states have a federal shield law that the federal government does not. the right of news reports to refuse to testify against the information. in short should not be forced to reveal their sources. these issues have come up at the supreme court level beginning with the 197 case. in that case, a reporter wished to inform his heeders and the only way was too go and fine the drug . after he published his rot, he provideded his and

forced to chass whether he was going to prison and he wanted to inform the public of matter concern. and there is was a cover vert opentive a.m. one was jailed for 85 days to refusing to reveal. journalists are in in a quandary and realized they nead to protect their resource is and only at the state level and not at the federal level. and i did last year, is offer the protection that they should have in order to do their jobs properly. supreme of the press is no, sir

onlyal important principle. the constitution provides for supreme of the press. we have freedom of the press and the could put report in prison. we should have settled this years and we are here todd address it once more. this amendment is much needed and the federal government treats the issue just as importantly as the great majority of our states. i ask for support of this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. culberson: i seek time in

opposition . i oppose this amendment and in a grand jury proceeding our department of justice and federal grand injurey proceeding would not have the protecting the sources and this is absolutely confidential and i think it is astononning issuing and they have self-sertfide . this is -- i agree with the free press but it is written far too broadly. and i think he has neglected that problem and i would welcome

and recognizing the chairman of the judiciary committee, robert goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: i want to thank the chairman in opposition to this amendment. shield laws for reporters are not a bad concept at all, about this is the hardly way to do about it. where it is so vague that anyone in the united states claiming to be a journalist or reporter and lots of people maintain blogs could go a journalist or reporter would be covered by this. no one continues toe allow anyone to evade the requirmentse that they respond the to a

subpoena for investigation by law enforcement of violation of the law. it is something that should be handled by the thording committee for a long period of time ap struggled with that journal to reporter and he gloss owes offer this am. and to give further exception that claims that is a confidential report that would would be criminals would be before the court and they regarded the report and do not have to respond to a subpoena. this is a very harmful and bad way of providing precks to journalists a reporters.

the chair: does the gentleman from texas reserves. >> this is the same parade of what we heard before. mr. grayson:? would allow people to self-certify. and self-certifies looking at five years in prison. a fact that i pointed out last year before this amendment was passed. there is no distincton when a grand jury ap an july injure. it is false. it would apply and apply to all grand jury level proceedings. in fact, the wording that has

been referred to here that the information is exactly the same wording that was in the grayson amendment. so none of these old attacks these unsuccessful attacks are due. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair:. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: i urge members to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. thaferede. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the amendment is not agreed to.

grace gays i ask tore a recorded vote. for for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise. mr. mcclintock: i offer an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of amendment, insert the following section nobody of the funds made available in this act may be used with respect to the states of -- mr. mcclintock: i ask unanimous consent the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287 they will

control five minutes. mr. mcclintock: i yield mites two minutes. this amendment is never an endwrsment of maurp and it may poys. this is a larger question. whether the federal government has the policy to dwick tate on matters. i believe that it does not. i believe that it should not. in 19 2, supreme court brand ice described it, a state may, if its citizens choose serve as a laboratory without rifbling to the rest of the country. that is what states like com and

washington have done. they pleach that the harm that might be done is outweighed by removing the underground economy that is caused by prohibition. woy like to find out and their sprerment -- will inform the rest of the economy. but at the same time, it protects the right of the citizens to make a decision. the question is over the right of their people to have these debates to make theirs decisions and the rest of the nation to observe. and i reserve the balance. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i stand in

opposition. the chair: the chair recognizes the the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: mu friend makes the point that you know, this should be an experiment within the states and that has been long held and goal and valued. but we already have that ongoing. cole has legalization of marijuana notwithstanding the federal government and its laws and the information is rolling in. the blacts market ace worst than ever. and comben, as i stated before, two states, oklahoma and nebraska are suing colorado over the problems that are occurring. the strepping of maurning is

much stronger. and seeing accidents and having an overdosed death. but look, if this is about doctors allowing doctors to work their patients, let's demate it. wrezopt allow doctors to do anything with any patients. we have guide lines and children are the end result. we know that the more they get into the blood delem streams and the number of problems are groig what we are seeing from golf. and profound brain changes. the area that deals with

ambition is become affected and sort of the knowledge that we have good the understanding of this droug. the i. q. -- the chair: i yield dwsh i wish to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. >> the co-sponsor of my colleague from kleeg. mr. polis: i'm from coal and i don't regular nies the cole that you are talking about. i'm from cole where we continue to regulate dispense sears they

are not schools. and a we remove it away to make sure that they continue have access to colorado. welcome to come visit 689 i don't have to convince you and the state of louisiana that they should do anything and leave my state of cole alone and and the federal agents going around to arrest people. under state law. that's all i ask. i'm going to arrest people down there in smoking c.i.a. fish. might clog your arteries. you want to send federal troops down there? rsh does the gentleman yield?

>> all meals are directed to remark their replarks to the chair. >> polpeel does he want to smoke c.i.a. fish. >> the cole he rise covel mr. cole: i mr. polis: again it shouldn't be up to us to convince him. just as i don't have to eat their darn fried draw phish. i don't want it. -- drawfish. -- crawfish. i don't want it. that's all this amendment does is respect the san francisco ren will of the great state of colorado to have innovative policies. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california controls the time. >> i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from

louisiana has three minutes, the gentleman from california has one minute and a quarter. in fleming: i yield myself another minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming: what we're finding out from colorado, we're learning a lot of lessons. one is the way that marijuana is now getting into baked goods gummy bears there's a huge spike in emergency room visits, children who are overdosing on marijuana. no, the -- if you look, if you read what the media says what the studies show, there are increasing problems in colorado, not decreasing problems. mr. polis: will the gentleman yield. the gentleman is inaccurate. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. it is the gentleman from louisiana's time. mr. fleming: in fact -- mr. polis: parliamentary inquiry. the chair: does the gentleman from louisiana yield for a parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman does not yield. the time is controlled by the

gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: back to constitutionality. we may all have different opinions about this, but it's been set in the supreme court. 2005 gonzalez-raef, 6-3rk says the federal government does have the right tone force drug policies and for good reason because we know that drugs cross state lines. it is an interstate commerce issue. and so what happens in one state affects the other states. but again, going back to the damage -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. does he western to yield himself more time? mr. fleming: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. >> mr. chairman, the arguments we're hearing from in phlegming are the arguments that ought to be heard in the states. i would remind him this measure does not affect marijuana laws involving any conceivable federal jurisdiction. it does not affect federal districts or territories. it does not affect federal

jurisdiction over interstate commerce, including the froth's responsibility to interdict transport among states. it does not affect the federal jurisdiction over federal land. mr. mcclintock: it does not affect federal jurisdiction over the importation of marijuana from abroad. it only affects jurisdiction that is strictly and solely the rightful province of the states as pertains to their affairs strictly and solely within their own boards. at some point, mr. chairman, we must ask ourselves do, we believe in the 10th amendment or do we not? do we believe in federalism or do we not? do we believe in the architecture of our constitution or do we not? do we believe in freedom or do we not? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. fleming: ok. who has the right to close. the chair: the gentleman is the

only time recognized. the gentleman from california yields back. mr. fleming: again, my good friend from california would suggest that really federal laws have no application. that we should just turn all laws and law enforcement over to the states. that simply isn't the case. and again, yes, the federal government does have jurisdiction. it's called the c.s.a., the controlled substances act. and it's been around for a long time and it's enforced by the d.e.a. and many other agencies. so i would just say that the gentleman is just flat wrong on that and that the supreme court came down on my side. again, we can have different opinions, but that's where we are today. i would suggest that perhaps we get the supreme court to rule differently if we believe differently. but again, what's important to me is not the law. what is important to me is what's happening to the children of our nation, especially colorado. overdose. brain change. loss of i.q. memory loss.

cognitive impairment. marijuana smoke has four times the tar of cigarette smoke. who really believes that we're not going to see an epidemic down the road of lung cancer related to marijuana? as far as use for medical purposes, again, we don't have a single approved specific use of marijuana for medical purposes. and for heaven's sakes, we know that the up to 17% of people who use it become addicted to it system of you know, the first rule for us as physicians, and i've been a doctor for 40 years is first do no harm. we're doing a lot of harm with marijuana by legalizing it and liberalizing its use. with that, i yield back and urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mcclintock: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania has completed his amendments. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. will the gentleman specify. >> we have it listed as amendment 24. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: requesting unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection. the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from

pennsylvania and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's important to talk about what this amendment is not as much as to talk about what it is. this amendment and -- in no way federally legalizes mirn. it does not allow for the recreational use of marijuana and i maintain that i'm still opposed to the reck ragal use of marijuana. what it does is prevents the federal government from interfering in states that have legalized c.b.d. and c.b.d. oil. c.b.d. is an extract from hemp. mr. perry: c.b.d. oil has been known to reduce the amount or dureation of seizures in those suffering epilepsy and other disorders. it contains no t.h.c., the active psychotropic agreement that makes people high. numerous families in my district have children with epilepsy and

are out of options. they've tried the f.d.a. approved drugs and they sit and watch their children fade away. that's their option. they can do that, they can break the law or they can move somewhere where they can get c.b.d. some have had to split their families apart to care for their children. mr. chairman 17 states, most recently texas, where the good chairman resides have legalized c.b.d. these states have made the choice to help children with epilepsy and seizure disorders. paraphernalias who want to treat their children should not be hindered by federal prohibition. with that, mr. chairman i recognize think good friend mr. dold from illinois for as much time as he would consume. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. dold: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my good friend from pennsylvania. -- from pennsylvania. mr. chairman, last week i had an opportunity to sit down with sophie weiss, an inspiring young girl from illinois. in many ways she's a very normal

girl who enjoys spending her days playing with her sisters but she also suffering from a severe form of epilepsy that does not allow her to respond to the traditional medication. because of this, she suffers through upwards of 200 seizures each and every day. mr. chairman, she can't read, she's 9 years old. her 6-year-old sister reads to her. she can't do this because she blacks out and she seizes. hundreds of times each and every day. unfortunately, sophie's story is not unique and there are girls just like sophie in every state new york every district across our country. mr. chairman, we've already found life-saving seizure relief for some families. in illinois, c.b.d. oil is legal and is shown to drastically reduce the frequency of seizures but because of antiquated laws and federal bureaucracy this relief is unavailable to many. over and over again the federal government has stood in the way of access to life-saving care for these children.

why would bewe allow even one child, mr. chairman, to suffer while waiting for other options to be approved? if this natural therapy can help even one family, ensuring access to it is a must. i came to washington to fight for commonsense bipartisan reform that will improve the day-to-day lives of the people i represent and that's exactly what this amendment does. quite simply, it ensures that states already have legalized c.b.d. oil can do so without federal interference. helping these families is a reform we should all be able to get behind. regardless of political party, we can agree that the government's role is not to prevent families from getting access to life-saving treatment. mr. chairman as a father, looking at these children who suffer from thousands of seizures that literally can't live their lives normally is something we can and must change. this amendment offers hope to thousands of individuals and their families and i urge my

colleagues to help children like sophie in their districts by adopting this commonsense amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i stand in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming: i yield myself two minutes. some of the things that have been said about this are quite true. first of all it's pronounceed -- i can't even say it myself. we'll say c.b.d. oil for short. it is not psychoactive though it is an extract from the plant of marijuana. the -- there has been -- help for kids with seizure disorders so-called charlotte's web.

both for safety and for effectiveness. actually the early reports are disappointing. despite the anecdotal reports, they're not finding thus far the benefits that have been promised. also, they're finding in system cases pretty severe side effects. you know, one of the things that hasn't been discussed on this issue is just as we don't allow people or encourage people at least to eat mold in order to get penicillin as an antibiotic for disease, it doesn't make any sent to give a raw plant as a medication. what we do in health care by using the scientific method is to extract the component, make sure we have a precise measurement, fully study it for safety and for efficaciousness and then we prescribe it under the direction of a physician. the c.b.d. oil right now is not being produced, it's not in a pill or injectable form or even

liquid form. it's sort of grown on the side and people are sort of experimenting with it to see whether it works. what i would say to my colleagues is, let's let this thing play out. let f.d.a. finish its fast track evaluation. if they find it to be efficacious and safe, let them put it in the proper measurement form. let's make sure we know what all the side effects are. as far as i'm concerned, we would make any -- make it a nonscheduled drug. the chair: does the gentleman -- mr. fleming: i reserve -- reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has one minute. the gentleman from pennsylvania has three minutes. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: i continue to reserve. are we ready to close?

mr. fattah: i rise to strike the last cord. -- last word. i rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from pennsylvania. again, i think this is the similar thrust to the previous debate so i won't prolong it but we need to be exploring relief for families in which no other relief is available. for individuals in which no other relief is available. and this provides an opportunity for potential relief we should explore it. i thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania has the right to close. does the gentleman reserve his time? the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: what my colleagues are suggesting here, is that we just pull a plant from someplace or something off the shelf and we give toyota children

something that has not been a practice in probably 100 years. we just.net do it that way. that's why we spend millions if not billions of dollars of research to be sure that what we give the public is going to be health question -- healthy for them and safe for them. you may recall a drug that was prescribed for pregnancy, nausea in pregnancy which was approved back in europe but not approved here and we found out that babies were born without arms and legs as a result. saving children in america. why? because we waited to be sure that not only was it efficacious but it was safe. so i would say to my friends, my heart is in the same place, i want to see treatment for children who may have severe seizure disorders. we have it on a fast track, we may be months away. but i don't think turning this over to parents and others who may fiddle with it and

experiment with it and in essence making our children guinea pigs is the right way to go. . children can talk to their doctors and get the trimes. but iowa warn people that the premises are not good. and we need to stick with the discipline that has made us the leader in the world when it comes to health care and not depart with something that has been proven right. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i want to thank his work. i have a family in my district that has been seen on many times

. and i have had extensive discussions with people? depea that need treatment. i wouldn't support the oil and those types of things if my sheriffs weren't in favor of it. they are in endivorcing that would allow the can bus oil. and i want to thank you for the work you have done this. mr. perry: these rn the same smoke. it's not some weed grown along the road and in the kemp

category and has specific properties. i respect the gentleman from louisiana when he concerned about the side effects. chinch shall in hospice and parents are looking at the final days and looking at the oil and side effect is the choice of death or life. the chair: those in favor say aye. thoipped. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise. >> i have an amendment at the

desk. >> amendment 23. charmente the clerk will report the amendment. >> i request to dispense with the riding. hearing no objection, the reading is dissep penced. the gentleman from pennsylvania and a member each will control five minutes. >> this amendment prevents funds from funds being used for the implementation of the united states globallingal intergovernmental change, the nation sustainable plan or the update of the social coast under executive order 12866. this administration have taken actions that push a climate

change aagenda ave that hinders. global research drive burdensome regular litigation such as the ozone rules. the waters of the united states a regulations on kell-fired plants. why do we want treaties that create propaganda to drive it out of this country. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. culberson: cull i claim time in opposition but i support the gentleman's amendment. mr. fattah: i'm not going to object jeblet.

as long as the gentleman will yield me the time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognizeded. mr. culberson: it is important that we restrict this to enter into agreements with our rights to laws interacted with congress and ensure sna the laws interacted by congress and not going to subject our assist selves and i strongly support the gentleman on amendment. and i yield. mr. fattah: just as sfrongly as he supports it, i oppose it. this one is headed in the wrong direction. we have a need to deal with the challenges around our

stewardship rooched the planet earth and climate and work ink with our international neighbors. and fer and giving a agreement with china it is necessary that we act as proper stewards. it's our obligation in our religious teaching that we have a responsibility to be good stewards and we can't ignore and you mention how this might interfere with business ins, it is beyond. we need clean water and clean air and human has beentation, at least as we can have a second exit opportunity. this is the only planet and we

have the responsibility and the president under our constitution is the car year of our international car year. not this president, but the president of the united states has that burden and burden and i would hope this house would vote this down and there will be another day in which this legislation with be considered and won't be the house majority and thank god for that, combause even the house majority could be wrong. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i respect the thoughts of my

good colige and i want to remind him we went thue this last session, this same amendment peaced by vote and we have the requirement to have the stewardship of the planet. in we have these new ozone ules to come out from this administration's e.p.a. it have plummeted from % and current administration. ozone levels have plummeted 3 % blause because of the gr work we have done. and contracted in the first quarter, we seek do first more unness rules that are unvetted by this people's house and things like the snaugs.

those rules and united nations should come from the body. what is good for the americans. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania those opposed, no. flop the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill -- i squ the unanimous consent that the amendment is considered as read. the chair: the gentleman from

numing and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. garrett: i rise today to offer an amendment that stops the justice to stop the legal theories of all times the diss par ate impact. and and based solely on statistical analysis that finds groups of young people. it has used this theory in lawsuits against landlord ap forced these companies to pay settlements. under impact, one could never discriminate and have strong policies in place and for

example, if a mortgage uses a credit risk, they can still to be found to have diss krim flated. to be clear i have zeroove tolerance for disscrame nation in any form and any discrimination we must try to fight one gin justice. disparate will make it impossible. lenders will weaken their standards to keep in line whatever their they considered nondiscriminatory. and we and it is truly reckless.

lenders and insuresers and landlords to take risks and race, and other factors into account or what risk running afoul. even accusation could have a devastating impact on a small business. therefore, on balance, it will make it more difficult for families to buy a home and for these reasons, i ask my colleagues to reject this misguided theory by sporting this amendment.

mr. fattah: even though the impact of a set of policies means that you are excluded, that somehow they shouldn't be any redress for that. i love the fact that -- and -- and we went this for this last year and i'm think it's going a nature of scluse i haveness for america by the house majority. and i reserve. charmente the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: i think it is indicative, whether it's true intentional discrimination or

just creating theater in this area, saying we're going after discrimination based on disparty impact. and whether this house is more concerned about making things easier for all races, all ethnicities, all ethnic groups to be able to buy homes and to live in -- live and prosper and enjoy a new home, or make it more difficult to buy that first home. allowing the swrussties department to use disparate impact will do just that. it will make it more difficult for those individuals who now find it difficult to buy a home because lenders will do what? they'll be able -- they will not be able to use risk analysis, proper risk analysis to make those decisions and therefore will be less likely to make those loans. for those reasons, and for other philosophical and practical reasons, i have already stated, i have encouraged them to support.

the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: as the gentleman said, for risk analysis and other philosophical reasons, if you looked at major league baseball and didn't see anybody of color you could assume that, you know there was a disparate impact until jackie robinson showed up. but american baseball is a lot better and i think that our country is a lot stronger because of the diversity that exists. i think the fair housing laws have played an important role in at least yes the ideal that we think that you should have a circumstance where no matter what the set of policies if you are a different color or ethnic background you shouldn't apply, i think it's something we have rejected as a nation. i hope we reject this amendment. and i will seek a recorded vote on it. the chair: does the gentleman yield back in mr. fattah: i yield back.

the chair: the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair of the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. fattah: i seek a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania seeks a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. marino of pennsylvania. at the end of of the bill before the short title, insert the following, none of the funds made available in this act may be used for the department of justice's clemency act announced in 2014 or for clemency project 2014 or to transfer or temporarily assign employees to the office of the pardon attorney for the purpose of

screening clemency applicationing. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from pennsylvania and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. maroney: my amendment prohibits funds from -- mr. marino: my amendment prohibits funds from being used by the office of the pardon authority to support the so-called clemency project. the president osesses the constitutional authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the united states. however, in the first five years of his administration, president obama granted fewer pardons and commutations than any of his recent predecessors. last year, the deputy attorney general took the unprecedented step of asking the defense bar for assistance in reviewing candidates for executive clemency. specifically, for federal drug offenders.

the justice department intends to beef up its pardon attorneys office to process applications for commute cases -- commutations of sentence for federal drug offenders. the justice department is also accepting pro bono legal work from the acl aumbings -- aclu and other defense attorney organizations for this initiative this amendment would prohibit that. the constitution gives the president the pardon power, but the fact that the president has chosen to use that power solely on behalf of drug offenders shows that this is little more than a political ploy by the administration to bypass congress. this is not as the founders intended, and exercise of the power to provide for exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt. but think use of the pardon power to benefit an entire class of offenders who were duly convicted in a court of law.

it is also just the latest example of the executive overreach by this administration and i urge support of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member seek time in opposition in mr. fattah: i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: the administration, the executive branch, the president of the united states has the responsibility to review applications for pardons and clemency and this would interfere with the executive branch's responsibility in that regard. and i think that it would also hamper our ability to move this bill to a position of final passage and signature by the president so i -- you know, i'm opposed to it. i'm glad the gentleman from pennsylvania was able to have an

opportunity to offer it and air his point of view. but i think when we have a president perhaps of a different party there'll be less enthusiasm for trying to unnecessarily interfere in the proper role of the executive which clemencies and pardons are in the purview of the president and detailing employees of the executive branch for the republican party that's for normally streamlining and making nimble and allowing mores to set priorities and move personnel around, to suggest that they somehow now are against it, i assume there's some particular reason and it couldn't be anything other than on the merits, i'm certain. i thank the gentleman and i would stand in opposition to the amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized.

the gentleman from pennsylvania has three minutes and the gentleman -- the other gentleman from pennsylvania has three and a half minutes. mr. marino: i would share with my good friend from pennsylvania, no mat whore is in the white house, republican or president, my enthusiasm is always at an all-time high, particularly when it comes to following the law. the president does have the authority to pardon. but not to, as he has done here, zeroed in on a specific class of individuals who broke the law and that is people who use drugs, sell drugs make profits from drugs and were duly found guilty and sentenced. this is just a way for this administration to bypass the drug laws that they don't agree with. this administration is known for. if they don't agree with

something, they try to by pass it as they have done numerous times with congress but fortunately the united states supreme court has slapped this administration down numerous times because of bypassing congress and making decisions that are not in its authority. so let's be realistic about this. this isn't an issue of politics from my perspective, i do say it's an issue of politics if the administration's perspective and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: i yield the chairman time if he needs it. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. culberson: i do want to express support for the gentleman's amendment. i am concerned about the efforts of the white house to repeatedly ignore the law as enacted by congress. if we didn't have this track record from this president who has evaded made a deliberate effort to evade the laws written

by congress, attempt to bypass it at every opportunity, he's lost a record number of cases before the supreme court i believe mr. marino, the supreme court has ruled against the president unanimously on repeated occasions when the white house has attempted to avoid a statute and refused to enforce it. and mr. marino brings to the table tonight experience as a prosecutor very valid concerns about granting clemency to a whole category of people rather than in the case of a paffer don which is on an individual. mr. fattah: reclaiming my time, mr. chairman. mr. culberson: thank you for granting me time. mr. fattah: it must be inherent for politicians, selective amnesia. we remember what we want to remember, forget what we want to forget. it's been uttered on the floor of the house that no president has done some broad swath of clemencies or pardons. it was president ford who offered and president carter who implemented a clemency or

amnesty for hundreds of thousands of people who evaded the draft during the vietnam war. the idea that a president, and this is not -- this has nothing to do with the implementation of the laws set by congress. this right to the presidency of pardon or clemency is given in the constitution. so the point here is that it's just another effort to kind of -- this consistent drum beat about our president, this will not be the law at the end of the day when this bill is passed. i oppose it. and there's no president that's going to sign away their executive authority. it would diminish the power of the presidency. and perhaps for the majority if they were to gain this presidency again, and i'm sure they will, on one -- on some election, they wouldn't want to diminish the power of the

presidency, i think it's just ill fated and it's focus ed a a particular effort at this moment but it does not represent a historical fact that a president has not provided broad exemption, clemency or pardons in our past. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman had one and a half minutes remaining. mr. marino: i'm sure in my remarks my colleague is not referring to any comment i made that no other president has done something of this nature. i came to congress in 2011. really, my concern is what is happening with this administration, not past administrations. i am focused on the future and the rule of law. it's very clear what this administration is doing when it comes to the rule of law or lack of rule of law. once again this administration

does not like the drug laws, it has a very difficult time with the criminal laws that are on the books. i was a prosecutor for 18 years at the state level and federal level. i have seen what takes place concerning drugs. i have put people in prison for selling drugs. i have put people in prison for hurting people who they sell drugs to. and i have take then position where some people did not deserve to go to prison based on several several factors. but the individuals that i sent to prison and i think overwhelmingly according to what the criteria that this administration has said, they're talking about individuals that have a sentence of 10 years or less. that is quite a sentence to pardon because those individuals who have been sent to prison in my experience for five and six and 10 years are -- the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. mr. marino: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. does any other member seek time? for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. will the gentleman designate the amendment? >> it reads amendment number 40. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. austin scott of georgia. at the end of the bill insert section none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the national oceanic and atmospheric administration to enforce, one, amendment 40, to the officialry management plan

for the resources of the gulf of mexico -- mr. scott: mr. speaker, if we have unanimous consent, to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed will each control phi minutes. che rare -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: i would like to thank the parliamentarians for helping us work with this language. i'd like to especially thank the majority and minority staff for giving me the courtesy of presenting this. i know it's late. we certainly hope to close by 2:00. tst the third day of what has been designated as a 10-day red snapper season for a man or woman who wants to take their child fishing in the gulf of mexico. commercial fibbermen get to fish 365 days a year. charter boat anglers fish 45 days a year. and what this amendment does is it says that they cannot, the

fishery service cannot enforce a rule that was adopted that is quite honestly probably going to go to court and then it says that as they go forward and they pass the rules in the future, that the recreational fisherman should receive at least 0% of the number of days as the commercial fisherman does with regard to red snapper in the gulf of mexico. so that's effectively what it does. it still allows them to set the seasons, it does have some restriction in that they can't just take from the recreationalhey have to give the recreational fisherman, the not-for-hire and the for-hire recreational fisherman 20% of the number of kallen tar days they give the commercial fishermen to fish for red snapper in the gulf of mexico. with that, i reserve the remainder of my time. .

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise. mr. fattah: i'm not sure i'm in opposition. i claim the time if it's ok. i yield to the gentleman from georgia. i need to ask a question. you say that the commercial catch limits or fishing days are -- mr. scott: fish year round for red snapper. mr. fattah: talking about red snapper. but for the recreational fisher men, take yoir sons out there is a limit of 10 days? mr. austria: third day of its

10-day season in the gulf of mexico. mr. fattah: so thank you i reclaim my time. i in spirit i support this. i don't know what the un senator inhofe: tended mr. conyers: quenses are and i know there it a matter except, you know i think take your kid out furk and i don't think profit is the only motivator in the world and i don't know why it would be owe arbitrary a cut line. i would like to work with the chairman on this and and i would be able to accept it. mr. scott: i would enjoy my

ranking member. if there is something we didn't. but the gentleman has a good amendment and i recommend we september it. mr. scott: as a dad honestly, thank you for doing this and certainly if there are unintend he had conquenses. but as a a father i would would like to say thank i . mr. fattah: we aren't doing red snapper but we are doing the red snapper. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the piven of the chair. the amendment is agreed to. >> i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the subcommittee is on the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. the chair:. chairman the committee on the whole house having had under

consideration directs me whole house h.r. 2778 has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of ack requested today for mr. adams. the chair: without objection. the request is granted. fromme the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i move that the

>>k the $51 billion measure and's 44 programs. it provides to the $3 million per body cameras. a veto threat against the bill saying is not provided out money for dredging programs like satellites. the house considered a number of amendments today and will continue debating amendments today and it will vote on final passage in the spending bill. the house moves on to the 2016 spending bill for the department of transportation and housing and over urban development. the senate approved the house passed nsa surveillance bill

today, 67-32 make changes to surveillance laws. three amendments subverted -- supported by mitch mcconnell was defeated. >> nancy cordes is joining us. thank you for being with us. nacnncy: it is pretty remarkable of you think about it. he is the leader of the senate. he is the leader of the majority party yet all the amendments that he put forth and he argued very vigorously in favor of failed and not by a close margin. they all failed pretty comfortably peer . he wanted safeguards in the bill that he doesn't really support.

he wanted the innocent is not collecting phone records from all americans. and puts those in the records of the hands of the phone companies themselves. he wanted to do things like lengthen the transition time between when these records stop being collected at the nsa, when they stop being collected, it is a 12 month process. he also wanted to make sure the director of national intelligence would sign up on the new system before it when operational. in both cases, the senate said no. and the house was also saying no that they passed the freedom act and they liked it the weight it was. the house was saying don't do it so he found himself in a minority. >> it passed the house overwhelmingly and it passed the bill as it is, send it to the present desk don't change it appeared they were saying the same thing.

>> they were afraid that not only that house republicans when i like the changes, but also they would say well, if the senate can change it, i have an amendment how would like to add and suddenly you have a lot of new worms at a time when the patriot act, or put -- or portions of it that nobody liked or in limbo, they wanted to get this done as quickly as possible. >> it has been interesting 48 hours. what is your take away? >> what is most interesting is the fact that the republican party which we typically think of as the party of distant talks is injuring a mormon where -- enjoying a moment of privacy . the government should stay out of your business and it is winning the debate. mitch mcconnell, john cornyn is

saying this program is working. where using this data when we need to to track terrorists and see who they are talking to while would you pay something that is not broken? rand paul, other republicans democrats, the government should not be holding onto all the information about americans who have done nothing wrong. if investigators want information they should get a warrant and goes at a phone companies and get it that way. >> you pointed out an interesting dynamic -- the words first our shop are critical -- what everyone to say. they are angry at center rand paul. nancy: it is fascinating. dick durbin had a good line today.

he said he has now much to be an extra in some of his television campaign commercial. democrats and republicans alike felt like the way that paul was fun raising all the issue with unseemly, to transparent. they felt like he was doing some of this for show. as vested because the delay he imposed only meant that the program went at commission for 48 hours now what hass he done? republicans felt he was making the leader look bad when he runs the senate. near the one with egg on his face. these are supposed to be the close kentucky allies. mcconnell has endorsed him. i will say that even if paul was not president, he would have taken a stand because it's the issue that brought him to capitol hill on the first place.

this is the issue that he talks about -- he just was that a thing from it because he's trying to raise money for race present >> was america's national security at any point and risk during the last day and a half or so?? >> not in the sickening been away according to chairman of the senate chairman committee richard burr. heat knowledge a short-term halt to the programs when not be a problem. if these programs were shut down -- shutdown long-term that's because the metadata program.

it enables terrorists to have cell phones -- is important but it is not use all itstime. it is not as if investigators missed out on dozens of opportunities over the last two days to use these programs, if they are not restored, that is when you can run andinto problems. >> center dot mitch mcconnell is the leader of the senate. the resumption of the leader process -- half things changed? qwest there are successes and failures. he promised there will be a more of an open amendment process where senators from both sides would have more chances to chiggers amendments to bills and

you know, chips where falls. he will go to regular order more often where bills were team up through committees. in many cases, he has held true to that,. .. senators feel more empowered and they have more at hand at what is legislation that is being crafted and passed. on the other hand, he is still wrangling a party that now has something like five u.s. senators that are running for president who are all very eager to set themselves apart who are eager to show they are not of washington and sometimes they are willing to go against official washington. well, mitch mcconnell, he is about as official washington as it gets. he's a litter of washington -- leader of washington. in this case, even his allies

say this is kind of a tactical error. leaving this vote to the very last minute on sunday afternoon, the way he did, you must predict the way things would have gone down. that is not mean he had a lot of other options besides i suppose canceling this recess. he certainly give rand paul that he is waiting for that. >> nancy cordes we will look for that tonight and online. cbs news online. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> on to endure, a preview of marijuana radiorelated agenda. the memo are scheduled for on the floor.

a member of the oversight in government were formed in -- reform committee talked about the usa freddie mac. personal mom for rehis signature. lawrence and other answers questions about the cover story on page thoroughly. washington journal is live 70 and eastern. you can contribute on c-span wj. they had of amtrak testified about last months trailed the raiment. positive train control -- we will hear about chris hart and the active administrator about the trains. the chair of the hashouse

transportation committee. >> the committee will come to order. the hearing will focus on the tragic amtrak act didn on mesa and team. -- the tragic accident will focus on may 17. new york to washington in philadelphia. it is reported the train was traveling at 106 miles per hour. this be limit on the portion of the track. eight passengers lost their

lives. we were not aware of any defects, issues identified to attract. today, we will get an update on where the investigation stands and any additional information they will provide from the cause of the accident. since the accident, the federal railroad administration improves safety. amtrak has been determining that speed restriction should be imposed. i want to review what was has

happened particularly in the mandate. finally, this action highlights the central role in northeast corridor movin people all along the east coast. 18% of the population in 20% of the nation should he be. hundreds of thousands of people use this daily yet it is traveling to the largest cities. there was a significant impact on the people's lives. in our bipartisan bill that passed the house. i want that reform bill enacted. in closing, i want to hear from witnesses regarding this issue. i want to recognize our ranking member. >> thank you.

i certainly agree with you about the short energy importance of the population on the east coast. on the use of this courtrridor in terms of the number of people using it and what happens when that goes down. i also agree it does have a long-term commitment to amtrak another infrastructure uses. that is not shared with the republican colleagues on the transportation housing urban development housing committee. on the day of the accident, they got a $251,000 -- $290 million from the capital budget of

amtrak -- he goes the positive train control. it goes to 140-year-old tune nels. it will be out of use for an indefinite. ofite period of time. any cuts of the budget of amtrakk which has a $21 billionm 21 billion -- b --backlog on critical infrastructure -- things that include positive training or bridges or safety include single systems or are the things that are so -- i don't think it was before that era -- this is not ok.

and, to further reduce that budget is going to jeopardize minimally the operation of this courtorridor or cause an accident directly. bridge collapse or a failure of signal systems. we cannot point to this accident and say it was directly caused by a lack of investment. we don't know what happened and we are looking forward to the ntsb. the ntsb in 1969 can propose we should move forward. they have some link called the most wanted list in 1990. the first edition of the most wanted list that we needed to positive training control. since that time, quite a number of people have died in preventable accidents -- preventable accidents because of the lack of positive train control. yes, human error.

that is what it is designed to prevent -- human error. this was probably human error. mechanical malfunction. it is a relatively new train set. we don't know yet. the point is ptc could prevent accidents like this. it could have prevented other accidents over the last two decade since it was first recognized. we could move forward with all new dispatch and installing the system. and passenger, other passenger railroads, and the entire amtrak system and all those required critical lines, particularly hazardous materials. i'm please we are here to understand better what causes accidents. what we might do to prevent them.

i don't think we can get to any definitive point, but for me the bottom line is we can no longer -- $21 billion backlog. we cannot ignore we at running trains over a hundred year bridges. stability. we cannot ignore the running trains 200 and 40-year-ol -- 140-year-old tunnels. we cannot ignore the fact we have signal is a symptoms that are prepackaged. that are trying to link into more modern is the kidded systems. there is much to be done at hope all of our colleagues can share our commitment. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. the ranking member will now recognize the s subcommittee chairman.

>> thank you and good morning. first, let me thank you for holding this. it is obviously very important. want to thank the ranking member for quickly going up to philadelphia and surveying the situation. it was important to see firsthand in understand the si things are happening. let me talk a little aboput my frustration. ntsbf was making definitive statements and three weeks later, while we had a brand-new look among the, we cannot confirm it there was a malfunction. even though ntsb made definitive statements still cannot defend whether or not it was an operator error. could notf identify if there was an engineer that bypass the system. the engineer was working with

ntsb but could not verify the cell phone that was in use whether it was texting or using cell phone service during that time the engineer gave his passport and we cannot still identify whether or not it was that appeared my concern is they came out with an immediate statement a couple hours after the accident, but three slater was on -- was not able to identify the issues. i think this committee expects answers. the families are owed answers. i think the american public is looking to make sure that rail is safe across our entire nation. we are looking for solutions. i am looking forward to seeing it implemented in a very quick matter. i would ask you take a look at this emergency proclamation that was put out -- by fra.

my concern is a year and a half ago, when we had metro-north looking accidents almost the exact same emergency order was put out a year and a half ago. the same pdc was important. yet, we don't have pdc on that area. yet i knew america's you order will have amtrak on the northeast corridor by the time the year is over. we have concerns. i think the family deserves the here with those solutions are. more probably come of those solutions are put in place. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. i recognize mr. catalano. >> thank you. i'm looking for to cheer testimony. we all want answers. want them to the right. day to be right.

-- they need to be right. i know many people in the northeast corridor, -- my congressmen are talking to this closely -- there will be cooking -- keeping a close eye on this. i guess i'm looking forward to this specific lessons learned. with me to look at the lessons of congress. what should our priorities be? we talk a good game but we are the funders. are we going to find it or not? we talk a good game but pdc is saying it. positive train control is an issue of every rail line in this country. are we going to require it or not? everybody hears no we are not going to talk about it what are proposals to delay it even further. we all understand the realities. those are questions we should ask in a serious basis -- how

much responsibility are we as a member of congress taking the next time this happens? have we done everything we can reasonably do to prevent it? i think i'm not looking for scapegoats. i am looking for answers as we all are, and i have full faith that the ntsb along with the fra and amtrak will find those answers and again, i want them quickly, but more importantly, i want them right. i appreciate you being here i appreciate the chairman calling this hearing very much. i yield back. >> thank you. with that, i would like to welcome our panel of witnesses. thank you for being here today. first, the honorable christopher hart is the chairman of the national transportation safety board. next, joseph boardman, the president and chief executive

offer of amtrak, next miss sarah feinberg, for federal railroad administration and just been nominated and congratulations as you go through that process. good luck. and here's, the brotherhood of local employ nears and train derailment. i ask that our witnesses' full statements be included in the record and without objection, so ordered since your complete written testimony will be in the record i'k you to keep it to five minutes, your statement and with that we'll start with mr. hart, please proceed. >> thank you and good morning. chairman schuster and ranking member defazio and members of the committee, thank you for inviting the ntsb to appear before you today. earlier this morning we released a preliminary report and it's a summation of facts reviewed up to this point and i would like to review these facts with you this morning. at approximately amtrak regional train 188 derailed north of philadelphia's 30th street station.

>> can you pull your mike closer? >> yes. i'm sorry. >> as the chairman mentioned the ntsb is determined that seconds before the derailment, the train was traveling at 106 miles per hour, heading into a 50 mile per hour curve. the train slowed to 102 miles per hour before the data recording ended. sadly, eight people were killed and more than 200 people were injured as a result of this accident. on behalf of the ntsb i would like to offer my sincerest condolences to those who lost loved ones and our thoughts remain to those still recovering. briefly, areas we will explore include track recorder mechanical, signals, operations, human performance, survival factors and medical. much work remain, but there are few facts that i can report to you today. we know a properly installed and functional positive train control or ptc would have prevented this accident.

ptc is technology that is designed to prevent overspeed derailments as well as train to train collisions and they worked protection zones and proceeding through misaligned switches. the accident we have investigated have shown us that we need technology that can step in when humans fail due to distraction, medical conditions or other factors. as a result, the ntsb has called for train control technology for decades as was mentioned since 1969. present law requires implementation of ptc by the end of this year and seven years after the mandate was signed by congress into law. we know most railroads will not comply with this law. those railroads that have made the difficult decisions and the safety enhancement should be commended for this leadership. it much have a trance parents -- it must have a transparent accounting of the steps that have been taken to meet a new deadline.

regulators and policymakers need that information to make important policy decisions and the traveling public deserves that accountability. rail car crash worthiness is another area that we'll investigate. as you can see from the picture, the survival space in the first passenger car was severely compromised. we will fully document and analyze the damage to this car and other cars and make recommendations that the ntsb determines are necessary to improve crash worthiness and and build on -- crash worthiness and build on recommendations in this area. we have received full cooperation from the crew and their interviews and follow-up conversations. as you know, we are evaluating the engineer's cell phone records to coordinate the timing and voice activity with the accident time line. this process involves reviewing the time stamps from the phone records which are from different time zones with data from other information, such as the locomotive event recorder and the outward facing camera and radio communications and surveillance video. when we have clarity on this time line we will release this

information to you and to the public. additionally, the ntsb has called for inward and outward facing video and with audio recordings on trains. since amtrak uses outward facing cameras at the time of this accident. these cameras can provide critical information with the ntsb as we work to determine ways to prevent future accidents. in this case the engineer states that he has no memory of the events leading up to the derailment and video can fill in those gaps. i'm encouraged by amtrak's announcement that they intend to install inward facing cameras and we install audio recordings, as well. we look forward to learning more about the amtrak initiative and i hope they proceed with both inward facing cameras and locomotive audio recorders throughout the fleet. as i stated, we have much work ahead of us and i will keep you informed as this investigation proceeds and i'm available to answer your questions. thank you.

>> thank you, mr. hart. with that, mr. boardman, please proceed. >> thank you. i'm going to start this morning by offering my heartfelt regret for the recent derailment at frankfurt junction. it was amtrak's train on our railroad and we're responsible for the incident and its consequences. i regret it deeply, and based on the conversations i've had over the last three weeks that sentiment is shared by everyone in our company. everything we've done since the accident has been driven by a sincere hope that we can do something, however small, to mitigate the suffering and loss that everyone endured as a result of this terrible accident. we've been greatly helped in that effort by the people of philadelphia and i would like to thank all of them, but particularly mayor nutter and the staff of the hospitals thank you for everything you did on behalf of the passengers and employees. i should take this opportunity to note that we want to do everything we can support the

ntsb's investigation. i'll refrain from addressing matters that are still under investigation. we'll be working closely with both the ntsb and the regulators and the fra to ensure that we address the root causes of this accident and to you, ladies and gentlemen of the committee and to our passengers and employees. we run a safe railroad and safety will continue to be our top priority. the northeast corridor in particular has an excellent safety record and this is so shocking because it is so unexpected. in no other place in the country is the comparable volume moved. the last fatal accident on the northeast corridor occurred 28 years ago. the northeast corridor's safety systems are the best in the country. we operate a layered signal system that provides it with multiple levels of protection. there is an alert that engineers are awake. there is an automatic cab

control system to prevent train collisions and stop the train if the crews fail to acknowledge or comply with signals and there's the enforcement system, amtrak that's amtrak's positive train control system. to stop trains that engineers have failed to comply with authorized speed limits. at points between washington and new york were trained to exceed 125 miles an hour. it's installed in the amtrak that operate the northeast corridor and should be to apply -- and should be operational in time to comply by december 31, 2015. this stops people responsible for safe movement of the trains. we operate an oversight and coaching system from the crews. our engineers and conductors are required to pass an extensive fra-approved training program and to develop a high level of familiarity with the route.

probably millions of train movements negotiated a curve at frankfurt junction safely since amtrak took over the northeast corridor in 1976. the system works because generally speaking we've put together a series of layered nets each guarding the previous layer. we rely on these systems where we have not been able to completely eliminate the risk of human error. there is a gap in the most tightly woven net. the train 188 derailment revealed one such hole in the safety net and in the weeks since the derailment people have asked a seemingly simple question. why didn't the track have some kind of safety feature involved to force the engineer to slow the train? this is the right question to ask and i'll address it directly while providing you a necessary background information to understand the answer.

in 1990 an amtrak train derailed on a sharp curve in back based station in boston and collided with an oncoming mbta train. it failed to slow before the curve. shortly thereafter industry operator reviewed the nec and other places where the approach spee speed of a train was greater at which the speed might derail in the curve, if an engineer failed to slow down. at those points we modified the system by installing a code if an engineer -- a code change point to force engineers to slow down. the southbound tracks at frankfurt junction were one such place. the derailment speed at frankfurt junction is 98 miles an hour. northbound trains approached that curve at 80 miles an hour while the southbound train approaches at 110 miles an hour. so in short, when a train approaches from one direction, but doesn't slow down there's no risk of derailment, but if a train comes from the other direction and doesn't slow down for whatever reason there, is a

risk of derailment. we, therefore, apply the modification to the southbound tracks so the trains approaching from the north at speeds of 110 would receive the signal indication from the cab just before the curve forcing them to slow at 45 miles an hour so that they can pass through the curve safely at 85 miles an hour. they didn't have the same protection installed because the approach speed was 80 miles an hour which was slow enough that a train could round the curve at that speed without derailing if the engineer failed to slow down. at that time, the notion that an engineer might actually accelerate into the northbound curve was not a circumstance we anticipated and thus, we didn't mitigate for. it was a reasonable decision reached by reasonable experts under reasonable circumstances and since this and similar change points were installed in 1991, the application of this policy successfully prevented overspeed derailments throughout the northeast corridor for about 25 years.

that clearly changed on may 12th. the proper response now is for us to figure out what happened and to narrow or eliminate the gap so that this accident cannot happen again. the full implementation of ptc later this year will be a major step forward in this regard until it is fully in service and we're working now to implement the measures called for in the emergency order to ensure the safety of the trains and passengers. the most important thing we can do, however is to implement ptc. amtrak is the nation's leader in ptc, we were the only company to have a system approved for use for speeds up to 150 miles an hour. no other class 1 railroad in the united states, not one, is as far along in installing ptc as

amtrak is. my belief and the importance of ptc predates my arrival at amtrak. as the federal railroad administrator i worked hard to secure the passage requiring ptc installation on the railroads. i still believe the single greatest contribution that my generation of railroaders can make to this industry is to implement ptc as rapidly as possible, and i promise you that by the end of this year this system which will dramatically enhance safety will be complete and operational on the nec. thank you. >> thank you, with that, ms. feinberg, proceed. >> chairman schuster and ranking member defazio, thank you for the opportunity for discussing issues related to the amtrak accident in philadelphia

pennsylvania, and the safety of passenger rail. we extend our deepest sympathies the victims of this accident and to their loved ones, and i can assure them that we will take every step we can to ensure an accident like this cannot happen again. i also want to thank the city of philadelphia, its mayor and first responders for their heroic and incredible response to this accident. their leadership was truly remarkable. let me say at the outset, all of us at the fra are heart broken about this tragic accident. the driving mission of our organization is to keep the public safe and so while every accident matters to us, this accident in particular which appears to have been preventable and which took so many lives and left so many injured is truly painful for the fra family. we continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident. while it will take time to complete the investigation, we have not and will not wait to take actions that will improve the safety of amtrak as well as

other passenger rail operations. on may 16, four days after the accident i directed amtrak to take several actions to resume north of philadelphia. i followed those directives with an emergency order may 21st. amtrak has complied with those directives thus far and amtrak will follow through to implement them. when we released the may 21st emergency order we stated we were considering taking additional steps to direct similar orders at other passenger railroads that may have similar curve and speed issues. we continue our work on those directives and we plan to release additional information about that work in the coming days. and while the cause of this accident has not been officially determined, we do know that speed was a significant factor and speed, simply put s what we just simply put -- simply put is what we refer to as a human

factor. a factor based on human behavior. human factors remain the leading cause of all rail accidents and they are also the most difficult to address, but today i want to announce that fra is preparing a package of actions that we will finalize in the coming weeks and months aimed at addressing just these kinds of factors, human factors, factors such as speed distraction and training. these actions may include additional emergency orders safety advisories, rule makings, agreements and other initiatives and again, beyond just those next steps, i want to assure you that the fra is firmly committed to continue taking additional actions, as many as it takes that will mitigate the risks and hazards identified in the ongoing investigation. now there has been significant amount of public discussion about what, specifically, would have prevented this accident, which specific technology and which new regulation, but the reality is if we believe that the cause of this accident was speed it would have been prevent

ed by positive train control. as this committee is aware positive train control is the single most important technological development in more than a century and it is absolutely necessary to ensuring the kind of safety that we expect on our rail system. per the congress' mandate railroads are required to install ptc on all passenger routes and certain freight routes by december 31, 2015, seven months from now. fra has been actively pushing the railroads to have ptc fully implemented by the deadline. we have met with the railroads for years on this issue. we have hired staff to assist and oversee the implementation of this technology. we have urged the submission of ptc safety and implementation plans and we haven choired with -- and limitation plans and we have inquired with individual railroads and with the aar about their progress and we have

worked with the ecc with the spectrum. we have also urged year after year for more funding to be connected at commuter railroads and amtrak to implement positive train control. for the past two years as part of the grow america act, fra has requested $825 million to assist commuter railroads with the implementation of ptc as well as additional funding for amtrak's implementation of ptc. it was grant the authority to review, approve and certify ptc safety plans on a railroad by railroad basis. they asked for this authority in order to ensure that railroads would be forced to work with safety regulators to take other and equivalent actions to raise the bar in safety even prior to full ptc implementation. we believe it is important that even those railroads that fail to meet the congressionally mandated deadline be required to improve safety in the interim. despite the many challenges facing full implementation of ptc, the fra's role is to carry

out the enforcement of the deadline mandated by the congress and to ensure that railroads implement ptc as quickly, safely and efficiently as possible. so on january 1, 2016, the fra will be prepared to take necessary enforcement actions against railroads that have failed to meet the deadline. safety will be the fra's priority and we appreciate the attention and focus to issues related to the passenger train accident in philadelphia. again, i want to express our deepest sorrow for the victims and their families, we will make the american rail network as safe, reliable as possible. i look forward to your questions. >> mr. pierce, you may proceed. >> hello, ranking member schuster and the teamsters rail conference they represent, thank you -- >> can you pull up the microphone closer. >> ok. thank you for the invitation to speak today.

i first want to express our sincerest condolences to the 188 and their family. it's a sadly familiar territory for me because i've had to convey the sorrow to the families of 11 members since i became national president five years ago, and i fear that this will happen many more times. it's even more tragic when technology could have prevented a death and positive train control could have saved five of those lives. the ntsb has confirmed that excess speed contributed to the derailment. these facts implicate the railroad industry. crew size, fatigue, inward facing cameras and the expectations for amtrak. the small percentage of americans who are working locomotive engineers and all railroad operating employees are among the most highly skilled highly trained and highly regulated professionals in the

nation. but today's workforce or workplace often creates task overload for engineers and when too much is expected of any system, man or machine a breakdown is inevitable. one of the questions before us now is what level of risk we're willing to accept knowing all of that. most of the industry and not amtrak or vnsf seeks a blanket five to seven-year extension of the deadline. although not on the nec, there have been peripheral problems with the spectrum and fcc radio tower approvals and those must be addressed and they do not justify a blanket delay and i urge you not to be stampeded for one. that would this honor memory of those repairs on may 12. -- that would this honor the memory of those who perished on may 12. we must remember that ptc is no silver bullet. it's not designed to prevent any accident and any claim that ptc

renders the second crew member unnecessary is plainly put, not true. ptc cannot replace the second crew member because it doesn't do the work of a second crew member. it isn't the second set of eyes and ears to monitor the left side of the train for defects, stuck brakes or observe the left side of the highway rail crossings for highway rail grade incidents. or to separate the trains when we have first responders that need to get access. we urge you to take up the hr-1763 addressing those concerns and we think the time may have come to reconsider the 1981 language that eliminated the second crew member on northeast corridor locomotives. while we do not know whether fatigue played a part in amtrak 188, fatigue should be a major concern to all of us. to be frank the 2008 overhaul of the rail hours of service has produced very little progress towards mitigating fatigue. work schedules are far too variable and unpredictable and instead of dealing with all issues, some have settled on single issues like sleep apnea.

i am here to tell you that c-pap machines won't address fatigue, caused by variable and unpredictable work schedules in order to get the benefit. we must redouble the benefits to fatigue in the railroad industry. i would also like to call for inward facing cameras because it gets louder by the day. cameras can be an accident investigation tool, but they create a false sense of security if more than that is expected. cameras don't slow or stop trains, positive train control does and that's the plainest way to put it. our privacy concerns with cameras are what i would call america's privacy concerns. many railroads insist on leaving cameras on continuously even when trains are stopped on a siding for hours on a time with crews captive on a locomotive that comprises of 65 square feet of space. constant surveillance like this we view as un-american and it does nothing to improve railroad safety.

the truth is that some railroads have shown more interest to use camera data to punitively attack employees and that is just unacceptable to us. finally some things do come down to dollars and cents at least for amtrak w to survive on the funding it receives. >> what we spend on passenger rail is embarrassing when compared to china france, uk russia and turkey. we cannot expect amtrak to run a first-class railroad when it's funded at third world levels. we cannot expect reliable performance that is 75, 100 or 125 years old. our transportationtructure is crumbling around our feet including amtrak yet amtrak is a good investment, a necessary resource and short changing amtrak creates other costs elsewhere. i strongly urge you to provide the resources to amtrak to thrive and grow and not just limp along. i appreciate the opportunity to address you today and we have accomplished much and i look forward to implement the lessons of 188.

i'll answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much, mr. pierce. we'll start with a round of questions and i would encourage all members to -- there's a lot of interest. this is an important topic so i would encourage you to keep to five minutes. if the interest remains high we'll consider doing a second round of questions, so again please respect the five minutes and there are a lot of folks here they think will ask questions and i will be quick with the gavel so watch the clock. i'll start out. ms. feinberg, in december of 2013 with the metro north commuter train derailment it was a very similar circumstance. the train was going too fast and the accident required the -- the fra required metro north to put the codes into the atc system so the trains going at those speeds and now you've just issued an emergency order that literally cuts and pastes that order from two years ago to be put on

amtrak. it seems that the next logical step, and i think you said this is right now you're going to look at all of the curves, but don't you think they should have done that after that -- after the metro north derailment? should have put out an order for fra, and i know you weren't there at the time and wouldn't that have been the logical step at that time was to look at the northeast corridor and the curves. ms. feinberg: we put out a safety advisory urging commuter railroads to take a look at their curves and to see if there were additional steps that they should take. the emergency order that went out at that time was aimed at metro north, and i know as you know, emergency orders are very narrow. they cannot be particularly broad. they have to be legally sustainable and enforceable and at the time the fra looked at expanding that emergency order to many other railroads and to all commuter railroads and deemed that it would not be legally enforceable and we did not have evidence to show that

we had this problem elsewhere. as you may remember, metro north had a series of fatal and non-fatal accidents. they seemed to have a systemic safety culture problem and when we looked beyond metro north we did not feel that this was a systemic problem with other railroads. we were not seeing derailments with other railroads and we were not seeing engineers at high speeds and we believe the emergency order aimed at metro north would only be enforceable to metro north. >> legally, you didn't think you had the ability to do the northeast corridor? ms. feinberg: that's correct. >> does the e.o. today, are you able to enforce it throughout the northeast corridor? have them look at it or do you have legal problems there? ms. feinberg: the e.o.

that went out last week or -- i'm sorry, ten days ago was aimed specifically at amtrak. we are looking beyond amtrak to see if we would take similar or other steps at other commuter railroads and we went directly to amtrak and others beyond that. >> only amtrak. ,s/ms. feinberg: for the emergency order. >> does that mean you have the authority to tell connecticut and massachusetts, are they able to be included with that. ms. feinberg: that would want work for the emergency order that's currently out, but that's what we're looking at right now for next steps. >> see if you can include them? ok. mr. boardman, positive training control. you said in your statement you're committed to getting it by the end of the year. the -- can you talk a little bit about the process that you've been talking to the last couple of months and i know you were

talking spectrum and that was the last step of the equation and can you talk about the cost and the money? you have the mono sdpe can you talk about the spectrum? mr. boardman: we, at this point in time do have the positive train control installed on the northeast corridor. all sections that we own on the northeast corridor is fine what we had learned along with the freight railroads is 900 megahertz system that exists right now really wasn't providing the capability and high density areas. the decision was that we needed to go to a 220-megahertz radio system. that really provides a much better propagation of the signal and a much more reliable service. so what we've been doing is making sure that we finally received approval for the 220 megahertz system within the last couple of months and we have to test it. we have to get the data radios ready and that's what we're doing now. so that's where we are. >> and you learned that because you had ptc operation from boston, new haven to boston? mr. boardman: that's correct. >> along with ptc.

>> and the entire stretch from washington, d.c. to boston will be urn the new, increased megahertz. mr. boardman: for everything we own and control. >> what would massachusetts and connecticut with the state owned? mr. boardman: there is a section between new york and new haven that's new rochelle to new hafen that we don't own or control. that's owned by new york state and connecticut, under the control of metro north. >> thank you very much. seeing my time has expired and the five-minute rule, i turn to mr. defazio. mr. defazio: thank you, mr. chairman. you implied and didn't expand upon it that you're going to look at the cars themselves,

whether or not more resilient cars could better protect passengers in crashes, is that correct? >> that's correct. mr. defazio: have you looked at that previously? >> yes. we've been looking at passenger car crash worthiness for several years. mr. defazio: what can we design -- mr. boardman, i believe, these cars are what era? '70s? >> they started being delivered in about 1975. >> and have you asked to replace them? >> we have a plan to rebuild these cars and we are replacing