mr. defazio in the '40s? :mr. boardman yes, sir. : and are you going to somehow improve their resilience in the case of crash? our expectation is to be able to use crash energy management which is something the entire passenger industry is beginning to do. mr. defazio but these current : cars don't meet whatever -- mr. boardman they do not. :mr. defazio and what would that : take? in terms of dollars? yes. mr. boardman: if we asked for replacement we would talk about $4 billion. mr. defazio have you made a : request? mr. boardman we've made requests : for rebuilding and some questions for replacing. mr. defazio ok. : and what happened to those requests? mr. boardman the requests for : replacing was a complex request because if they were long-distance trains or they weren't receiving enough revenue for us to be able to pay back on. mr. defazio: but the bottom line is were you allocated the congress or not? no, sir. mr. boardman: mr. defazio so : congress denied you the money? mr. boardman yes, sir. :mr. defazio aga

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

mr. defazio for five minutes and acknowledge the fact that mr. capuano once again has been very gracious to college on the other side to skip his time so others may go first. [inaudible conversations] >> i don't think capuano and gracious but together the same sentence. thirdly i would convert your judgment, mr. chairman. ms. feinberg, you heard with css raised about the potential conflict with a hard deadline and whether or not their carriage and other hazards and passenger. can you resolve that regular have to statutorily resolve that? >> the congress is going to have to act. i cannot make a decision based on their liability. >> and you can't give relief because of the hard deadline set. >> i cannot extend the deadline. >> you talked about enforcing penalties. just like a little insight into that. we are looking forward now and there's a lot of history, a lot of questions about how we got to this point and how some people are closer to the deadline and others comment better. are you looking at penalties that it backed funds from the railroad. w

mr. defazio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you implied and you didn't expand upon that you're going to look at the cars themselves, whether or not more resilient card could better protect passengers in crashes is that correct? >> that's correct. >> have you looked at the previously? >> yes. we can look at passenger car crash worthiness for several years. >> mr. boardman, i believe these cars are what era 70s? >> they started being delivered in about 1975. >> have you asked to replace than? >> we have a plan to rebuild these cars and we are replacing some pars at this point in time. the ones that were built in the '40s. >> in the '40s, okay. are you going to sum up improve their resilience in case of crash? >> our expectation is to be able to use crashed energy management which is something that the entire passenger industry is beginning to do. >> but these current cars don't meet whatever -- >> they do not. >> and what would it take? >> in terms of dollars or -- >> yes. had asked for the money speak with them as a replacement

mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: 44 days. 44 days, that's when the highway trust fund runs dry. now, this isn't, you know, a surprise. we've been kicking the can down the road for a while. the republicans have been in charge for 4 1/2 years, and today the ways and means committee is rather begrudgingly holding its first hearing on the issue of the highway trust fund. however they've already foreclosed the options. the chairman and the republican leadership have said we can't do user fees the way dwight david eisenhower and ronald reagan did. that's off the table. we're going to come up with some other creative or phony way to pay for these investments. and they pretty much have said they're going to try to kick the can down the road until the end of december. well those sorts of patches won't deal with the massive pothole that we have with our infrastructure in this country. 140,000 bridges need repair or replacement. 40% of the surface of the highway -- national highway system is degraded to the point where

mr. defazio's question. we heard of spending money for the signaling system and money for infrastructure but what about these old cars, what's the plan there? mr. boardman: what we did with the single level cars and the locomotives, we're paying for that out of the fares we receive on the northeast corridor. on the long distance trains there's no additional revenue and it's a completely deficit operation and we don't have those resources to borrow money on the r.i.f. program or any other way to replace those cars. >> that seems to me to be a problem. mr. boardman: yes, ma'am. >> mr. davis? mr. davis: thank you to each of the witnesses for being here today. my first question, mr. boardman going back to earlier statements you made in the q&a, you mentioned there were six, possibly 10, if i'm doing the math right vulnerabilities identified similar to what we saw in the northeast corridor, the northbound train going towards the curb. and you mentioned that these types of curbs existed. have you installed co-chang

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 some cars at this point in time. the ones that were built in the '40s. >> in the '40s? >> yes, sir. >> and are you going to somehow improve their resilience in the case of crash? >> our expectation is to be able to use crash energy management which is something the entire passenger industry is beginning to do. >> but these current cars don't meet whatever -- >> they do not. >> and what would that take? >> in terms of dollars? >> yes. have you asked for this mono? >> . >> if we asked for replacement we would talk about $4 billion. >> have you made a request? >> we've made requests for rebuilding and some questions for replacing. >> ok. and what happened to those requests? >> the re

mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: well, tomorrow the house of representatives will be asked to grease the skids for the last and worst trade agreement in a 20-year history of job-killing trade agreements. i say last because this is a new concept. it's a living trade agreement. anybody can access to it in the future. all they have to do is say we pretend or we'll pretend to follow the very weak rules of this trade agreement. when the president began the negotiations china was concerned. talk about confronting china. now china says, we want in. we know how to game it. we can -- we won't let it go to japan. it was already in the agreement. and the worst for many reasons. but among them is something called the investor state dispute resolution process. what's that? it means there will be a special private court set up for corporations to challenge our domestic laws. any and all domestic laws that they find to be trade restrictive. now the president came to oregon and said those of us who are critical of this are m

mr. defazio for five minutes and would recognize the fact that mr. capuano once again has been very gracious to our colleagues on the other side to skip his time so that others may go first. >> i don't think mr. capuano and gracious to together in the same sentence. [laughter] seriously, i would defer to your judgment, mr. chairman. ms. feinberg, you heard what csx raised about the potential conflict with the hard deadline and whether or not their continued carriage of inhalable and other hazards and passenger, can you resolve that what we had to statutorily resolve the? >> the congress is going to have to act. i cannot make a legal decision for csx based on their liability. >> and you can't give relief because of the hard deadline that was the? >> i cannot extend the deadline. >> you talked about in force and penalties. of which is like to get a little insight into the. we are looking forward up and there's a lot of history here, a lot of questions about how we got to this point and now some people are much closer to meeting the deadline than others

mr. defazio of oregon for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate. >> give us a sense what happened outside the courtroom. >> sure, there was quite a distinction between those two things. really, we were waiting for the former speaker to arrive. he was warm as he got out of his suv and walked at the courthouse. he was very quiet, very subdued and in an efficient hearing. >> what was the demeanor? >> it was subdued is the best way to put it. he certainly did not look happy to be there by any stretch. he spoke quietly with attorneys. he was asked questions and answer them quietly. the whole thing to do but 20 minutes. he left the building without making any comment. >> a lot of questions as to whether or not this judge is in any way biased. what can you tell us about t

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. >> have you looked at that previously? >> yes. we've been looking at passenger car crash worthiness for several years. >> 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 some cars at this point in time. the ones that were built in the '40s. >> in the '40s? >> yes, sir. >> and are you going to somehow improve their resilience in the case of crash? >> our expectation is to be able to use crash energy management which is something the entire passenger industry is beginning to do. >> but these current cars don't meet whatever -- >> they do not. >> and what would that take? >> in terms of dollars? >> yes. have you as

mr. defazio asked about buying new train cars, if this stud zi, whenever it gets done comes with the recommendation that new requirements should be made for train cars that meets some increased standards for side crashes, are we going to get any new cars? how many cars have we gotten? you look at the pictures of the cars so crashed compared to the locomotive. would you elaborate open that. >> they have a lower section and i went to that accident site. >> i think you were the assistant director at that time? >> pardon me. >> i realize you were involved in the report -- >> i was ceo for amtrak. i went out there at that time and look d at what happened. it was a double tractor-trailer. the side impact is what killed our conductor but it was really a signal case that the back trailer came up and hit the top of the train that did the passenger death and injuries. there is a i think there would be -- i'm not an engineer, mechanical engineer, there is a huge problem at that particular location. it was a very strange crash. because there was total visibility for the truck that went into the side of the tra

mr. defazio asked about buying new train cars, if this study, whenever it gets done comes with the recommendation that new requirements should be made for train cars that meets some increased standards for side crashes, are we going to get any new cars? how many cars have we gotten? we heard they were 40 years old. you look at the pictures of the cars so crashed compared to the locomotive. would you elaborate on that a little bit more? >> these are the bilevel cars that have a much lower section and i went to that accident site. >> i think you were the assistant director at that time? >> pardon me. >> i realize you were involved in the report -- >> i was ceo for amtrak. i went out there at that time and looked at what happened. it was a double tractor-trailer. the side impact is what killed our conductor but it was really a signal case that the back trailer came up and hit the top of the train that did the passenger death and injuries. there is a i think there would be -- i'm not an engineer, mechanical engineer, there is a huge problem at that particular location. it was a very strange crash. be

mr. defazio: how many times will congress pretend to be fooled by yet another job-killing trade agreementirst it was nafta. it told us it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. unfortunately they neglected to say they would be south of the border and they would be at the expense of american workers. then the w.t.o. we're going to level the playing field. yeah, compete with chinese workers at 25 cents an hour and unfair trade practices. now the obama administration, new paradigm korea. this is the model for the future. it's going to be great. we're already running larger trade deficits with korea. we already lost 50,000 jobs. and now the last biggest, worst trade agreement, the trans-pacific partnership. ironically a key vote will be something called trade adjustment assistance. yeah, it's critical. we have to have that because millions -- hundreds of thousands or millions of americans will lose their jobs so we need to retrain them for mcdonald's or other high-level jobs. secondly of course, the t.a.a. t.a.a. is funded -- the trade adjustment assistance is funded by medicare. ironica

mr. defazio: we have heard about american exceptionalism and tonight we see here a great new example for the 21st century republican majority, version of american exceptionalism. this nation has become a laughing stock of the industrial world because it's falling apart. 150,000 bridges on the national highway system need repair or replacement and with this bill, it will be 160,000. 40% of the road surface on the national highway system needs not just resurfacing but so bad it needs to be dug up. and our transit system, $80 billion backlog just to bring our existing systems up to a state of repair. irrelevant is so bad that we are killing people here on the nags' capital and what does the republican budget do? it cuts the allocation to the metro system here in d.c. the greatest country on earth, it will be dangerous to ride on the metro system because we can't afford to fix it. they fail to distinguish between investment, investment in moving our people and our goods, more efficiently and spending. they rail about spending, but cut indiscriminately and they add money in places where we do

representative peter defazio said mr. tried to guilt people and impugn their integrity. " he has ignored and disrespected congress for years and then he shows up at the baseball game with homemade beer and than comes to the caucus and lectures us for 40 minutes about his values and whether or not we are being honest by using legislative tactics to try to stop something which we believe the horrible mistake for the united states of america." are you surprised to ceiling would like that from democrats? steven komarow: it's interesting. it's also interesting that paul ryan used the lame-duck phrase. i think democrats feel that obama is not a plus for them anymore. they are all running for reelection and he is not. they are cutting distance from him. we are going to see that for the rest of the presidency. on this issue in particular, where they do have a strong constituency that is with them in the labor movement, it is exercising maximum clout for them. bill scanlan: let's go to crawford, georgia. jane is here on the republ

representative peter defazio said mr.bama tried to guilt people and impugn their integrity. " he has ignored and disrespected congress for years and then he shows up at the baseball game with homemade beer and than comes to the caucus and lectures us for 40 minutes about his values and whether or not we are being honest by using legislative tactics to try to stop something which we believe the horrible mistake for the united states of america." are you surprised to ceiling would like that from democrats? steven komarow: it's interesting. it's also interesting that paul ryan used the lame-duck phrase. i think democrats feel that obama is not a plus for them anymore. they are all running for reelection and he is not. they are cutting distance from him. we are going to see that for the rest of the presidency. on this issue in particular, where they do have a strong constituency that is with them in the labor movement, it is exercising maximum clout for them. bill scanlan: let's go to crawford, georgia. jane is here on the re

representative peter defazio said mr.mpugn their integrity. " he has ignored and disrespected congress for years and then he shows up at the baseball game with homemade beer and than comes to the caucus and lectures us for 40 minutes about his values and whether or not we are being honest by using legislative tactics to try to stop something which we believe the horrible mistake for the united states of america." are you surprised to ceiling would like that from democrats? steven komarow: it's interesting. it's also interesting that paul ryan >> we're going to break away from this prerecorded portion of "washington jourbling" and go back to the floor of the house. floresville veterans post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 891, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 141 paloma drive in floresville, texas, as the floresville veterans post office building. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman

mr. speaker. first i'd like to thank chairman gibbs and chairman shuster and ranking member defazio, napolitano, for helping to bring 944 the national estuary program re-authorization, to the floor. i'd also like to thank colleagues, mr. posey and murphy of florida, and especially mr. larsen has been great to work with on a number of issues. this version of the national estuary program re-authorization is fiscally responsible by reducing the authorization levels by $8 million while ultimately increasing the amount of money each estuary program will receive. it's a very commonsense approach that helps get the job done. this re-authorization will detail just how the e.p.a. is to spend the authorized and appropriated money. unlike many of the programs under the clean water act, the national estuary program is a nonregulatory program. that was mentioned before but i think it bears repeating. it's a nonregulatory program. instead it is designed to support collaborative voluntary efforts of federal, state and local stakeholders to restore degraded estuaries. i think this is exactly the approach that will