osha can should continue to study the effects of lower levels. more study come amora steady come tomorrow steady. justice the common period was closing, i was fascinated by

let's not use a double standard on this nominee. chairman of the senate judiciary committee, patrick leahy, has suggested a timely hearing on her nomination. it is a hearing within the same schedule of those who went before her like chief justice roberts or justice alito. so if she is given the same standard of fairness, that hearing will go forward. i certainly hope it does. and i think she will do well. >> and i'd seen -- >> the senator from alabama. >> such a fabulous lawyer and an excellent senator. and i think just would respectfully talk about some of the ideas that he suggested. one he raised a question of brown versus board of education, where the supreme court held separate was not equal. and that somehow this is a justification for a judge setting policy. they thought it wasn't good policy. but i would see it differently, mr. president. i would see brown versus board of education as the supreme court saying that the constitution of the united states guarantees every american equal protection of the laws and they found that

so i think law -- empathy, that standard, a preference standard is contrary to the judicial oath. this is what a judge declares when they take the office. i do solemnly swear that i will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and the rich, and that i will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me. so i think that's the impartial ideal. that's the ideal of the lady of justice with the scales, with the blindfold, which we have always believed in in this country and which has been the cornerstone of american jurisprudence. so what i've seen thus far in judge sotomayor's record, and presumably some of her views are the reason president obama selected her, cause me concern. that the nominee will look outside the law and the evidence in judging and that her policy preferences could influence her decision making, her speeches and writings outside the court are certainly of concern, some of which senator mcconnell mentioned. i'll discuss some other areas that are significant also, i think. she has had extensive

so i have a simple standard.ards should be made close to the ground in a democracy, always, par tis pa tore democracy demands we all participate in standards setting. we're not stupid. we can do that. number two whatever assessments we do loops back to help teachers become smarter and competent. standardsizeed testing its off in some space that doesn't talk to us. so i don't know what to make of it except i know i will be judged on it. doesn't tell me how to teach. i want an assessment that is close though ground and close to teaching. >> host: got 0 couple e-mails for both you. i participated in the the moratorium demonstrations in october and november. which do you believe contributed more to increasing opposition to the war? i believe it was the more tore pore yum. >> guest: you could be wright i don't have any causal. of the many choices people made around how to oppose the war -- and again i said the only decision i don't agree with is the decision not to be active. if you're active opposing the war, you're

one ticket, one trip, one safety standard. all passenger airlines are subject to the exact same faa safety standards and requirements. it has been this way more than a decade. our goal is to prevent accidents, and that is why we are earnestly and eagerly supporting the faa's called action and why the regional airline association has embarked on our own strategic safety initiative to underscore our safety culture and help prevent accidents. this initiative has four elements. first, we will be bringing together safety professionals to review all procedures and address and the issue that can even be perceived as a contributing factor to an accident. second, we will conduct a thorough review of fatigue, looking at all the human factors in the scientific field to minimize the risks associated with fatigue. third, we will implement a fatigue awareness management program so that our airlines keep this issue top of the mind for both our flight crews and, just as important, airline management. fourth, we will reach out and partnerships

during the period when they lowered the credit standards in many areas they lowered that standard asell. but now they have restored that standard. in some markets there is a big issue of very empty condos and, again, it doesn't make sense to make a loan that might go into default. and so they continue to work with condo developers and to the extent that they see it is a good project they can bend those and change those rules. but it's something that they think from a safety and sound standpoint makes sense. >> so it's a waiver? or just wednesdaying the rules? >> it would be a waiver. they would look at bending the rules is probably not the right word. they look at projects and to th another illinois issue. why is it fanny and freddie still have a policy, for example, in the state of illinois, they only permit a handful of law firms, i think in illinois, it's two, to handle foreclosures. this continues to bottle next the system, it's anti-competitive, and i think a disservice to lenders and sellers and borrowers. and think a disservice to lenders and sellers and borrowers. >> i'm not

he says he has three standards. the first standard is that everybody in america should have access to adequate insurance. second standard is that we should bend the outyear cost curve so that we can afford health care in this country, and the third standard is that nobody should lose their plan if they like their plan. i think that everybody agrees with those standards as purposes. i certainly agree with them, and i don't know of anybody on our side who doesn't and obviously the other side, but i don't understand if we are marking thup bill if those are his standards, because cbo on all three of the elements has rated this bill to be an abject failure on the issue of coverage after this bill is fully in place, and there will be 30 million people without insurance and the 40 million people who don't have insurance, there is still 30 million people without insurance. on the issue of cost, when this bill is fully implemented and not counting the class action count which is $2 trillion over 40 years, there is is a $2.3

when you look to the standard of congruence and proportionality, this is very vague. a divergence from the standard that was articulated in 1968, whether there was a rational basis for the decision, and as the justice noted, the standard of congressional proportionality is flat, he went on to say, this casts the court in the role of the taskmaster, we must regularly check their homework to make certain that this is identifying the violations to make their remedy constitutional and proportional. in the confirmation hearings -- confirmation hearings of cheese just as -- chief justice roberts, he was very supportive of the role of congress, where the court should be differential to the congress. in response to a question, he said the supreme court should defer to the congressional findings. in response to my question, he said, and i appreciate the difference between institutional competence when it comes to basic questions of development of the record, and the authority to make the policy decisions about how to act on the basis of a particular record. this is not disagre

this is standard exists of one level and is that standard in forced to what level? i sent a letter to the department transportation inspector general to ask that they review the faa's roll in the cert of training programs that airlines require for pilots, the extent to which the faa can verify that pilots are receiving a appropriate training and the ability of the faa to verify the qualifications of pilots to operate specific aircraft and i am pleased that the inspector general is here with us today. have also sent a letter to the gao to ask the they study the safety practice in place to prevent and deal with the icy conditions. let me say the ntsb in my judgment appears to be doing a very thorough job, which is not a surprise to me, in trying to gain an understanding of this crash. we need to fully understand it and find out what changes if any are necessary to be made to insure it does not happen again. as i said this will be the first of two such hearings and are witnesses today will be randy babbitt, mark rosenker, the acting chairman of the ntsb, calvin scovel,

i have a simple standard, standards should be made close to the ground in a democracy iways, participatory democracy demands that we all participate in standard settings, we are not enupid, we can do that. number 2, whatever assessments we do, we put back to help teachers become smarter and more competent. the way we do standardized testing, it is some space that doesn't talk to us. ept teacher i don't know what to make of it except i will be judged on it. smesn't tell me how to teach. i want assessment that is close to the ground and close to teaching. >> host: a couple e-mails that we want to get through. dick's female, in fall of 1969 you participated in days of rage, i participated in the moratorium demonstration in october and november, which do you believe increased opposition to the war? i believe it was the moratorium. >> you could be right. don' maden't make any claims, i don't have any causal claims. the many choices people made notnd how to oppose that war, the only decision i don't agree with is the decision not to be active. if you were active opposing the war you were on the

the center will merely be one source of information regarding professional standards in the practice of medicine. there are many organizations today, academies of professional organization that's have studied and commented on what the standard of care should be in a particular medical situation. expert witnesses from both sides, routinely allude to these sources of information in their testimony. information on the relevant standard of care comes from professional societies, medical schools, studies done at nih and fda and other government agencies, learned treatises and journals and no reason to exclude information from one source if a court determines it to be relevant in a particular case. neither the center for health outcomes research or any other source of medical research sets the legal standard of care. no organization or national academy sets it. many sources are considered relevant about what information was available to providers regarding a particular condition or treatment. also, staff reviewed this. it points out there's another flaw in the amendment as written, which m