>> i'm comfortable with that, yes, sir. i mean, we deal with ad herns to standards every day throughout our military and nothing will change in that regard. >> thank you. >> it's our belief the commanders have sufficient tools to address conduct that violates good order and discipline. we certainly support the recommendations included in the crwg report to modify the ucmj but consider that mostly house cleaning at this particular point in time and that we have what we need now to move toward implementation. >> thank you. congressman, i believe what we have in place currently is more than adequate standards of conduct for us in all of the things that we've kind of thought through the implementation process, quite honestly, the ucmj, the authorities, and that, was something that was probably the least of our concerns and that we believe the current standards of conduct are in place are more

than adequate. thank you. >> there are 63 air force instructions that deal with this issue either tangentially or centrally, sir. out of that there are 27 that require some changes given the change in policy. 16 of which are relatively minor and will be done and ready to promulgate shortly. there are 11 which require more work and that'll take a couple more months to put together but they will be ready to roll out at the time when and if the chairman, secretary, and the president certify. >> thank you. are you -- are the services at a joint level doing an overall war combined plan for implementation or is this being done by the individual service without any type of coordination?

>> congressman, we are responsible and accountable for training our own service. the nature of the training, the way it has been constructed and coordinated has been done among the services as we go forward together, but the best accountability in my belief is through the services so that we can account for the training, that we can get the feedback that we need. but it has been something that has been well coordinated. >> congressman, all through the summer while the surveys were taking place last spring and summer and fall, part of the effort of the comprehensive working group was the implementation portion of this. looking at policies and training and everything else they have developed with all the services, we all have representatives on that effort, a very comprehensive training package and it addresses really the 99 percentile of the issues and

those significant things that we have to look at so each service then was told, we will use that as the framework and the back bone and then we will impart our own culture, our own service culture. by that i mean we don't change the nature but for the marines we get down and dirty and look them in the eye and go, okay. pay very close attention. we're going to have a discussion about this. that's the culture part. but the framework is the same among all the services. >> thank you. >> sir, i think we are executing in our service lane but you can tell there's a high degree of coordination at every level. the one exception might be joint entities where we have a mix of army, navy, air force, marine, and so on. in those cases the individuals are getting their training from their senior service leadership in the commands.

>> thank you very much. i have great faith that you will implement this and make a certification decision or advise senior leadership of the certification decision that you think is in the best interests of accomplishing the mission. thank you and i yield back. >> ms. martha robey of alabama. >> well, good afternoon. i certainly thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate your patience with us this afternoon. so thank all for being here and for what you do for our country. and i just know that you talked a little bit, there was a lengthy question about readiness and the effects of implementation. but i just wanted to ask you just very directly and simply how each of you would feel that the implementation of this repeal, how would it improve the standards of our military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, and retention for our military?

>> ma'am, i can't tell you at this point that it will improve it. we don't know yet. we are -- the law has not been repealed. we are in the implementation phase right now so we are in the training and education portion of this. so we can't say one way or the other. i think that's something that will happen probably a year or two later. in other words you'll get a sense within my community we'll get a sense within probably 6 months to 12 months what the impact on retention is. we've not seen any impact on retention. we've not seen any impact on recruiting right now. while we are in the signed law implementation phase. but will it improve recruiting and retention and combat effectiveness? i can't address that right now because i don't know. >> just to follow up with that, general, one of our members

actually referenced to me a member that was -- excuse me -- a letter that was received from a marine specifically discussing resignation in light of this repeal and so i guess i could further my question and say, do you know specifically that there have been resignations throughout our military as it relates to this repeal? >> i would suspect out of 202,000 marines that there will be some marines that will step forward, turn letters in, talk to their congressmen, write the articles in the press. but because they say they want to resign, constitutionally, they stepped up and joined the marine corps so the fact that they're uncomfortable at this point or the fact that they want to resign doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be allowed to resign. they have a commitment to our nation the same as any other service man or woman. i don't know of a specific -- i would be the most surprised

person if there weren't a couple out there that said, i am going to resign. >> yes. >> doing that and actually following through are two different things. >> yes, sir. >> ma'am, i would just say that, you know, our experience so far hasn't -- we haven't accumulated enough data points to sort of make a judgment. but i would say that conceptually you can argue that there might well be improvements at some point because fewer people leave the service and so on and ideally that's the right people who stay. but i think at this point in time it is premature to make a judgment. >> ma'am, i would say one of the biggest challenges that we face today is too many people want to stay in the navy and that that has not changed as a result of the process we're going through. in fact, it's just becoming more

pressurized for people who want to stay or who even want to come in and you can debate the reasons as to why but this has not in any way, shape, or form changed that dynamic that we're dealing with. i do think that one of the things that will be true once this is implemented is that we won't have sailors who because of orientation are always looking over their shoulder. >> i would only echo what the other chiefs have all said. it's too early to tell. but we have seen nothing that would indicate so far there will be any more individuals who indicate a desire to leave than there would be with any other policy that possibly could be changed. again, we feel very, very good so far at really not hearing a lot of that.

we have not heard those reports except in an organization of 1.1 million, again, there are no doubt going to be a few. >> yes, sir. thank you so much. mr. chairman, my time is almost up. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. ryan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and again thank you for accommodating our schedule today. i think this is obviously an important issue and i want to thank all of you for your thoughtfulness in not only your remarks today but throughout this entire process i want to say thank you. this is something that i think has been a long time coming for our country. a lot of the issues we talk about as a country, that we fight about as a country, are the issues of freedom and liberty and we hear the words thrown around a lot and i think the implementation of this policy is an opportunity for us to create that more perfect union here in the united states in allowing free american citizens to serve their country in whatever way they see fit. so i want to thank you for that

and really just mention a couple stories here, mr. chairman, from back in ohio because we've gotten a lot into the logistics here today. and i think it's important that we recognize that these are real folks that want to serve our country. we have someone back in ohio, former air force major general mike ulmey, native of dayton, ohio, a gay soldier discharged under don't ask don't tell. 13-year veteran of the air force, kicked out of the armed services after superiors investigated his personal e-mails and found the correspondence between he and his partner patrick malagni, cincinnati, ohio, rotc student outed shortly before graduation and discharged. still wants to serve. still wants to come back and serve his country. brian endicott from columbus, ohio joinld the army in 1992 when then candidate clinton talked about the promise to end the ban from the service when don't ask don't tell was

implemented he opted not to re-enlist. then lastly, josh crease served a full term as a combat medic in iraq. after returning he was discovered by someone who had unauthorized access to his e-mail, another soldier got his pass word somehow. he was brought up on discharge proceedings but those proceedings were put on hold until he served a second full term in iraq and he was discharged shortly after he returned. he's from upper sandusky in ohio. these are real people who want to serve our country that are talented so again i want to just say thank you and ask one quick question and apologize if i missed in the transition if this question has already been asked. but how soon following certification will former service members who wish to return to service be allowed to begin the process? some former service members approaching 40 are worried that they will age out before the

process begins. >> congressman in the case of the marine corps once certification is done, and the law is 60 days later the law becomes effective then in the case of the marine corps those that have been discharged in the past, and we've had about 1400 marines since 1993, that have been discharged for homosexuality, can apply and what they'll do, they will go to a service recruiter and apply just like anybody else that left the marine corps with an honorable discharge, come back in and if their skill sets and age meet all the requirements, and there is a need, then they'll be allowed to come back on active duty but they will fall in the competition with everybody else that has gotten out and have come back as a prior service marine. >> is that the same for all? >> same for the army. >> exactly as general amus laid it out and quite frankly this is something that is going on all the time in the army with

soldiers who have left for whatever the reason might be. many of them petitioned to come back in. >> great. well, my time is winding down here. thank you so much again. this was a long time coming and we appreciate your help and the training and implementation of this. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. general, my sympathy to the casy family. we certainly have just the highest regard for general joyce casy and his service. as we are proceeding, i share the concerns of chairman mckeon that there were hasty decisions made in december in regard to passage of this law. in fact, it is really bizarre. it was a lame duck session of defeated members of congress who have made this change in the law. normally, you would think of a representative democracy that people would be representing

their people but these were people who had actually been rejected by the voters of the united states and then they changed this law. i find that i find that really just undemocratic. it's also shocking to me that these are the same people who did not pass a budget, and that's what we're facing today. but it's amazing that they could have made such a decision and that makes it even more important as to the certification effort that every effort is made to look into morale, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, recruit, and retention, and combat readiness because members of congress, defeated ones, did not look at that and did not care. it's my view in my 31 years of service that extraordinary surveys, anonymous surveys, so that people could speak freely, are really very helpful. will there be any surveys as you're considering the

certification process of members of the military? >> sir, not surveys in the context of what was performed last fall, but certainly there will be an aggregation of information through the command chains and other normal reporting mechanisms to give us the information and the situation we're in as we need to make the recommendation in our case to the chairman, and just to address what congresswoman hartsler indicated earlier, you can rest assured that each one of us will give our best military advice to the chairman of the joint chiefs. >> congressman, in our case, the objective criteria which we talked about earlier on, tier one, tier two, tier three training, that will be complete. the subjective part for us will be surveys which is a formal

survey. it's not a -- it's not a jump on a blog site survey. it's a real -- we bring trained people in, do a command climate survey, and then we have our earlier reteng surveys we do. those are all fixed thing we do. we'll also have input from the commander. so there are surveys. it's not a specific one to deal with this, but it will talk about marines, how they're feeling about staying on active duty in the marine corps, how is the climate in their command, which are things i'm very concerned about. to your point about retention and combat effectiveness and unit cohesion. >> congressman, i would say that we make several changes in the navy from time to time on policies and other issues. and i will tell you that at no time have i seen a continuous feedback, the continuous assessment on the part of the training that's going on to the degree that we are doing here.

so i do believe that the pulse of the force is going to be monitored throughout this in ways that we have never done before. >> i can only echo that. and with your experience in the united states army, congressman, you know that commanders are best suited to be able to tell whether a change in policy is going to have effect on any of the things that you mentioned. and that's why we have put it four square on their shoulders to be the one to conduct the training and get the feedback from their units and soldiers. >> and i appreciate your statements. i am also concerned about first amendment rights of chaplains. will there be guidelines for chaplains as to how they conduct themselves and their ability to comment on this policy? >> yes, sir. in fact, chaplains are part of the tier one training, very

focused on that. the chief of chaplains was involved in the development of that training. and the rights of not just chaplains but all of our sailors to practice the ten nets of the belief is unaffected. >> and will not be retaliation against those who may disagree with the policy in expressing their point of view? >> i believe that those who have moral objections and find that -- that it is a challenge for them because of their beliefs, those beliefs can be expressed. that said, any expression of that that goes beyond the norms of the normal decency and respect that we have for one another, that's a line that i think could be crossed. but their ability to deal with

their religious beliefs, to discuss those beliefs, to seek guidance from our chaplain corps will be unaffected. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you both for being here, for your patience, and also for your service. i don't have any doubts that the results you will report accordingly. so i really don't have any questions except to tell you how much we appreciate the work that you are -- that you've done and the work that you're doing. thank you all. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. hunter. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and to all of you, thank you so much for basically being the custodians and guardians of our young men and women who volunteer to serve and whose parents trust you with their

lives and livelihoods. first question for everybody is basically, tell me -- i'd like to know how the repeal increases combat effectiveness. >> as i mentioned earlier, we don't know exactly yet how it's going to. but i would argue that if we are able to -- if the decision is made to repeal and certification does take place, as we've worked this over time, inclusive organizations are usually the best kinds of organizations. and we will look at that and the ability to ensure that soldiers are able to stay in as possible areas where it could improve ranks. >> i think that one of things that's important, as you so well know because of your service, congressman, is the integrity and belief that people can have in being frank and honest and

open. and i believe that that now becomes part of our force in a way that it has not been. i also would echo what general corelli said in that there are some talented people who have left the navy because of this. >> xefkly combat arms -- you think the navy s.e.a.l.s, the special task forces that fall under the navy? >> i think that across the navy, when -- oftentimes people talk about the combat arms. and that really conjures up the ground force. but i would submit that those who serve in our submarines, who serve in our airplanes, are as much of a combat arm as anything that we have. >> do you think it would increase the effectiveness of -- >> i believe that we will see great young sailors who perhaps otherwise would not serve will be able to serve, and to quote

an anecdote from some of the surveys that were done with regard to one of our navy s.e.a.l.s were made, he's big, he's bad, he kills a lot of bad guy, and by the way, he's gay. i think we will see goold people serving, yes, sir. >> congressman, too soon for me to tell. i think the one thing that will happen, i think some of this will be a little bit evolutiona evolutionary, will become revealing over time. but i'm not in a position right now where i can comment on will it increase combat effectiveness. i think it will increase peace of mind for a portion of our marine corps that is gay and lesbian. they've been there since 1993 when the law was in there. i don't know how many of them are. my suspicion is the number are probably pretty small. but we know that they're there. i don't know who they are and i don't care at this point. so but my sense for them, there will be a peace of mind that they've been unable to have prior to this.

have we lost high-quality folks with unique talents that were onesie twossie, i can't tell that. so for me, it will be a while yet before i'll be able to look back and say our combat effectiveness has increased. >> thanks for your honesty and your blunt answer. gentleman? >> i agree with that. clearly peace of mind. there's the poen theitential fo keeping people who would otherwise have to depart our air force and potentially increases the recruiting pool. we shall see. >> i don't think we've heard whether or not it will increase combat effectiveness or not yet. last question because i only have a minute left. say that you and your commanders on the ground or your combat units specifically do not think that -- let's be hypothetical, even though we all hate that.

in six months the repeal happens but your commanders tell you that your combat units are not ready yet. and you either don't make a recommendation at that point yet because you're not ready for the repeal, or you do and it's that we don't do it yet, that we need more training, we need more whatever. what would you do then if the implementation of the repeal is forced upon you? do you have any recourse? >> congressman, i would say that i'm comfortable and confident in the voice that we have with regard to the assessment of where we are objectively and subjectively thashgs when we make our recommendation with regard to where we are in training, how we believe it has gone, do we have to circle back, perhaps to emphasize some other points that need to be made, that we may have identified as part of this feedback mechanism.

i'm confident that -- >> i'm sorry. >> i'm confident that our recommendation will be heard. >> and your recourse if it isn't? if you're not ready and the recommendation is forced upon you? >> i'm confident that the recommendation i make with regard to the readiness of a navy will be a factor in whether or not we go forward as a force or not. >> is everybody comfortable with that? >> i would only add a very significant factor. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. mr. kaufman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i had asked for the office of the secretary of defense for some additional questions on how this impacted the combat -- from the survey as to drill down further as to how the survey impacted our ground combat arms elements in the united states

army and the united states marine corps having served in both. as a soldier in the u.s. army infantry and as an officer in the marine corps, and i did get the raw data for the survey results of the specific questions i had. and it's amazing when the office of the secretary of defense has something they want to get to me that they agree with me on how quick they are. but i believe that they intentionally delayed this. and it took them two months to give me the information that they had right on the top of their desk contained in that binder here. and going through the raw data, what it showed to me is how flawed this survey was, that it was no more than a conclusion looking for a survey. it's not legitimate. it's flawed. this speaks to the lack of honesty in this process. i don't want you to put you in

middle of this but i want to thank you for your service and trying to make this work in our armed forces because it doesn't matter at the end of the day what you tell the secretary of defense or the chairman of the joi joint chiefs of staff. they are political appointees, and we have a commander in chief who made this as a campaign promise. and they will -- they will follow through with that promise with him. there's no question in my mind. one thing. my heart is with the infantry weather the army and the marine corps. i'm very concerned. i think that there's a reason today why we don't have women serving in ground combat units where their primary mission is combat.

and that is because we've chosen not to interject sexuality in those units to maintain unit cohesion. we are going to be interjecting sexuality in those units. and having served in combat with a ground combat team, interventional operations in the first gulf war, i served in in iraq but not in the infantry, but in the first gulf war when you went out and you stayed out, that young people sexual ly ti s an emotion very prom innocent in their lives. so i just want you to take extra caution in recognizing differences in these ground combat units. because you look at the survey, the questions, because obviously it's a survey -- it's a conclusion looking for a survey, are not geared to those units.

i want to thank you for your service and what you do. i know you're in tough position but know you'll do the best you can in what is not a military decision at the end of the day. it is a political decision. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. palazzo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for your service. in a large sense i feel like sam houston when he arrived to the site of the alamo and saw the destruction and the death and he couldn't help his fellow americans, texans, tennessean, and so forth. i do have a few questions. i share most of the views with the republican members, this is a policy that shouldn't be passed in a lame-duck session. i kind of disagree with some comments that if soldiers who

are enlisted or become commissioned officers under a certain thought that their military was a good military, a correct military, or just whatever they thought the military was when they joined, and this congress comes and tinkers with it and no longer see it being what they envisioned or what their grandfathers in the pacific war envisioned it being. and we may need to provide them some relief to exit the military because, you know, we don't want to hurt them on their way out, they served honorably, so let's just please keep those considerations, because i've heard comments from high ranking officials that they're either going to accept it or they know what they can do. and i think that in its face is a disservice to the people who have sacrificed so much for so many people. how many responded to the

survey? if anybody has all the technical information, feel free to input. >> we can take that for the record. for the air force it was 117,000 or thereabouts. >> okay. out of how many -- did you say about how many responded and how much is your total force including reserves? >> a response rate slightly over 30%. >> 30%. >> congressman, i will also take that for the record and give you the precise numbers, but it was well over 40,000, and there were spouses, family members, who were also allowed. three parts to the survey. actually, four. one was the actual survey for the service member. the second was the spousal survey. there was a blog site, kind of a free-for-all kind of a thing, and there was another one. but we'll get you that information. >> congressman, for the navy it was 28% of the active force, 33% of the reserve component, which is consistent with the normal response rates on all the strums we use to make significant

decisions in the navy. >> thank you. >> for the army, i'll take that for the record but it was under 30% of those surveyed and it was higher in the reserve components than in the anctive component. >> i'll get you those numbers. >> i appreciate that. of course that brought other questions to my mind. why do you think the number was so low? and i'd like to inject some comments with that. you know, from what i've seen in my service is that two things were taking place. one, they didn't believe it was an anonymous survey. their computer, their ako account, there was somebody out there who was going to watch them and they thought there was going to be a -- you know, if they didn't agree with it, not that they were going to be on some list but there's something out there. now, that's just a perception, and sometimes perception is reali reality. second, they were scared. i covered that. they were resigned because they saw the writing on the wall and they saw the democrats pushing

this through in a lame-duck session, saw the commitment from the president and also may have thought that the joint chiefs and others up top weren't going to have an honest discussion about this. and i'm just -- these are feedbacks they've gotten. because i have yet to find a soldier in the national guard reserves or when we took a tour on the western base, anybody that is in support of repealing don't ask, don't tell. and i just find ut -- it just makes me believe the way i took it, i think it was very limited in its response, it was bogus, and i hope if going forward after you do your technical criteria, and i hope it's better than some of the criteria we choose -- you know, the recipients of military contracts, but it's a fair, honest discussion. and maybe we should have another survey, one that maybe this

congress, the 112th congress have help draft with your help to ask some more direct questions to our men and women in uniform. my time's coming close. if you want to comment for the record, please do so. and please don't -- this isn't directed personally at you. i know y'all -- i've seen your bios, you're true american heroes. i don't envy you. where admiral halsey and patton, mcarthur are going to go down under different pretenses, i just hope your names aren't going to be going down related to the certification of this policy. please think long and hard. please make sure that it's not going to affect our recruitment, our retention, our readiness. and please -- i'm saying this -- i just apologize to our veterans who have served before us, those currently serving on active duty in the reserves and those who have had the opportunity to serve because i don't think this is a good policy. and, you know, please take that into consideration. thank you.

>> thank you. mr. mitchell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you gentlemen for your patience with the testimony today. i had the privilege of being with our troops in afghanistan just a couple weeks ago. they are first a reflection of their parents and a great reflection but they are well equipped, well motivated, doing everything we're asking of them. i commend you for that. as a first-time elected official i still own a business i had the privilege to start 20 years ago this month. i know over the course of that that time and probably today there are those serving with us in my company who are gay and lesbian. i have neve made any distinction. it was completely irrelevant to me what their sexual orientation

was. i think don't ask don't tell was a reasonable but imperfect policy, at the end of the day you don't go home with your co-workers. there's a profound difference. my military career is very limbed. i'm the first say that. but i it will you, you go to parris island at 1978 and still this way today i know because my son went through it and i went back in the barracks and the showers are just about the size of an american garage. you literally lose your right to privacy. you know that going in. i'd like to talk about this if this certification is a foregone conclusion. it seems like it. but if it's not, we can talk about that as well. but if you would, sir, i would appreciate, what guidance is given to like a platoon commander, platoon sergeant --

not just a widespread i can't work with a person who's a homosexual. i don't have toll rangs for that. but when you get down to close accommodations and those kinds of things where i think a reasonable person would say i can understand, that's a genuinely held view, we're going to work with you on that. it's my understanding, i'd like to be corrected, but it's my understanding we're not going to make accommodations for those views. could you clarify that for me? >> congressman, i'd be happy to. the marine corps billets two by two, so if we put two marines in a room, shared a head facility and two on the other side. we're the only service that does that. we do it for a specific reason, for unit cohesion, for the -- we are a young force, as you know, the youngest of all the

services. so we have 18-, 19-year-olds in there and we breed the buddy system and we breed that cohesive bonding. so we're two by two. as i said earlier, without kn knowing exact numbers, my suspicion is there are numbers of gays and lesbians currently on active duty in the marines and the numbers are small. there is no need to build a separate barracks. there is no intention to do that, i certainly don't have an intention to do that, nor can i afford it. but i have confidence, and here's the guidance i've given my generals and commanders, is that i expect the privacy and the rights of each marine to be honored with respect and dignity. i suspect there are going to be issues when marines are allowed

to come out in the open, to declare themselves as openly gay. i don't know how that's going to happen, but i suspect that when that happens, there will be some marines that will say i don't want to room with that marine. and that's why we had staff sergeants, platoon sergeants and first lieutenants and company commanders. and they're going to look them in the eye and they're going to resolve it at the lowest level. it's the standard marine corps leadership. i'm confident of that. >> and the rights of the person asking for the accommodation to be moved, those rights will be respected as well. is that correct? >> they will. each case will be unique. each case will be handled uniquely by that leader. each case will no doubt be different. but there will be a common thread that respecting the rights of both marines will be honored. >> the backdrop of this, though, at least for us, i think for all of us, is that we're not trying to change anybody's beliefs or

their belief system. but we do and will mandate a standard of conduct. >> thank you all for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you. mr. franks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i'm coming in here pretty late. i know you've probably covered a lot of areas that may be having some redundancy here. but first thank you for your service. i try to say every time when people, officers, other of leadership in our armed forces come forward, we know you've given profound sacrifice and time in your life for the cost of freedom. and those of us that talk about freedom are certainly very grateful for those of you that carry its burden. and appreciate you very much. when the debate was occurring on this issue, some of us were

trying to focus on what was the impact of military readiness and the effect of our capability to fight and win wars. and some of the leadership of the armed services had asked us for a time to be able to study this issue and to be able to come back before the vote occurred to give us some at least insight as to whether or not this was a good policy or not. i can start by asking general schwartz, if it's all right, i'll aim at you first, sir. did any efforts continue to go forward to ascertain the impact on military readiness of this policy? and if so, are there any ongoing erts like that or any data collection, any things that you're studying now as leadership of the military to ascertain what is the actual impact of this on our ready snns. >> congressman, we have routine measures and efforts under way to ascertain our unit readiness

and so on for employment, for whatever the case may be. that is continue, and we monitor that routinely. i would simply they is a we, all of us, are fundamentally concerned with our ability to execute and that none of us are inclined to endorse any approach that would somehow diminish that capability. >> general amos, do you have any thoughts there, sir? >> congressman, our training is intima intimate, it's personal, both at the platoon level, the company level, ta bahhal i don't know, squadron level. we watch it very carefully. it's very structured. we know what our readiness is, a, to give them time and preparation for deploying to combat -- most of our units are either in combat, have just come home and are resetting to go, so it's a personal matter. readiness and combat effectiveness is personal to our

marine leadership. and in that regard, we've not seen any drop. but, again, we are in the implementation stage right now. but my expectations are the truth of the matter is i don't think we're going to see a drop in it. >> at this time, if you had to point to any one area, i'll throw it out to the panel, just the most challenging area that you may have as a result of this policy. is there anything that stands out in your mind? >> congressman, i would say we're training a very large force. and quite frankly, the responses that we're getting, the tone of the questions, the nature of the questions are consistent with what we believe as we went forward. i think in the case of the navy, there are questions such as issues of accommodation.

but they are being answered by the training teams and we're just going to work our way through those types of questions. and the tone -- and i place a great deal of emphasis on the tone of the force -- remains very good as we go through this. >> last question. i know that the issue of the chaplaincy has already been broached at least once. let me ask anyone here that would suggest or would say -- be able to say that -- has there been any impact on the chaplaincies? has the there been any requirement vul of this policy placed on chaplains that would be considered a change of policy or have chaplains exhibited any sort of challenge with this policy in general? and isle start again, general sh wartsz, if you -- >> not in the air force, sir. >> and there's no indication that chaplains have been required to adapt to this policy

in any way. is that your testimony? >> the chaplains -- we haven't certified -- we've not implemented the policy yet, but the fundamental part of this is twofold. one is that they minister to airmen. and in those cases where they are performing the context of their faith and their denomination that they do that consistent with their faith, however that may unfold. but in a broader sense, they minister to all airmen. >> thank you, gentlemen, very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. and again, thank you for your patience. i apologize for the interruption. that's one of the things we have to do here is vote. i encourage you to take into

account all of the things you've heard here today on all the various sides of the issue as you go forward in preparing yourself to train the forces to see that they're trained and certify their readiness and the time that will be ready to implement this. thank you very much for your service. this committee stands adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

an amtrak ceo talked about his agency's budget at a house appropriations subcommittee hearing today. the government corporation continues to operate at a loss with a 2008 study showing that the average amtrak ticket received a $32 subsidy in 2012 amtrak is requesting $1.3 million for improvements to the heavily travelled northeast corridor. this is an hour and a half. kristoff, good morning. today's hearing looks at the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the national railroad passenger corporation or amtrak and we welcome amtrak's ceo and look forward to your testimony.

thank you for being here this morning. >> amtrak is the nation's only provider of intercity passenger rail service. it is a -- structure is a private company that virtually all shares are held by the united states department of transportation. and in the wrong committee room this morning apparently. as we all know amtrak runs a deficit each year with an estimated loss of $660 million in fiscal year 2012. which is $190 million more than fiscal year 2010's net operating loss. given the fiscal constraints that we are faced with, this might finally be the year to tackle how to reduce the operating losses at amtrak. the gao and amtrak inspector general reports have consistently indicated that amtrak needs to initiate major

reforms to improve service and operations. i think we all know that amtrak must address its long-distance routes and labor contracts if we want to reduce current operating costs. i think the can has been kicked down the road long enough. i hope today will be the start figuring out what steps are needed to be taken to reduce the size of losses. first in tracks the five largest revenue shortfalls stem from its long-distance routes. in fiscal year 2010 long distance routes lost close to $600 million. the worst performing routt had a 22% recovery rate. it's time to reevaluate our national strategy for long-distance routes and determine whether the routes are in the taxpayers' best interest. second, i was astonished to learn that the extent of amtrak's labor cost having over

1800 employees each make over $30,000 a year in overtime, not pay salary, but that's over time, simply is not a sustainable business model. i understand that you're currently negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. i hope you show strong leadership and come up with the agreement that is both fair to the amtrak employee and to the taxpayer. i look forward to your opening statement and opening productive discussion with you today as we continue through the process and again, thank you for your hard work and you're doing an excellent job in a very tough situation. but i'd like to recognize the ranking member, olver. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. boardman. pleasure to speak with you

today. first, let me commend the work that you and your organization have done to improve the financial help of amtrak. writers should records continue to be broken with now almost 29 million passenger trips in 2010 and the corporation has approximately half of of its debt burden over the last the years. despite the real record of progress, the critics of the railroad continued to argue for the defunding amtrak and making it the only non-subsidized mode of transportation in the u.s.. this what kill amtrak and damaged the american economy. it's my strong belief that the administration's 4.4 billion request for amtrak reflect an understanding that all users of all modes benefit from an interconnected network that increases transportation options. specifically highway users will

benefit from decreased congestion, transit users will receive access to improve intercity connections and airlines can focus on more efficient and probable long-distance routes just to play the contrast with what the chairman has said where you have people on profitable long-distance routes, they are the most probable once and probably the only ones that run a profit. mr. boardman, in spite of the critics and the threat, amtrak is entering an exciting period of opportunity. the secretary said the nation of the northeast corridor as a high-speed rail corridor allows amtrak to compete with high-speed and inner city passenger rail funding has addressed capital improvements the would greatly reduce travel times. furthermore, while the northeast corridor is already the premier passenger rail corridor, and

interested to hear more about the long-term vision for the corridor that you released last september and how the administration's robust fiscal year 12 rails quest makes the achievable. thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman, and mr. boardman, your statement will be entered into the record but if you want to summarize hopefully within five minutes. >> is coming to. just so you feel like you are at home i'm a graduate of cornell university college of the agriculture, so if you are in the wrong room, sometimes i think i am as well. [laughter] both mr. olver, chairman steve, members, i appreciate the opportunity to come here and i will be fairly short in my comments. as of this morning, we finished 17 straight months of the year-over-year ridership growth amtrak.

our ridership has grown more than 36% since the year 2000. the only restriction we are really running into is available capacity. last year we carried 28.7 million riders and that doesn't really tell the whole story because it's not just the ridership on amtrak. amtrak provides the opportunity for the commuter writers across the united states to handle without a million people a day so we are talking about 300 million commuter riders because of the amtrak's control of the northeast corridor and the services it provides. our 15 long-distance trains which carry about 4.5 million for the only amtrak service in 23 states and 2200 -- 2200 of the 515 stations we serve. 43% of passengers with disabilities who took amtrak during 2010 traveled on those 15 trains. amtrak plays an important role as a provider of the rural

transportation services and that is becoming clearer and clearer as an agricultural credit and somebody that came from a rural area of new york which people often don't understand has a rural area. what they become increasingly important as air services and bus services are contracted? the bus routes today serves about 12% of the fewer rural residents that they did in 2005, and about 152 amtrak stations serve the communities. many of which have no inner city bus services whatsoever. to sustain the system, our budget request is 222 million. excuse me, bill ligon. clich to the million. in 2012. divided into 616 million to support the operations and the only operations that are supported that amtrak are the rural services, not the northeast corridor, that is the operating side of the structure.

1.285 billion per capita programs, 271 million for the debt service with the exception of $50 million that we're looking forward to advance the northeast corridor gateway project and debt levels, and we already recognized, congressman olver, have been reduced from about 4 billion to less than $2 billion. we just published an update to the fleet plan which identifies some of the major equipment needs and we've placed orders for the new electric locomotives and 130 single level long-distance cars to replace the area fleet to get long distance cars is a new operation entirely within the united states by elmira new york right from the ground that they will be built in the u.s.. we use the recovery money that came for us in 2,091.3 billion to return the cars and did

diesel locomotives. 81 cars, 15 locomotives and 21 superliners. we also plan on growing a self-service capacity by adding 40 cars to the texas think 2010 trains and that we expect to begin in 2012. we will talk a little bit later about the vision for the real high-speed service i'm sure with questions to come later. we have made a lot of improvements and in fact, when you look at amtrak and depending on how you look at the numbers, for the operating service, we cover 85% of the cost, so for every dollar to spend for operating, for every dollar we spend, you contribute 15 cents to provide this service. and it's the most efficient railroad in the united states. there is no other railroad that you can find that operates that and expensively and efficiency.

i would appreciate in the opportunity of being here and i will stay within my time. .. i don't blame the employee, but i do believe in the statute times they need stronger management here somehow. batf of some of the other. $129,000 in overtime. how does this happen? >> is outrageous.

i think it happens for a couple reasons. one is that it's a long-term issue at amtrak for the overtime were talking about. this isn't a new situation. and it's hardly supervision, but more importantly, it's about how the work gets done. when you look at the list of employees, you'll find most all of them beaten -- engineering maintenance on the railroad and most of them -- all of them a believer in the northeast corridor. and most of the dollars i paid back tuesday to a large extent because of the work that has to be done on the railroad. nights and weekends are when the real overtime to pay. for example, in new york recently read a couple of ridges that new york wanted to get done. we told them we could do that right now because of all the work we were doing, especially in 2,092,010. because of the work we were doing, we did the work force to

protect the railroad and the state get the job done, to give bridges down across the river. so it was almost in some cases more than a regular overtime situation that occurred that happens on the road with a frequent basis. it's a difficult thing to manage, panisse be managed better and we understand that. >> or any of this going to be addressed in the collective bargaining agreement? >> i bargaining agreement is not done. we have 13 different bargaining agreement with 23 different unions at amtrak that we have to work with. this one is not done with a large party days, so some of it can be addressed. >> as management, who assigns the shifts? this management or do the employees themselves did for the shift click >> it's a combination. when there is the extra work, they have to be assigned on a

prescription basis, usually on the next report. >> on a regular basis, management doesn't assigned shifts. >> management repair station assignment. the employee works there, but that also works a second shift and often cases is that the amount of work available. but it is not a consistent level of work and that ain't easy situation of going out and getting it from laborers to people understand railroad rules and be safe. so it is not easy to take our work force up down, which happens in a lot of other industries. so you can reduce the overtime. >> explain how it works. you've got a shift on monday from 8:00 to 4:00. someone assigns that appeared in the nice one from a midnight coming on sunday may and from midnight to 8:00 in the morning.

are those the way seniority click >> i believe so. >> and if a person who is working with normally sign up for the 8:00 to 4:00, but been to midnight today, they get paid overtime click >> that's a shift differential. >> do they work in the next eight hours shift? >> if we need them and they're available, yes. >> is my understanding they don't miss a requirement you can't work two shifts they fit together. and so what happens is while they're getting paid overtime from midnight to 8:00 in the morning, the next if they were assigned to someone else has to come with that and they get paid overtime. >> with that sharpshooters the coming. sharpshooters being the people of figure what the loopholes are in the rules unwind at getting paid more money. but you can call people into

work, just on an overtime basis, not just because they've had one shift at work they can come in afterwards. it is part of the negotiations going on with the labor agreement to understand there are some loopholes out there? >> that much overtime -- i understand. part of the problem, mr. chairman, is we can't take our railroad except on nights and weekends to get some of the den. we just can't do it. so they work all week and work on weekends as well. and with some people willing to work on a continual basis. but the sharpshooters are a problem and that's the outrageous part of it. >> my time in six days. mr. olver. [inaudible] >> i was startled by your piece

where you said that 43% of the passengers are reading directly here with disabilities who took in amtrak train in 2010 traveled on one of those 15 train in the long-distance route. the 15 train fare -- they are 15 trains. >> the fifth and long-distance trains across the country. >> what is that quote for ruth? for long-distance route click >> no, they are 15. >> 15 minutes we operate. >> each one of those 15 -- would you call a long-distance route? i think of the ones that go across the great west from chicago to the west coast or somewhere south of the west coast. what are the other ones you call long distance? >> new york to miami.

new york to tampa. new york to chicago. anything that is over 750 masses can enter longest days. on that score, there were 15 trains, which are those. how many total trains do you claim? >> 310 trains a day operate. >> but those 15 trains are actually -- those must come to 310 trains a day. >> 310 trains operate, but when you've got is your mixing -- by mixing two things. a long-distance train has one or two going one way and one or two coming the other way and some of the very long -- >> on the same day. >> you have 100 west and one had a piece. >> i'm going to get myself terribly confused as to whether or not we are talking about trains for number of trips.

but in any case, the number of the those 15 trains out of your 310, if those are counted in the molar basis, apples to a poster to speak that the group of 15 would be carrying 43% of all the disability personnel. >> now, the reason that puzzles me is i think we have concluded that from testimony last year, i think there were only 48 of your stations were ada compliant. and now i understand at this point that we're up to 100 that are compliant. but this is all out of about 500 stations, is there? >> a little over 500. >> we have a very small portion of the stations that are actually compliant.

why is that group of 15 trains carrying such a large proportion of the disability population when my guess is that a huge number of the stations, along those routes of those trains are non-ada compliant? >> even if the station is not ada compliant, we still can carry a disabled passenger from the station. >> why then are so many disabled passengers and that service? >> i don't know if i had the real answer to that, there. >> if they do have plain service -- disabled people to fly on planes and disabled people do ride on buses. what is the reason? this is startlingly essentially, the portion of disability that's involved in this. >> i don't think it to determine answer, but i can ask his staff to put together why this is occurring.

my only answer is that people do find it more convenient to write a train than they do to write a plane. >> okay, we are already on yellow. i'll pick up in the next round. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, glad to be here. i took the amtrak from austin, texas to washington d.c. it was an interesting variants. >> interesting doesn't necessarily mean good. >> for me it was, but i grew up with a grandfather who was an engineer and a passenger plane. but they would not be fly. >> you're one of the disabled victims. >> i think for the disabled

situation that has been that a lot of people who told me they were retired and rode the train almost continuously. you have some special rate for retirement people and they were all over the country. that may be part of it. >> well, that's a good answer. i'm hoping to find out what portion of the population is using the amtrak wouldn't have any other place to go. >> that's my time. i have to ask him questions about why amtrak costs a much money. up here in the east coast, which is the mecca of amtrak, checking last night on conveyors, a one-way ticket from washington d.c. in the northeast regional runs and $76 to $109 coach. $114 before dollars in first class. a one-way ticket will sell out today from washington d.c. to new york city with it much as

$232 for coach in 337 for first class. by comparison, the boat bus, a commercial service not subsidized by the government with leather seats and wireless internet cost between $1.23. a one-way flight to new york city was $170. now with the heavy subsidies at the federal government puts into the trains, where train fares more than a tourist bus fares is easy to figure out. >> the federal government does not subsidized on the northeast corridor. we cover all of our costs for operating on the northeast corridor above the rail. and when you compare the most -- i think it's an important question and i think the balance often times in the context of the ballot is tossed with the united states to permit transportation of 60,000 employees. 50,000 mark for the airlines together pay about 57 or 58% of

the cost of the faa. the faa provided the air traffic control system. nobody provides that for the railroads except the railroads themselves the amtrak with the free railroads. i was in the best business and i understand a little bit about it. they pay tolls on the way to new york, but they don't pay for the infrastructure and repair the infrastructure along the way. the federal highway administration and the highway industry get about $51 billion a year to maintain the interstate are out there today. and while there is a certain level of assistant that it provides, it is nowhere near what amtrak has to provide an railroads have to provide for their capital. and that's where the assistance for the federal government comes in for the northeast corridor of what you're talking about.

it's the investment necessary to keep the corridor safe in the infrastructure safe. in regard to the fares can we charge the maximum we can't in order to reduce the amount of tax that has to be provided to amtrak. >> i'm trying to shut it up. so, i understand that, but the rings is back to what we are talking with reload about one of the world hates the trains. and i take the position of high speed train for 200 miles an hour or better. i understand that's not the definition of american history train. >> i understand the point. >> i just got back from ending my -- one of my staff members on a honeymoon to europe in a wrote high-speed trains in real

high-speed trains. the one they call high-speed trains are not high-speed. the ones that are high-speed run 200 miles an hour. but if the fares on regular trains are hard to justify the market at some level, the upper-level, then put them in a real high-speed train in the united states is going to require a whole new at the structure. and i am told at least a million dollars a mile to put in a super train. i'm told that the people who build those things. at least minimum of a million dollars a mile and it's going to take all kinds of maintenance. the same thing you're talking about. how will this ever become cost effective so the average american it is and can get on my be trained and utilizes the capacity and compete with an

airplane? i think you have a cost effective if you have ridership. in the northeast corridor you've got 40 million people within 40 miles and there's probably the most likely success in the mid-state. >> bester accepted this topic not high-speed. so you're going up to go from washington me to north. >> i understand. and that can be done, but people in philadelphia while i get. >> and then. i understand. the cost is going to be really, really a lot. >> yes, sir. >> the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette. good morning. >> how are you, sir clicks just to put things in perspective for some of my friends at amtrak, if you look at the way the nation is subsidized, all modes of transportation, we start in about 1971, last 37 years. the federal government puerto

rico and dollars into highways and about $421 into the federal aviation system. in comparatively is 36 billion for amtrak, but a billion dollars a year is 37 years. and i don't think that's too much. relatively fair, i have to tell you that we would criticize that they didn't charge enough and were asking for higher subsidy to have the proof in the pudding and ridership has increased 36% since the year 2000. i think they've been given a mandate. they are given a tough job when railroads in this country didn't want to be in the passenger business anymore and dumped a bunch of equipment and road infrastructure in the new company and have there been mistakes quite sure. other than things he would have done? sure. but i have great faith and i did

when he was the authority chairman and i do. let me ask you just a couple of things. one is about defra's proposal in this national infrastructure to create this new sort of funding entity. they are going to have the new national rail system and there's going to be a new dedicated rail in town and at the moment their proposal is that amtrak would be the only recipient. my concern is that's the way the national highway presse start and now they can talk to chairman latham, the six versions from the trust fund. it makes me nervous we would embark on rather than doing things whatever the federal contribution is to amtrak, rather than continuing the way we've been operating to create

this new fund, that are the only recipient today, but tomorrow maybe 20 people. >> i think, congressman, that everybody in this industry and amtrak passenger rail supports the increased support that is proposed and strongly support by the administration. there is always trepidation in a? and i want to go back to something that the chairman talked about as a member of labor unions, which are particularly interested in what happens here for the future because of the employment question. and so, they are looking at this very carefully. i have asked my staff who came back and gave me a times up positive that this was a positive thing that the administration was purposing because we had an obligation to really think about that. but i think you do bring up the

question and congress can do anything they want to to change something for the future, but i do know that we have to rebalance for the benefit of the united states and people of the united states, the most of transportation were using for the future and energy security as well. >> of course we do. and i don't remember which trait railway was commercial, but the one gallon of diesel fuel you can take a ton of stuff from washington to new york city or baltimore. but it's in stark contrast to feel you burn with an airplane in stark contrast to the fuel you are burning in a truck and forget about the congestion and everything else. i just threw that out is sort of a caution flag. it makes me nervous when we set up these organizations. wait a little dustup when

mr. ober of $200 billion a year. all for the close of the program they wanted to take out of highway investment. there's an example that they will come up with the peace train and who's going to argue against the peace train? on the sons of peace train cuts into now eligible to take money out of the sun being established. so i'm just worried about that. that's all i want to say about it. peel back. >> i think the gentleman in order of arrival here, mr. womack. >> thank you for your testimony. one of the people and i don't know how many on this committee have not the man tried. i've never written amtrak. seen it a lot. not too convenient for me because of where you live and where is in. the texas eagle runs through arkansas, doesn't come up for my particular district, but it serves many other important parts of our state, including capital city of little rock.

in 2010 companies spend 53 million online, lost 29 comes to 21 million is what you need are the federal government basically subsidized the rest. cost recovery ratio less than 50%. given the fact that the line. given the fact that the line. given the fact that the line but those aren't our that the line but those aren't our most populous cities in those trips with he made sometime in the wee hours of the morning. his amtrak really feasible? fabulist repast or state, but is it feasible in states like arkansas but every rural dirt and how much of an investment would be required before it could be more useful to shall we say the more dense depopulation in our rural state? >> i think it's an excellent question and i appreciate it and i understand as a freshman and

where you live in arkansas county probably be much more interesting interstate 49 then you would be the real service. on the texas eagle service -- dan flowers may be endorsed up and asked act as a commissioner transportation. but there's 287,000 writers on the texas eagle. i don't know exactly what that of arkansas at this point in time, the last year we had a great effort on the part of hobart perkins had to get additional stop at the location and on into texas. revenue was 24 million, the total cost was 53. part of the difficulty in all the long distance trains and goes for all that is the business model doesn't really work because of the amount of time it takes in the availability of capacity on the train for us to really get a kind of -- and were not cheap,

just as judge carter was talking about. we are not a cheap operation. recharges much as we can and still try to provide a service that is cost-effective. it's very difficult to do, but there are people in arkansas who believe it is a fact even areas that operates in today. it also provides an ability afforded a service that was coming out of northwest arkansas to connect to little rock or to connect to one of the other stations to have connectivity across the nation. that's probably the most important part of the national inner-city connected services about his connectivity against the united state. >> back to the last part of my question, do you see a point in time out there worth of these rural areas there is number that

could be recaptured and make that service more useful without some other kind of connecting mechanism like a bus service safe from northwest arkansas? >> the operative question is useful and so not to be argumentative at all, but i think it useful now. the real question is, are you going to be able to make money on the route? i'm going to say no. for the most part, the best one we have is auto train which covers 24% of the cost. whether you are in a bus system today are any passenger service, unless there is some subsidy comments become like a dfa with 50,000 employees out of the u.s. dat and doing all the air traffic control, it's debatable sometimes whether the tsa checkers of the folks all paid for by the government here at

different levels of subsidy to secure transportation across the country that we provide is a policy question in the united states. so i don't see it as being able to operate. >> let the record reflect he said i 49 before i did. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. diaz-balart >> thank you, mr. chairman. how are you, sir? good to see you. you talk about how amtrak was a very efficient -- is that which he said? cost efficient. >> speak to me about freight rail. we know when you mentioned in our colleague mentioned how much we subsidize other forms of transportation. but how about freight rail? i think they pay for the infrastructure. they pay for their lines.

it's my understanding -- i may be wrong. that's fine asking the question. we subsidize them as file or not? we do, but not very much. let me explain what that is that when we do a highway crossing jobs usually paid for by the highway side of the house and not the railroad. there've been several times -- several investment in the last couple of years pulped freight railroad. >> would also regulate and cost them additional cost is low. >> it's also to say that it affects you. but my question is this. isn't isn't that the words -- and i notice comparing not even apples and oranges. it may be up as entries, but if they are not heavily subsidizing, yet they are able to provide an actual profit. and so the question i think needs to be honest, as you are

subsidized. yet, you know come you don't provide profit. this will have to subsidize up any losses. and you know, why the difference? in other words, the nikkei profit and compete with each other. they invest in infrastructure much more than subsidies. so why is it that an track can do that? why is it that the private sector does it with fruit, with hot passenger. >> that's a good question. the freight growth have not always been profitable. the act really hope to become a profitable when they were to spin off unprofitable routes. it helped them substantially in 1971 when they turn to for passenger services, so they've been able to get rid of things that had to be subsidized by

somebody. in the past there is subsidized by revenue to freight operator from. freight railroads today tinker key providers of the movement of our economy. 40% -- maybe a little bit different, but 40% of the freight the curious cool. cold today handles -- is responsible for about 50% of electric energy at about 20% natural gas, 20% nuclear in the red tide grown so forth. but that is a key element to what the freebooters provide as a base level of service. >> they have kind of a solvent market which is cool. so, there must be part of that lose money. >> i apologize. back to strictly interpret.

and you look at -- my understanding think i know the answer, but you look at getting rid of those, closing the stomach to make a profit? if so, why don't you give rid of those that don't make a profit? >> i think there was a large part of time spent in the late 90s and now the way up to perhaps 2002 and beyond, maybe 2005, trained to make that change. trying to figure out how a long-distance trains could we cut. we save money? visits quite frankly ourselves because we know our country is in trouble. we looked inside, poor going to reduce service, where would we do that then would we save money by going to three days a week? we have two over 15 long-distance trains or three days a week and they are the two worst performers. when you look at the bottom of the rung. what we found is that lose my

money because people can depend on it. it wasn't every day. >> but if you close them down. >> if you close them all together, next year's cost would be the first year to close down the 15 wasabi $1.1 billion. and that's because of the requirements that we have right from the beginning of this railroad to pay out labor pay and also we'd have to spread out across as part of the shutdown. so if you ever billion dollars next year. the layout over a five-year period. you don't probably in excess of order $5 billion to shut them down and he no longer have any service for the rural states of the made dates. >> said mr. chairman, i understand you would have an initial close down the shutdown cost. eventually he wouldn't have to subsidize. you wouldn't have to maintain

all of the cost that involves. eventually would start saving money. and would not be substantial -- in other words, look. imposing this is the question. in the private sector with the business is big money. every lesson of town. he shut those down and focus on what makes you money. and i'm not quite sure if were looking at that compass as possible, feasible. and if not, i like to know later on why not and will continue the conversation. thank you, mr. chairman. even very generous. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the opportunity. a couple things about the high-speed rail. i know florida will not utilize the money. they keep your amtrak wants to have some of the florida money and use it for the northeast corridor to expand high-speed rail specifically between philadelphia and new york.

i think you're talking about $450 million for tracking signal upgrades. is that a fair assessment? >> i pulled the application with me. the northeast corridor gateway project, we were looking for a fee, 18850, 571-0449. so well over a billion. we don't know that we can all but. >> hired 450 million. >> i don't know exactly where that came from. >> is the "philadelphia inquirer." >> it is 449.9. >> i guess the question i have is right now is right now is right now is right now.

is that 135 miles an hour right now? >> on the south end, yes. >> w. at the high-speed rail, how fast you think you get that rail? >> the project took about here is power singletrack improvements, which are required to get us to about 135. probably one of the most serious problems for the electorate trained as for power available to run them. it has to be improved to get to 160. so the current generation is capable of the 150. >> it really goes at that speed. >> just on the north end for 20 or 30 miles south of available for the track and the physical characteristics. we can operate a higher speed train, but we have to make the structure improvements -- >> what would be the maximum

speed you think you could get on the northeast corridor. >> 220 miles an hour. >> a question about the real service can assist parochial concern. we've done studies about expanding new york city and the valley region through new jersey transit and we've done if we extended lines writers would cover 22 cents on the dollar. i understand many of these types of systems will operate at a deficit. as a rule of thumb in the northeast, what would you expect a cost recovery from writers to be if you want to expand rail service? >> if you talk about a real service -- if you're talking about a commuter service, i think they are covering metro-north is probably the most efficient in covering cost of

mailing a 50, 60% category. that's because you had a real culture built into this. so much of rail and bus and transit is dependent upon external circumstances. when you see $4 gasoline coming of a much higher recovery of transit than you would if you didn't have $4. if you had $4 gasoline come you do a lot better than that. that's part of the difficulty of making a happen. >> okay, how would you react to 22 cents on the dollar? >> for what period of time. i don't know the study. >> all get back to imap. i can't play the time. >> were trying to make decisions between bus and rail. >> i think the gentleman. a couple things that kind of caught my attention. when you talk -- when

mr. transfixed about discontinuing several days to come you said it would cost five or $6 billion. am i correct -- i hear you right you would have to pay the employees for five or six years, even though they were working? >> yes. >> so that would be huge prior. the annapolis in 1971 as part of the original effort. there was an expectation that amtrak might not continue and so in order to get qualified employees, the congress at the time passed a law called the ctu, which was the dockworker decision in new york city that paid employees come and depending on how long they served for up to five years of wages before you could end. by the congress pulled a

particular cause out in 1897 when they made changes in required amtrak to negotiate and it changed a little bit, but not a lot in terms of what employees would be paid if you handed the service. >> look into your project, i was actually pleased to see your estimate -- $192 million in operating revenue for fiscal year 2010. and you testified about having 17 straight month of year-over-year ridership growth, which makes it surprising to see that you are estimating an even larger net operating loss. if you have increase revenues and increase writers, should net increase profits? sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you. >> i think its initial business. >> it's a great question because

what we're really applying for is the maximum authorized by those who were asking for. if you look at -- what have we done with the money i think is evident in the finances itself. for example, we have reduced the debt the company from 4 billion to less than $2 billion. we're not using the money feverishly somewhere else. what do i really seen his last year i think we're in the neighborhood of 434 million that it costs to operate the long-distance trains and that was down over the year before. and those dollars were used to reduce our costs for the future and that's part of what we're doing is making sure we make the investments to reduce the cost. so what we're really asking for here is the maximum appraisal to make treatments for amtrak. as for the $616 million comes from, mr. chairman. >> sera come you are saying

that -- i guess i still don't understand. your budget said to have a larger operating loss. >> we have a request for the maximum authorization of money in our operating loss is the operating part of the budget is 616. that doesn't wind up as their operating loss in the end. it is whatever we have actually lost on most long-distance trains. and many still have those dollars, which we used to make sure that we continue to reduce costs. >> but you also have another request for capital account, right? >> yes, that's correct. it is interesting. i noted when there was discussion about the bus that they pay tolls, but don't pay for infrastructure always burning fuel are paying taxes

into the trust fund. you have an operating loss primarily caused by the longer route. but that doesn't imply any of the profits on the northeast corridor don't go towards infrastructure countable accounts committee they? >> we do. as a matter of fact, whether purchased of defendant electric locomotives, were using revenues as the base for its structure. so we are using the surplus we have available. >> okay, but when you talk about new approaches or overpasses for that type of tunnels, maintenance, you're not talking about using operating funds? >> now, those are capital. >> i think it's clear where it should be. people should be aware there is a capital account in your

operating as justifying her pain for a lot of other better as profitable as the northeast. >> but if i could just respond, we are operating right now on a continuing resolution at the fy 10 levels. for easily aware of that. but we also did not start using the dollars we expected for fy 11 because we thought that was irresponsible. we have been maintaining a standard level that would keep us within the fy 10 novel. >> i think the gentleman. mr. olver >> thank you, mr. chairman. the more i hear questions asked and answers, the less i know about how amtrak runs or camera or should run. in fact, now the last thing we

need to talking about a shutdown here in the next few days. what happens in your case in a shutdown procedure? i'm interested -- can you give us a sense of which are planned this? you must have a plan. but that like a light switch being turned off or does that go wind over several days? ojibway futures suggest most of the 2010 money -- much of the 2011 money provided for in the previous crs has not been used in naïve guy money that would be to keep you going for some period of time. >> we don't keep a zero balance on a regular basis because of potential problems that we are dealing with. we always provide and how provided what our financial condition is that anyone time.

we are keeping a close eye and what happens with potential shutdown. we see ourselves being able to operate for an additional month prior to us because some reserves have been held and carried forward from other years or you haven't used everything you allowed. >> it is not reserves that we haven't spent all the money that's in the accounts we have available. and that's really where we are. >> we received money every day. >> we receive revenue every day. as i said earlier, we get 85% of our operating money from the operations of cells. about 75% out of the fare box and the rest of lisa suitably set 30th street station or penn station or other places. >> so those monies -- does that

mean you could say with a computer and decide which trains to cut out and keep going for two months or three months? >> now, i do think it's quite that simple. they would be a lot of major changes that have been. >> wouldn't be the one using the computer? >> i would not. >> okay, so you think you could keep running for a month and maybe somewhat longer on the basis of revenues coming in. >> so i asked my fans can the same question if we could rant for another longer, his answer was to foment. he's pretty definite. >> at which point does all come to a stop at once? or is there some -- does the northeast corridor go because it's an operating wash nearly? >> at another month to month to plan yet. >> already. >> a few shutdown, will start

cleaning. >> it's complicated. look, i don't know how this is going to go on. i was told there might be votes going on sometime soon and i don't thought processes are not. >> anytime commissary. >> i wanted to learn something about the fleet plan. across the fleet, this is a variety of sources equipment, but average age of 26 years or something like that. i don't know how you do an average age because of the equipment you use is so very different. it's from a single car and biloba cars and electric motor producing diesel locomotives and everything else along the way. what portion of this -- where we have not planned? are you on a plan we've achieved

the first two years or something? how much of this has been done? how much of it is really maintenance and rehabilitation of equipment? how much of it has to be really new equipment? how do you keep track of that? >> this is a horrendous straw. >> i said it recently that it isn't great because there was criticism of our fleet plan. because up until february 2010, there was no fleet plan. in a removing it or with? we just updated them we are in fact moving. >> did you learn the lesson for the week the government operates? is clearly going to be criticized. >> you have to offer and get criticized because you have to get the job done. so we have a five-year business plan, he fleet plan. we've offered up a lot of plans and were willing to talk about those plans.

we are moving forward on the replacement for right now only 70 electric locomotives in the 130 long-distance single level cars. they are the oldest. they are -- the conventional electrics are very old. very high mileage. some of them back in the 80s. it was more for electric locomotives of the mileage, which we really ran into problems with and the technology for the future. >> ultimately there comes a point where rehabilitating and maintaining. if you don't maintain, he must be planning to make its money year-by-year. >> 250 million year to overhaul and maintain the fleet. that's what it cost us. that's to keep us going.

it is very manufacturing base in this country for the replacements? which piece of this equipment is most likely to be replaced as opposed to date due? >> decision was the electric locomotives had to be replaced. the decision was that her 60-year-old baggage cars and diners needed to be replaced. we have and are still debating to some extent super liners, whether they need to be replaced or whether they continue to be overhauled. the >> to be at the manufacturing base to do with? tranter produces some places >> camp u.s.a. has been awarded the contract for the 130 single level cars and no myra and that is the beginning of a new manufacturing base for single levels.

>> the gentleman times circulate anyway. thank you. mr. latourette. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you know, i was the chairman of the railroads subcommittee and so just indulge me for a couple minutes, just to spell some of the observations were made. the notion that the freight railroads really need to be strengthened in this country. but the notion that the recipients and the team that operated my part of the world, north slope, southern of both received grants in the name of hundreds of millions of dollars. to make it some more folks out there to develop the goes directly to north slope to the seaport. there are a lot of tunnels built back in the 20s and 30s that don't have capacity to take the double stacked containers, which are not a suspect to us it could

be. the csx line goes into baltimore. again that's hundreds of millions of dollars in the last year. you correctly point out section 130, the highway bill has dealt with crossings that are more for the benefit of the motor of the nar for the ray road. something i could never get you to use, the rift program is a $35 billion chief money loan guarantee for infrastructure improvements for the railroad system of this country and that create program at chicago's a couple billion dollars. moving freight or city of chicago. so again, goodbye to the fact whether you like it or not, amtrak has been on the receiving end of $36 billion since 1971. i would still say that those in comparison to all the modes of transportation, including the

free system. now, getting to -- is to take care of asia and europe as well, i had the chance to write country ride every train that was fast in the world because of my previous posting. when we meet with transportation officials, i would always ask him existing paint for itself? no. but in france, if the ticket is 100 bucks, how much of my trip and i actually pain? 30%. >> the french government subsidizes 30% of the rail system because they've made a societal choice ever troops of 400 miles or less, not the newer people to move good night you can save gas, fuel, efficiency. you can say whatever you want, but the choice the country is made. for long-distance routes that lose money to my good friend mario's question, the choice is pretty start.

first of all, you correctly point out use $5 billion over the first five years because of the structure of the agreements. what you get past that, you can save money on the 15 long-distance routes that they cease to exist. but he wouldn't have any writing on a train. so if that's what the country wants to go at a price of a billion dollars a year, okay, people with the most votes should be a will to impose them. all bubble never get my support because i tell you the passenger really needs to exist in this country. it's never going to pay for itself. that is a fiction that doesn't pay for it sold anywhere in the world. and you know, if we nickeled a, where he thought for many than a billion dollars figure in a lot of stuff around here that is in effect is. so anyway, that's my soapbox. let me ask you about h.r. one.

and you are aware -- i know you know you're not getting $2.2 billion out of this congress this year or next year. so the questions are the administration's decision on the northeast border gateway but now it's amtrak participate in putting the $1.3 billion. if you're able to access funds for operational side end of this congress were to give you flexibility. whatever the number is. come to chew at the flexibility to move between capital and operating. what do you think? how much money? >> it is an important question, steve and i appreciate and i appreciate we are coming from you. we asked where for example the 50 million for the gateway

project in both the budgets can now also in the application. so one of the things i asked us to start looking at here because i understand where our country is. we look down at, what could we do from a capital strong point? what do we really need quiet winning for safety, 350 million bucks on the northeast corridor. we need 250 million bucks for mechanical overhauls. if were going to continue with ada, we need 175 million bucks if we're going to make a continued commitment as we have. winning 63 million to continue the 130 cars for the acquisition

of the 130 cars. we think we need to continue our reservation system at 19 million. we have a labor management system that we're putting together to get better data. we need about 12 lane for that. this is all capital. our 30th street garage has to get fixed. we've got cement falling off of it. we need 17 million bucks to make that have been. we need 12 million for chicago union station. can i finish the list, sir? that puts us at a bare bones, just about $900 million. >> on the capital side. >> on the capital side. on the operating side, where we really need to be his $544 million. if that is what happens, we will not be able to progress in a lot

of the other improvements that have been detailed in the budget to make future improvements. >> i think the chair for your patience. >> ms. kaptur. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for not being here earlier for your testimony, mr. boardman. i come from a part of country vilas river is fair but want to wait the last saturday of april 2 are trading day in toledo. when you look at the world as we look towards mr. latourette in the east heading to new york city and washington. we look to chicago and also ontario and canada. my questions will relate to our abilities to modernize our passenger, as well as freight rail system, which congested are part of the country. and the ability to offer good passenger services constricted by the confluence of the freight

and passenger on the same system. so one of my questions really has to do in this pittsburgh cleveland toledo, chicago corridor, what, to your knowledge are planned to talk with the freight lines as with separating us and move towards a modern transportation for america. my focus is on the midwest. he mentioned new york in your testimony, but are part of the country come as far as i can tell isn't physically mentioned, so i could be a bit of an advocate here. as much as we support you for the country necessity for having modern transportation in passenger and freight, the issue has been efficient in passenger is constricted by what is happening with the freight using the lines at the same time. makes for bad hours. you're supposed to catch the

amtrak train at 3:30 in the morning. that's not much fun. so it's not as usually friendly as it could be from the part of america i live in. that is question one, in terms of midwestern plains, headed to chicago, headed east out of that ohio corridor. how can we conceive of the corridor plan that would separate those? are those plans on the drawing table? ..

[laughter] >> we have been doing a lot of difference to these that have been required under the lobby, and one of them has and include it to leo but when you look at where toledo is and where the ohio piece is a mayor or some -- the corridor which was considered and the laws or state initiatives which is what

pre-looked for was the state initiatives to make those things happen. but there's a connection of weight to the michigan service of course that operates all the way to detroit some of those kind things we've had discussions i don't think anything has moved forward get looking how that might happen at least in a serious way with the cost would be and those kind of questions whether more in a special way of what does it take to get some changes in the kind of structure that we are looking for a long foothold were greatly area. >> as a city planner in treating myself an interest in the corridors, the kind of activity that you're saying the sort of on hold right now. >> there may be something the planners are doing and i didn't prepare myself in that area and i apologize. >> and contains a comedian question also because we've got

some canadian northern coming down into our area for example and the future is going to be our relationship to canada. the simply aren't on the other side of the weeks we have to think about that. i'm terry is on the passenger side how that connects her. >> this doesn't connect your end of the state does it? >> [inaudible] >> you need to be careful or you might find that there's a train that goes from detroit to london and hamilton and buffalo and completely bypasses the whole north side of lake erie. >> thanks for that help. [laughter] >> that's what i'm concerned about. >> they would both be there. >> we seemed to have gone from

ducks to canada. not sure where i lost control here, but anyway. [laughter] >> mr. olver mentioned earlier about the art ada compliance in the budget request and the office of some of the capitol needs of 175 million for those projects and stations for compliance. do you on those stations? >> in most cases we do not. it's a complex ownership structure where we have to meet the requirements even so. >> why do you have to pay for it and the owners don't? >> because i don't have the -- i will get a legal answer for you that our legal office will put out. we were required under the ada lobby to make sure all stations were compliant with ada. >> they also have to comply with

ada. soquel, they do come to some extent i guess they do. >> i will get you an answer, a written answer. >> i think most of the stations -- spec let me ask that question, do we know that? we will look for it and get it back to you. >> you stated in your requesting a $50 million in funding to begin, northeast corridor vision for development of high-speed rail. a couple questions about that is in the estimate for the next jim trail about $117 billion. >> this is the northeast corridor gateway project. >> 50 million to start,

117 billion-dollar project. >> what we're running out and penn station new york congressman, is capacity. there is insufficient capacity to increase the demand that's occurring on the quarter. we are going to be locked up and unable to really move the trains through penn station or increase the number of trains and penn station. the northeast corridor gateway project is really about the portal bridge, the tunnels, and the capacity in the penn station south. >> how much is that? how much as the gateway? >> we don't know yet, the total number. we would have to get the financial. that's part of the reason for the 50 million to move it forward. there has been instead of the total cost used from some of the park projects. i don't have it in my head. >> what's the 50 million going to be used for? >> moving forward on the engineering and any

environmental requirements. >> we get into a lot of different projects around here, but are we getting ahead of ourselves? we don't know the cost is going to beat. >> you never know on the construction cost until you get -- >> we have the overall large estimates but we don't have with your cui to cost -- >> i don't remember right this minute. >> as someone who has to be responsible to the taxpayers to have the $50 million for an open-ended we don't know it's going to cost but we are going to go forward the first payment on this huge project we don't know what -- >> we know what the pieces of it, the port elbridge and the billion dollar range of categories are going to be

probably in a total cost of 12 billion in the end -- eight to ten so it will be 12. >> the whole gateway. >> for the northeast -- for the gateway project is eight to $10 billion. i can give you the -- i mean, chairman, we had those numbers. it's my failures and memory i don't have is that guy that can hand me that that can get that. >> in your budget you're saying the project will cost 13.5 billion through 2018 with 50 million of that in engineering works and you just said eight to ten -- >> i said 12th. >> to my memory -- >> is there a billion someplace? we are talking money here.

>> i have to look at the list, but we aren't trying to hide anything. my time is expired. mr. olver. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is sort of going to be amount of quickies because i can be articulate the questions in a quick way. when you get back to the labor issues you've been talking about, the five or six your problem that occurred was created in legislation in 1971. all of the employees who were there at that time certainly have been now retired, long since retired but this is a continuous -- this wasn't a grandfathering kind of thing -- that's really quite remarkable. well, maybe it isn't remarkable the way these agreements that

created. i should never be surprised at what shows up in agreements that are created. >> the same thing existed for the system for example bickel eddy 13c. if you begin to shut down a system you have the same requirements to pay employees depending on how long they've served for the time that their salaries -- >> let me ask you then do you -- do you own the stations on the track where you own the tracks? >> yes. >> you do, so that would mean that you do own philadelphia to harrisburg, some of them from the transit -- some of them owned by the transit systems. >> do you run a -- do you manage

and run the trains and have its own operator. >> we despatched everything on the court or for the most part. >> but you're not providing -- are you providing a full-service for the commuter rail out the stations. they can't go on the tracks unless we dispatch -- >> you do the dispatching. i was always curious having the dispatching done by the different ones who are operating the tracks and so forth. we've got situations every imaginable situation. >> we operate the tracks and dispatch them, their amtrak tracks it's not it's just their training employees. >> you then run the program to harrisburg. >> that's an amtrak employee.

>> , the commuter rail system go to places like westchester or winchester? >> i don't know the limits of where they operate to but the do us part of the track. >> but they are the operators >> we are the dispatcher, the main tanner, the owner to the track. >> in the beach right situation which is another conundrum, yonah tracking michigan disconnected your own track and michigan how are you proceeding? what progress is being made on you have an aura grant in michigan. has that been obligated? >> i think it is michigan that has the grants themselves. >> okay, but it's for work on

your own. >> it's really the part that norfolk southern owns, and our own attract we are improving positive train control and improving the speed of the trains to try to get to 110,000. >> and that is the route that we connected toledo and on through the south shore of lake erie. >> it couldn't connect to toledo if you come down. it's quite a ways north. estimate it goes into detroit but that then -- isn't that the way to both? no, it wouldn't be. >> the route from new york to chicago doesn't go through detroit. estimate is that pass through toledo? that one goes through toledo and then fort wayne and other places. >> yes. >> okay. i'm on the yellow. [laughter]

>> we actually have salamander crosses under the regular -- >> under the highways and under the railroad tracks. >> thank you for sharing that. [laughter] >> i don't have any further questions. i do appreciate it is the money. i want to make a comment, and i'm a freshman. i recognize that and i am new to this business, but my comment is i think it is a shame that when economic conditions and circumstances might make dictate business decisions be made regarding an enterprise like this and we have in place agreements that every certain benefits are paid for a series of years on the day like today when we are debating shutting down our government that no such agreement exists to pay the people who are defending the freedoms that we enjoy. i find that to be incredible.

>> and i will you back my time. >> thank the gentleman. mr. latourette? >> everyone is not aware we have votes on the floor and will try to conclude this hearing before the votes are over. mr. latourette. >> i want to be brief and hear more about ms. kaptur wants to see about toledo. >> i would like the record to reflect if you go to the transportation energy they the book, that amtrak passengers with 20% less energy than the airlines and 30% less energy and the greenhouse gas to perk up and this is a good use of a billion dollars a year to get this done.

we get sick of three lahood in front of us and one of the problems with these high speed being 110 miles an hour of the moment a arrangements with the states is that you don't own a lot of track in the places that you want to expand into the situation was brought to my attention dealing with norfolk and the state of north carolina and you have some discussions going on down there and basically the observation was that as i indicated norfolk has a tiger grant and some other grants to do some work to make that line to get to the sea to do this high-speed rail service. >> the railroads have a legitimate concern when it comes to signing some of these agreements, mou's their require the usage of the track and this isn't granted your track, it's

their track, and they are being so strong armed in the same themes like amtrak performer and i would just ask you i know as a former administrator of the fra you are more sensitive to that and the secretary said that would never happen on his watch and no employee he of his would never do such a thing to read what the difference between new york and the united states passenger rail goes wherever it pleases whenever it pleases, but if you're asking to have an mou and agreement to use they still have their job to do and i just hope that he would be not implicit with the and the mistress and headlong rush to make high-speed rail the signature transportation issue in a way that the damages the continued growth of ability of the ephriam system and work

together rather than. >> i think that norfolk southern are hard bargainers and once the agree to something they keep their word. >> thank the gentleman. ms. capper. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to continue on the same line of questioning and please on the record i represent the fifth largest real center in the country, so we are within 75% of the nation's population and the role of the speed and moving all kinds of cargo on the freight side as well as passengers and other items that come on the trains of doherty conn iggulden were freed rails our hiring right now with the economy picking up again and we have massive investments, billions of dollars of investment in the region so we look a lot different than some of the other members that may be on the

committee. even with the planners to look forward to take a look at our part of the country and the real impediments to increasing the passenger rail because of the conflict of the street and what we do with those. we have to think forward and also if you could include in that how you look at the canadian passenger freight conference with us at the border where we live that would be very grateful so we could take a look at both passenger and freight in the corridor and what's going on here, what do you own, what don't you own if we want to get passengers from point a in might circumstance in chicago or from the point north whether it be detroit or ontario, health systems interconnect. very interested in that. my other question relates to making the locomotive, the cars

-- we hear a lot about foreign companies really being the places that are making the passenger cars and i am interested in what is made in america anymore in the area of real or we always depend on foreign imports to satisfy that demand, and i might just, you know, let you answer that, but you're increasing the readership is really impressive, 36% since 2000. that means people working very hard and we've got an old system stressed out and we want to thank everybody that works for amtrak and tries to get people really good experience in moving around the country. on the question of making it in america, how american are we in terms of the repairs that you're making, the items you will be procuring or are we dependent on the foreign suppliers? >> we will always be dependent on, congresswoman, and foreign suppliers for some things because of the way that the economy really works today.

calzati model in nebraska meaning that they began their bills of their cars, primarily the transit industry cars that the build and are building them, bump rta bilmes then in canada and we now have a coach in elmira new york by the name of usa calf which is a spanish company that came here to begin building the 130 cars we have available. the logistics of the rail industry are difficult in front united states for a passenger side because of the low level of passenger that we have. there are other industries, there's the manufacture in harrisburg, one in california and there are several freight car manufacturers and a locomotive, diesel locomotive plant of course g.e. and erie

pennsylvania not far from you and then there is also emd and ll which is part of caterpillar now coming and we have our electric no locomotives being built on the sacramento area of the west coast. >> great. thank you very much. are there by america provisions that apply to do with amtrak? >> we have somewhat different provisions but we still look at trying to follow with the policy is of the congress and the president. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman and i think we are going to close the hearing. we have a few minutes left to make our votes on the floor. i want to thank you for your testimony today. a lot of challenges before us obviously. the current situation and then the long term is going to be very challenging to be a dog will say amtrak will always have a warm spot in my heart.

when i was dating my wife she live in northeast colorado and i used to get on amtrak on friday night and at osceola osceola and get off at fort morgan about 7:00 in the morning to visit my wife, my girlfriend at the time. but anyway, fortunately my wife today. but anyway, there will always be a warm spot i appreciate your testimony and want to work closely with you the future. thank you. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] to the surprise winner address an issue that helped them understand the role of the federal government. [inaudible] >> what part of your life is most affected by the federal government? >> i would say my education. >> education to use >> school. as the mick education. >> school. >> my education. >> it's true for most kids the

biggest role the federal government plays in their childhood is in their education but as most are well aware today it's in a state of crisis and controversy. >> we are in a significant crisis in education in this country today. if you look at any of the statistics, i mean, we are spending more than twice as much money on education than we were 40 years ago, and the results have declined. >> my name is matt allin and my education particularly matt helps me understand the role of the federal government and my life. when the soviet union marched in 1957 the united states government needed a national priority to the moon. president kennedy along with funds for education created some of the best science and mathematicians the u.s. has seen. >> we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other

things not because they are easy but because they are hard. >> through america's competitiveness it became a reality. >> now the u.s. is ranked 31st and it's not russia but china. shanghai china was ranked first across-the-board in the competition. this time it's not about getting the news first about creating new jobs and leaving in technology. >> do you think the u.s. needs another sputnik moment to compete with the rest of the world? >> i think we do and it's not that we are entirely non-competitive, but clearly other countries are doing very well in exporting automobiles to the united states. >> there are articles today that liken it to a sputnik moment for the united states when we realize the soviet union was

passing a spy and we feared it and made changes. is this our sputnik moment when it comes to educating our kids? >> i actually do not think so. there is nothing in these results i think are surprising in the least. >> what exactly is china doing that we are not? >> americans say chinese education when it isn't like that at all. the chinese are trying to move away from standards, standardized testing and grants like the no child left behind a grant. this is more creativity. there's also something to be set with the cultural differences. china is the first national price and education is by far much more valued than it is in the united states. china doesn't require an education after ninth grade has more children they don't continue with their education.

in no child left behind the seats should be more accountable to the education going on. obama is in charge of no child left behind but at the end of january he is starting to adjust education in the state of the union speech. last year he proved stimulus money to eight states education. 250 million. the part of education three did the initiative called reist the top for education money. there's also another controversial topic of the national standards where alabama would be one of the same things with kids in new jersey for a sample. my algebra i teacher is an energetic teacher who taught math for four years and algebra algebra i to seventh graders for two years. what is your opinion on the national standards and standards and general? >> i think they are necessary

[inaudible] you don't want there to be a lot of differences in the student's learning. however, with differences in the different lifestyles between new jersey and california so i'm not sure if it is exactly the same, that might be unrealistic but this something. >> do you feel the students can be capable of more advanced math in the earlier ages? >> i would rather take the challenge [inaudible] to challenge them then it will be useful and they are ready for that challenge. >> what has changed in the way math teachers are prepared to

teach math? >> through the advent of the council of the teachers and the standards like an effort to get everybody kind of agreeing on what should be taught and called for the issue of more of a focus on problem-solving and implications, and being intellectually challenging and appropriate not necessarily just abstract to help students make meaning for themselves. so for example, taking the algebra one class. so if i asked you what makes alger burba elbra -- algera algera? >> the abstract thinking with the ability to comprehend that variables can stand for numbers. this command that is exactly the point. and so, seeing as how that

little luck thinking is that a totally different levels and can you solve this equation. >> what made you decide to offer algera i to seven critters? >> we wanted to align our courses to the school community. second in the state assessment data as we started to look at the story the rolling stones were prepared in seventh grade, and i think just over all it is to reflect the community to push. speed you find your seventh grade students perform as well as high school students? >> yes. our seventh read population is very well to the tenth and ninth grade population. if you look at the individual students who are taking the alger borough one course they are the top students coming out of sixth grade advanced proficient levels. >> but it's up to the universities to instruct them. the university has $2.5 million

from the national science foundation to over for local districts in math and science education. >> the farther you go in school before their you're going to go in life and at a time when other countries are competing with us like never before, when students around the world in beijing, china or bangalore india are working harder than ever and doing better than ever, the success in school is not just going to determine your success, it's going to determine america's success in the 21st century. >> will obama in spite your has kennedy inspired? who knows but we can all agree the status quo is no longer an option. >> go to studentcam board to watch all the winning videos and continue the conversation about today's documentary and facebook and twitter pages.

canadian voters go to the polls on may 2nd to elect a new parliament, canadian broadcaster cdc previewed the election on its nightly news program the national. this is a half hour. >> this back down in the steel town. check out the turnout. >> good evening i am peter and this is "the national." why both of the conservatives and the liberals need to win

here. another powerful earthquake hits northeast japan rattling buildings and nerves. plus, on the country's most watched political panel, has anyone, politicians or media, talk about your issue on this campaign? alan, andrew and shan't tell on that. and analyzing the campaign photo ops. >> of the imagery alone is better than anything i've seen and about the same price as, well, avatar. >> rex murphy calls them like he sees them. ♪ >> hamilton ontario was apparently the place to be this evening. steven harper and michael have both held defense. both going after voters who overwhelmingly supported the ndp in the last election hampering carper's message was the question of who would be led in to hear it. senior correspondent was there

to see how little went down. >> it's not just the most seats, it is the most tempting seats that switch back and forth in the elections. steven harper needs them to get the majority and michael needs to stop them and tried within hamilton for the ndp. >> hamilton's autrey seats are held by the new democrats, so it's not friendly for it to happen and their must be some liberals here because to guys showed up in chicken suits harping his refusal to debate him one-on-one. >> why are you here, sir? >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much. [applause] >> inside, harper didn't vary his pitch the overtaxes with plenty of collision bashing. >> to keep the country moving forward, a strong, stable, national majority. >> still, carper's campaign keeps encountered turbulence and

not just from copying kids and chickens. and ndp got into the rally into the media's pandering herber's speech. and for once, the party didn't shout all of the party faithful, complaints about that also forced carper to finally apologize to the voters have been kicked out on suspicion of disloyalty. >> if anybody is kept out of any of the event this year to hear the message we apologize to them. our interest is in having as many people out as we can. >> part can offer his hand was forced by the rcmp that they had been objecting people for political mom security reasons. michael is not dropping the matter to the estimate this isn't about apologies, this is about the whole attitude of this party and this government towards the citizens of the country. it's not just a problem about one student at western ontario.

as connect he emphasized the contrast with his own event at hamilton, the town hall which was open to the public. >> we are going to take questions. that's how democracy works. that's how it works. [applause] tomorrows to live in ontario the conservative's plan to release the platform but they will be full of surprises. the budget is no secret and there are no new spending programs. but that will be their argument. the are not spending the way the others do. peter? >> thanks very much. >> well, the chickens when the only one crossing the road to get to the hamilton evened as another crowd showed up at both to make sure the leaders don't overlook their votes. >> are you coming to the rally today? >> it maybe a lonely voice it's getting louder on university campuses across the country and a weakening of sorts as the students plan the latest surprise rally. >> there are a lot of fuss and

if we wanted to make a change in the voter turnout, we could. and i don't think students realize that as well. >> it all start on monday when the university students showed up outside of the event. they were allowed inside with their message directed to all politicians and to their fellow students. >> the message to young people is to get out there and vote. >> today's was organized on facebook in a couple of days. >> 285 say they are participating. >> a meeting place set up and was off to the rallies. >> the idea of a vote model or a surprise rally is new but seems to be gaining momentum. there's a priest six more of these in the works across the country for the next few days. >> useful vote. islamic within minutes of arriving at the heart rate and students tried to get inside. they hadn't registered ahead of time that with cameras rolling the organizers said the rules.

>> come on in the. >> it's the way to get educated. we are getting out, we are students ready to listen to hear what they have to say. >> no one got close enough to hear much worse a much but the student's point was made and later some students did get a chance to chat with carper to read than it was off to the liberal even where once again they got in and got even closer. >> we want to know how you would realistically improve -- >> and got a chance to ask a question about tuition fees. >> we would vote if they would target us. >> in the and it was more than the expected, and for tonight with is still a movement in the making. that's enough. cbc news, hamilton. >> for the second day in a row, michael was thrown off track by the words of a liberal candidate. he says the comments by the former judge about the victims of sexual assault were a disgraceful. but he's keeping him on his

team. rosemary is covering the liberals. >> to the second time michael left his the leave and to be briefed about the comments of one of his candidates. this time it was former judge john riley, now a liberal candidate in the alberta wild rose he says he went into politics after 33 years on the bench because he was disgusted by the conservatives mandatory sentencing law these and the talk-radio show he said not all kinds required jeal time. >> you shouldn't go to jail for a successful? >> there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults. estimate he went on to describe how some are different from others. >> remarks are utterly, totally unacceptable. we find them in fact disgraceful. >> he said the comments personally disgusted him but he said the context was important, too.

>> he served the community with a long record of distinguished public service. he made one remark that he's coming to regret for the rest of his life. he suffered an apology and i accepted. >> before he was asked about the statement was issued on the riley's behalf by the party. >> i deeply regret any distress the and the cost and in any misunderstanding about my own and my party is a zero tolerance for sexual assault of any kind. >> as for ignatius there remained unanswered questions for instance he won't say whether he would undo conservative crime legislation because he says he doesn't know all the costs. he does say that there needs to be a better balance between prevention and punishment. rose mary barton, cbc news, hamilton. it's been a couple of promises made on the trail to tell you about today. steven harper announced the plan there would change the popular tax-free savings account. it would double the annual

contribution limit to the tax-free savings account for $5,000 to $10,000. [applause] >> here is a hitch the change wouldn't come into effect until the budget is balanced and that's not projected to be until 2015. jack clayton led community leaders in to talk about tackling the gangs and gang violence. he said he would even spend $100 million a year on a series of crime prevention measures. >> i will make the recruiting illegal. i will create new stand-alone offenses for the home invasions and carjackings and i will enact a comprehensive correctional gang strategy to ensure prisons don't just serve as crime schools to try and gain involved offenders. >> he also pledged to hundred 2500 new police officers for another $150 million a year. >> the green party leader e. elizabeth lee of her party's

platform today acknowledging that she will never form a government. but she said she and her plans are there for another reason. margo has more. >> the green party held its platform rally in a downtown urban setting trying to move beyond its tree hugger image and to show that it has a practical focus on the environment. >> we have a platform that sets out the stepping stones. their practical, sensible, there is a budget that shows how we can afford them to a better world. some of the pot from includes the carbon tax to make the polluters pay. some of the revenue would fund the national retrofit program for homes and schools. there's also a long list of renewable energy programs. the party is trying to appeal to a wide range of voters, so it's promising to eliminate the deficit in three years, set up a special fund for the cities and provide income splitting for all families. >> everyone knows we aren't going to form the government

tomorrow. our goal is to be that voice of conscience, voice of reason come and voice for the future, our children, our grandchildren. >> but the green party may not be affordable for its ideas according to this economist who gives its marks for trying. >> not because it isn't some of it are good ideas but i can't just simply that it's not affordable and the actual numbers look optimistic. >> the green party got almost a million votes in 2008, but it still didn't tennessee. he knows that may is looking abroad platform would help them break through and send at least one and he to the house of commons. margo, cbc news. >> we've asked of the leaders to appear in the program during the campaign. so far all have accepted except steven harper. elizabeth may is first up in an interview that discusses among other things the possible impact

of the vote splitting. >> is the green party actually helping the conservatives win seats when they are dragging the votes primarily not exclusively but primarily from the liberals? >> as you recall what was steven harper who told them in 2008 if i was included in the dates she wouldn't come so clearly the conservatives don't think that the greens are helping them out. >> what do you think? >> i don't think we should be so concerned. the crisis in the democracy has felt abandoning. >> you can see the interview tomorrow night on the national. >> week two is almost in the can and what a serious discussion of the issues it has. candidates don't and tonight the first protesters in chicken suits appeared. with an excellent way to get ready for next week's's the dates. montr tonight, alan and

andrew are here in toronto. >> typically this is referred to as the phony war period and anything happens in the first two weeks in terms of at least voter preference. there's been lots of activity, lots of news but we haven't seen any big heated political debate and we will not see any because we won't see any major policies in announcing the selection or policies announced because there's no appetite on the part of the population for any new greeted jester of national enterprises so you're going to see the politics of incrementalism throughout. >> the second weeks usually are, usually for instance as the first one and then the campaign takes on a peak of its own but

this one fizzled and while last week we were talking about stuff that people were getting engaged in and debates, collision versus the stable government i suspect this week his turned off more voters and engaged in many of them were discredited by the fact that they were being told about the other guy who wasn't putting people in and that was the kind of rhetoric and they were wanting to hear more about the policy now. if you're going to have a platform this sunday probably it would be a good idea to promote it sometimes treat stomach should people be turned off by asking because i heard the same kind. people sending viewers and e-mails and these are like not partisans, they want to try to understand what's going on and we are very disappointed. i have to say not just with the politicians but the miti deputy this, i don't know how we know in the public has no appetite

until somebody actually proposes. it's remarkable we are talking about is dean substance free when we had before the election a budget and we heard from the liberal platform you would think there would be all kind of subsidies to talk about. but it is kind of incremental. they are taking baby steps, the liberals are moving to the left but in very small amounts and the tory budget was a kind of a buffet of microcredit. i think there is a substance if you look deep enough the tories have some pretty media tax policies that don't kick in, the liberals have a substantial looking policy on the cap-and-trade but it's very on page 46 and they don't seem to want to talk about it and in the media we are not helping because we are obsessed with the process and covering the campaign by the election so we are obsessed with poles and tactics and strategy and co-ops and what went wrong on the bus yesterday and we are not helping. we spent four days it seems like talking about a couple of people being turned away from the rally. that was worth a news item that

wasn't four days of discussion. >> there is also i think within the media certain by use of the population not interested in policy therefore it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle if you give a big policy speech, if you're a politician and no one covers it because it is deemed to be too complex or boring to interest the audience it doesn't take long before you stop giving the complicated policy speeches and so we are in a vicious cycle right now where the population's appetite for certain things is dictating the structuring of the political class behavior and it's driving among the population. >> go ahead. >> are in part blamed the social media to tell you the truth because there was always a danger and it's happening now that the media that covers the politicians, the politicians who are covered all get this sense of engagement from the instant gratification of trigger and facebook and etc and it's an

illusion. it is a bible verses what is happening on the ground and so while they think there's a lot of engagement because this is happening quickly they are talking among themselves and i think people are dropping off because of it rather than becoming more engaged because it was the social media. >> there's an interesting point that the immediacy of the social media but the acceleration of the debate is greatly enlarged at least in our own mind the significance of incredibly travail moment events and i think that is what she's asking to some degree. estimate does this, whose hand does this play into? >> you might say that with the ten-point lead that they have they would have a vested interest in people not particularly getting into the record or substantial questions and not because of the tories the frontrunning party, and so if we are spending three days talking up the process questions i'm not saying that it's part of the plot but it's not entirely

displeasing to the islamic but it is policy that is lost in this. we mentioned last week one of the things surprising about this campaign driven by the social media is how rapid the news cycle is and this exponentially increase is the prospect of the gas. she made the point this is yes and it means they are forgotten the next and it's what we've seen. picking up all kind of stuff that never would have made it to the national media in the past. much of it is local. >> let's not let them off the hook. they would be grabbing more attention if they were doing more substantial policy departures not just a half policy. policy the will make a difference and some people are going to oppose and you have to put out things that aren't just motherhood, it will actually be worthy of reporting frankly. >> i want to switch the topic and move towards next week. one assumes the debate will let least make it a very different kind of week next week than this week has been at some level. now, usually we get criticized

for always going back to the herger 8480 debate and that is always the x and all that is used. our friend was saying they are going to try the same clips this week but i have a different clich to show to to go back to the first in canada. it was 1968. a lot of things happening but it's interesting to see how that debate shaped up because there were four parties and it was the [inaudible] they didn't let him in because he did this kind of last half hour and to our debate, and this was one of the moments in at. listen to see what you're talking about, the question coming from ron and 1960 the attack on the opening debate just like the class. >> the national debate, life and in color from the confederation hall in the west block of the parliament buildings in ottowa.

>> you cannot win because you are not fielding enough candidates. in view of the record of political instability that seems to accompany the minority government, all minor parties not a liability in our parliamentary system. >> i think a minority government, responsible one, can certainly receive the support in the house of members who are there, not for the pleasure of playing politics but for the general good of the population. >> i think in fairness we have to realize the kind of parliament we heard in the past have prevented the government from making as much progress as they would have liked to in these bills. all i can say is that if elected dense the government we would govern as best we can and we are asking for the mandate, strong mandate. ideals are there and people, with the result would be a liability or not is i think an irrelevant question as far as i'm concerned.

>> we can already put you down on those questions. there are some similarities there, this whole discussion of minor parties and what role they play in holding up -- holding of parliament. what do we learn from something like that? >> well, the stable government. >> and accusing another raise the same narrative this steven harper will be bringing to the the data and putting it through people, just the optics of the three versus one basically sends the message to the conservative hammering about the stability and a stable government. but also, there is a difference. douglas admitted they were not going to win. the dynamics now is they all want to be number two, they want to be number one in quebec and the czech leader and wants you to believe they can overtake the liberals and then so the dynamics are if anything even less productive than that point.

>> someone would look at that and see what have we learned and i would sooner have we forgotten? at that point in time the minority government were an aberration. there's the argument today the minority governments are going to be the norm as long as the plot is around. the credit has disappeared after that and we had a long period of a stable government from 1972 to 74 period. but you know, in addition we have to ask whether these -- whether they remember how productive the parliaments were and how much claretian on the ad hoc basis and the more alliance basis and that's the kind of system we have to start adopting in canada if we have some stability and we are not going to have the parliament always run through the lens of the potential election. it's been a there's nothing wrong with minor parties if they choose to vote the shouldn't be made to feel as if they are letting down the side they should have voted for. second i don't think the problem

is we have to many parties that we have a system not to fight for it, for the two-party politics and it works well when you only have two parties but when you start getting three, four, five as we now have the green party represented in the parliament yet it breaks down and produces not a stable majority governments people boast of in the system, but it's producing in the less minorities and minorities of a particular kind because first passed rewards regional parties and you can puncture like the wild the disproportionate results compared to the party like the greens to support the spread it evenly across the country. >> interestingly, i only got to be part of the debate. >> wouldn't think you would. >> when we look towards next week and the date, tell me what at least one of these leaders has to do in light of the kind of campaign you're doing and in light of the stakes that seem to

be held there in terms of the various polls what will you be looking for, chantal's first. >> it's the best chance to showcase himself as the alternate of prime minister and he's going to have a lot of competition and a lot of fighting to do to get at them. he probably needs a knockout to really change things. it released -- >> what is a knockout? >> well it's often when you see if you don't know what's happening. we've seen that many times when people have said this was kind of a troll and two days later they say why because the media starts playing clubs over and over again that starts reinforcing that narrative. but at the very least i think that he has got to surprise. he has to put on performance that basically puts a lie to the caricature of the advertising

has painted him. >> i wonder if he is in fact going for the knockout to read everything about the campaign so far see the to to me suggests to hold to the minority. it's a very not particularly get into this campaign. i think if we see him and the debates trying to appeal to the center-right many still trying to win this thing but if he pitches as he has he's trying to solidify the base and then take the tories down after the election. >> what about harper? he just sort of has to glide through that two hours? >> that is about the only game the front runner was also the incumbent can play frankly and anything beyond that makes him especially to him too aggressive. he is debating three versus one and that suits the message perfectly that there is nothing he needs to do beyond turning himself into a punching bag. >> he arguably has the easie