in the job and even if they don't like them they accept that he's got the qualities and confidence to occupy that particular job. if you could make the other guys look like they are irresponsible or not ready for prime time that would be the bonus. .. maring service of openly

gay and lesbian service members. this last fall i was troubled by the process employed to set the stage for repeal of the law known as don't ask, don't tell. following the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, there was none of the in-depth analysis so essential to sound decision making here in the house of representatives. as a result of the rush to judgment that bypassed this committee, congress was denied the opportunity to ask questions and identify weaknesses in the repeal implementation plan. now we're confronted by an

implementation process moving quickly to the education and training phase. our primary interest today is to ensure senior leaders of each service have the opportunity to communicate their current views about the appeal. several have expressed impacts of the repeal during senate armed services committee. we wan to understand if our military leaders are concerned about the prospect of full repeal of the law. general casey, chief of staff of the army, indicated the repeal was a major cultural and policy change, in the middle of a war that would add stress and complications for combat units. he stated he felt implementation would be more difficult than what the pentagon's survey would suggest. general schwarz, chief of the staff of the air force recommended not carrying out any repeal until 2012 because of the strain of the high operations

tempo on our forces. he stated, "i do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risks to military effectiveness is low." commandant of the marine corps stated if it is changed, assimilating homosexual marines into the tightly woven combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership attention from an almost singular focus on preparing units for command. those comments were made a couple months ago at the senate hearing. the one outcome that should be avoid is any course of action that would put military at risk. our witnesses are the four leaders of our armed forces. general peter correlli, u.s. vice chief of staff united states army.

admiral gary roughead usn naval chief of operations. general am as, u.s. marine corps. general norton schwarz, chief of staff, u.s. air force. general correlli, we thank you for standing in for general casey today and ask you to please extend our heartfelt condolences from all the members of the committee and the staff of the armed services committee to general casey and his family on the passing of his grandson jackson ryan casey. admiral roughead, you're moving closer to departure from your current position and may not have the opportunity -- should would probably not call it an opportunity to testify before this committee again. i want to express collective thanks of all the members of the committee for your 38 years of service and best wishes for the future.

>> thank you. i join you in passing along my condolences to general casey. i welcome you all for being here and thank you for your incredible service to our country. don't ask, don't tell was put in place years ago. at the time it was hotly debated, discussed, studied and argued about. in the 18 years ó% to get their feedback and their

opinions. i believe we have analyzed this at enormous length over an enormous period of time. at some point you have to make a decision about the best way to go forward is. i'm pleased the congress and president made that decision last year and made what was the only logical choice and that is to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. it's interesting we all know gays and lesbians have been serving in the military for quite sometime. i have yet to meet a service member who wasn't abundantly aware that somebody they were serving with was gay or lesbian, yet we have the finest military in the world. the unit has been able to function and function quite well under that circumstance. the only oddity we had in the law if in fact a gay or lesbian happened to bubble up to the command structure, the law required you at that point to take the person out of the miller. they have served, served well,

served alongside other service members who found an easy way to work with them and give them the finest military in the world. when you look at these questions, it's frequently asked whatever policy comes before the military, does it make us safer? does it strengthen our national security? in this case the answer to don't ask, don't tell is no. driving able-bodied people out of the military who are serving us well during a time of war does not make us safer and does not give us a better military. i grant you there will be some implementation issues here. but there are many policies problematic and difficult throughout military for service people to work with and they find a way to work with them and they find a way to move forward. i applaud you gentlemen and plowed the military for the way they approach this. they are trying to do it in the most user friendly way possible to make sure it is effective. it is long pastime to study this issue. it is making us weaker to drive people out of the military who

are serving us well. i hope we will go forward with the implementation of the change in this policy as quickly and expeditiously as possible. i look forward to your testimony. thank you. >> as bipartisan as this committee is we can disagree but we can do it in a gentlemenly like way and i thank the ranking member for his comments. >> i should say i think the chairman is doing an outstanding job running this committee and i agree with him most of the time. we work very well together. we just have those moments like anybody. >> thank you. i do have unanimous consent request knowing general casey, chief of staff of the army, would not be able to testify. i asked that he provide answer toss a series of questions i put to him in writing. we have his response. at this time i ask unanimous consent miler of april 4th, 2011 to general casey and the general's response of april 6th, 2011 be entered into the record. the letters are now or have been

distributed to the members. >> without objection, so ordered. general. >> chairman mckeon, i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the army's implementation plan for repeal of legislation commonly referred to as don't ask, don't tell. as you acknowledged, mr. chairman, general casey is unable to participate in today's hearing due to the recent loss of his grandson and he deeply appreciates everyone's thoughts and prayers during this very sad and difficult time. in december general casey testified before the senate armed services committee state his belief that while the implementation of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell would add another level of stress to a force already stretched by nearly a decade of war. it would be more difficult in

combat arms units, and it would in general be more complicated -- be more complicated an endeavor than the comprehensive review suggested. if properly implemented, the repeal would not preclude our force from accomplishing its worldwide missions to include combat operations. general casey assured the members of the committee that we have a disciplined force led by experienced, seasoned leaders who with appropriate guidance and direction can be relied upon to effectively overseas the implementation of don't ask, don't tell repeal with moderate risk to military effectiveness in the short-term and to our ability to recruit and maintain america's all volunteer force over the long hall. finally he assured the members if directed to implement the repeal, the army would work closely with the department of defense and other service toss make certain the implementation is conducted successfully, in a

timely fashion, and in the same disciplined matter that has characterized our service to the nation for over 235 years. i stand by the chief's previous remarks. i know he does as well. since that hearing, consistent with congress's decision and the president's and secretary of defense's guidance, the army has begun the deliberate process of training and educate our force on exactly what the repeal means in terms of regulation and policy changes. as in everything8ñ9

educated on this important policy change. its potential impact on them and our expectations of them. to this end joe casey's guidance to commanders is clear. leadership matters most. this training is not disruptive. in february, general casey personally led the first session with all four star generals. flanged by the army's subject matter experts, the judge advocate general, inspector general, chief of chaplains and deputy chief of staff for pernell, i participated in this session and i can attest the process works. the chain teaching program facilitates thoughtful, constructive dialogue between leaders and subordinates. this dialogue is hugely important, especially at the lowest levels where ownership and consensus are most critical.

the soldiers response to the repeal has been generally positive. we cannot assume there will be no opposition within our ranks and the days ahead. in fact, we recognize there are some segments of the force primarily with the combat arms that have expressed concern regarding the appeal. on the whole, our forces stressed and stretched by nearly a decade of war, a war that is not over yet. mindful of these and other considerations we recognize if we are to mitigate the rifsks t readiness, recruit and retention we must continue to do this deliberately. training is just the start. although i'm confident in our efforts to implement the repeal of don't ask, don't tell are on track, the entire process done properly will take time. mr. chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of our secretary john mckeon and the chief i thank you for your patience, your continued generous support and

demonstrated kmipt to the outstanding men and women of the united states army and their families and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, admiral. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address how our navy is preparing to implement repeal of 10 u.s. code 654. i testified before the armed services committee in september that i supported repeal of 10 u.s. code 54. the united states navy can successfully implement a repeal of the law. combat effect i haveness is what we provide the nation and repeal will not change who we are or what we do. your navy will continue to be the professional global effective and relevant force for the nation it has been. although a speak day for repeal hasn't been set we have gun the process for prompt and thoughtful transition. we're preparing policies and regulations and training our

leaders at all levels. our training exercises leadership, professionalism discipline and respect. we have not conducted sensitive training. we are focus on sailors understanding what the repeal means to them, their families and navy, and that our standards of conduct and behavior will not be compromised. we're using a tiered approach to ensure all sairs receive the appropriate training. we have 17 master training teams providing training to leaders in 17 geographic regions. once certified by master trainers, command leaders will then train pernell within their respective commands. specialized training being provided to experts who may deal more frequently with repeal issues such as chaplains, judge advocates, personnel report professionals and recruiters. july is the navy's goal for training and we're on track to

achieve this goal. feedback from the sailors indicates the training is comprehensive, well delivered and effective. additionally we have not observed impacts to readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, recruiting or retention during this training period. i continue to provide updates on training process to the secretary of defense and chairman of joint chiefs of staff and remain personally engaged with them throughout this process. i'm confident my assessment of the navy's repeal will be competent during the process and it is not necessary to provide additional or separate input outside of this process. i have the ultimate confidence men and women with the united states navy, character, discipline and decency will successfully implement this change in the law. navy leaders will continue to set a positive tone, create an inclusive and respectful work environment and enforce our high

standards of conduct throughout the navy as we serve the nation. our sailors will continue to live with core values of honor, courage and commitment which endure as the foundation of our navy i thank you and look forward to your questions. >> thank you. general amos. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and report on the marine corps's process of certification of don't ask, don't tell. i had the opportunity to specifically address congress on don't ask, don't tell on december 3rd where i stated to the senate armed services committee that should congress change the law, that our nation's marine corps will faithfully support the law. the law signed by the president on december 22nd established the conditions for the eventual repeal of don't ask, don't tell. the marine corps is working diligently to meet the corresponding requirements as are all the uniformed services.

once met the required certification process may be provided by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, secretary of defense and president to the congressional committees. overall i am confident that marine leaders at all levels will ensure compliance with the spirit and intent of the new law once it goes into effect. as suture marine corps is taking the follow significant actions in line with the direction of our civilian leadership. after the house of representatives and senate voted to repeal title 10 u.s. code 654 in december of 2010, i published the following guidance to the following marine corps. quote, as marines we abide by the laws of our nation. we implement -- we will implement the new policy in accordance with specific directions and implementing guidance from our chain of command. fidelity is the essence of who we are. accordingly we will faithfully execute this new law and continue to treat each other with dignity and respect.

while in afghanistan over christmas, sergeant major kent and i spoke to 12,000 marines and sailors about the pending repeal and my expectations for successful implementation. shortly after returning from afghanistan, he and i made a video for all marines and their families to reinforce our message and to reach out to marines in locations that we could not personally visit. your marine corps has closely followed the recommendations of the comprehensive review working group in developing and executing our implementation training. some of the very first marines to receive this training were my three and four star general officers in late january. on 7 february, the marine corps as a whole began corpswide training. the marine corps completed all of tier one and two training. as of today our tier three training is 40% complete throughout the marine corps.

i anticipate full completion of all training by 1 june. we will complete this training with the aid of the internet online when absolutely necessary, but the majority of our training is done face-to-face. successful implementation of this policy depends upon leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect. leaders at all levels of our corps are setting the example and are fully committed to the sustainment of our unit effectiveness, readiness and cohesion. in our profession of arms adherence to standards of conduct is essential. leadership is the key to creating and sustaining an environment where the opportunity to contribute, achieve and advance to all is available. before making my final recommendation to move forward with repeal, i intend to use both the objective and subjective measures to gauge the effectiveness of training and readiness to implement this new policy. before i recommend certification, the marine corps will have completed 100% of its

special staff and leader training and approximately 90% of all remaining marines training for both active and reserve components. while useful objective measures alone are not sufficient for me to recommend certification. i will also use subjective tools to include command climate surveys, enlisted retention surveys and inspector general reports to measure training success. additionally, i will rely heavily on feedback from my commanders throughout the marine corps. prior to recommending certification i will confirm all preconditions for certification have, indeed, been met. i am confident that your marines will faithfully abide by the laws of this nation and will conduct themselves in accordance with the intent of the new policy. while leadership is the ultimate key to successful implementation of don't ask, don't tell repeal, our core values of honor, courage and commitment will guide us throughout training and implementation. i appreciate the opportunity to provide these details and i stand ready to answer any

additional questions the commit may have. >> thank you, general schwarz. >> mr. chairman, congressman smith, members of the commit, thanks for the opportunity to report on air force implementation of the pending repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. our implementation plan comprises two key components. necessary revisions to policies and regulations and then training of all airmen. we will rely on steady leadership at all levels to implement this change in a manner that is consistent with standards of military readiness and effectiveness and with minimum adverse affect on unit cohesion, recruiting and retention in our air force. until applicable directives are updated and released, current policies remain in effect and will be enforced uniformly. over our team policy changes updates, recruiting guidance,

standards of kubt and separation actions are the basis of our implementation training which began on february 14th and will complete on or about june 30th of this year. the air force is administering the three tier training program, which was developed in conjunction with the services. and with osd's repeal implementation team to ensure consistent training themes for the entire source from functional experts to commanders and senior leaders to all airmen across the force. so far we have trained 23%, some 117,000 of our members and are on track to train the remainder within the prescribed training window. we will ensure implementation is achieved responsibly, deliberately, and effectively. our preferred method of training

is in person. however, when face-to-face tier three training is not feasible for example during convalescent leave or deployment to locations where interrupting the mission to conduct training would have an adverse impact, commanders have discretion to use computer-based training or schedule training upon return to garrison. as training progresses, we will continue to report completion data to osd twice a month. in the post repeal environment, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our training through existing processes for follow-on assessment in monitoring. mr. chairman and members of the committee, we thank you again for your support of the armed forces. the standards of conduct we expect, you expect of all airmen entitling every airman to

dignity, respect and equal opportunity, commitment to service above self will not change, guided by our core values of integrity, service and excellence, we will implement this policy change with the same professionalism that we demonstrate in all of our daily endeavors. mr. chairman, i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you. thanks to each of you. the law was passed. you understand the relationship between military and civilian law. you're doing your best to see that the law is implemented and followed correctly. i would have expected nothing different. general correlli, general amos, general schwarz, as i indicated in my opening statement, each of you -- and in your case, general

correlli, i'm referring to the comments of general casey -- expressed reservations about the central conclusion of the dod department of defense group that the risk to all military effectiveness was low. as you proceed with the education training phase of the implementation plan, has your attitude changed and what is your current professional military judgment about the risk to military effectiveness? >> mr. chairman, thank you for that question. as you indicated general casey did indicate that he felt the risks walgreen's moderate. i believe it remains moderate today, as far as we've gotten in our training. i will say i had a session with commanders last friday. they have indicated no issues so

far in tier one and tier two training as they get ready to kick off our tier three train g training. i think general casey would remain with moderate risk only because we're not far enough in our training to change that. >> thank you. general amos. >> chairman, you remember the results of the survey that came back for the marine corps and it was well above the 50 percentile from our combat forces that had concerns about unit cohesion and come bat affe-- combat effectiv. i had an opportunity to report that in my testimony. i traveled around the marine corps. in fact this morning i was on a vtc with commander on the ground in helmand province. i'm looking specifically for issues that might arise coming

out of the tier two and tier three training. to be honest with you, chairman, we've not seen it. i mean, there's questions about billeting from marines. the kinds of questions you would expect. there hasn't been the recalcitrant pushback. there's not been the anxiety over it from the forces in the field. i will tell you that i asked specifically this morning from major general, i said, john, what are you seeing in the young marines out there. he said, sir, quite honestly they are focused on the enemy. maybe they will have questions when they get back to the united states of america but right now they are focused. he doesn't think it's an issue. >> mr. schwarz. >> i'm not prepared to fall off my assessment of moderate risk either. but we have trained 100,000

airmen to date. the way we have approached this and the reaction we have experienced thus far indicates to me that we are mitigating the risk in the way we're approaching this. and so i am more comfortable than i was on the 22nd of december, but we still have a ways to go. and it requires the constant attention of all of us to bring this home. >> admiral, what are your thoughts today? >> i think, mr. chairman, my view as the report was conclu d concluded, as i testified in december, it was consistent with the force i had the opportunity to engage over time.

our training is going very well. in those areas that we detected there may be some areas of moderate risk, particularly some of the expeditionary forces we had engagements similar to my ship mates here indicate that it is not at the level that we had originally forecast and it is going rather well. similarly as the training is connected, the types of questions reflect the professionalism, the maturity and the decency of our people. so i'm very comfortable. i was comfortable in making the recommendation last december. it's consistent with what i continue to see in the navy today. >> i think one of the problems i had, as i expressed in my

opening statement and a little of the difference i had with ranking member smith was kind of the way it was presented to us and given to us. we didn't hold a hearing at the full committee level. we were given a briefing. and the study was handed out to us just as the briefing started. we really didn't have adequate time to read it, to ask i felt appropriate questions. and so my concern was more the procedure of how it was all laid out. but i -- that's past and now we're moving forward. i want to make sure that we really are in tune with what's going on. everybody has the opportunity to be involved in the process. i'll hold my other questions for later, ranking member smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i'll make a quick comment. i have a question. i think you gentlemen have answered all the pertinent questions in the opening statement. to the chairman's questions, is it a fair process, is there time to implementment it. you seem to be working through it. it seems to be better than expected. we'll see what happens. there was not a rush to judgment. we didn't automatically repeal don't ask, don't tell. part of the way we put it in place the way we did was to give you a gentlemen a chance to do what you're doing now. it ultimately has to be approved by the joint chiefs. the comment on unit cohesion and effectiveness, i would imagine there's a fair number of things on a day in, day out basis that challenge unit cohesion and you have to pull together to make it work. i think you ask the question in a survey do people have concerns. they may very well express them. if you follow up what happens on numerous occasions in the military part of the job, you have to do a lot of difficult

things. have you to do things but they come together and do it. that's why we have such an incredible military. your comments about the initial stage of the training bear that out. yeah, we have concerns but we'll make it work. that seems to be the direction it is going. it is not going to undermine what the military is doing. again, as all you gentlemen would acknowledge, it's not the first time it occurred to anyone in the military they are serving with gays and lesbians. that's been known for a while. so i appreciate your work. i think the training you're doing helps make sure this will be a successful implementation, but i, too, am 100% confident with the military, all of the services, will keep doing the fantastic job they are doing and be better for it because we won't have to drive people out of the military who are doing a good job just because of the sexual orientation. we stand ready to help with the process.

with that i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i had a couple of questions, again, going back to when we had the hearing. it wasn't technically a hearing, i guess. the first thing is, particularly there was a sense of resistance in the combat arms. that doesn't surprise me particularly. at least it seems to make sense. because if you're dealing with a regular office situation, that seems to me to be a very different environment than if you're bivouced in the field or in tight quarters under pressure. it doesn't surprise me. what were the numbers, first of all, in the marine corps, combat arms section there. what were the numbers on that survey. >> congressman, they were in the 60s for -- i don't have the precise number.

>> rough number. >> 60% for combat arms. >> was that your assessment the same as what seems to me to make sense in a more combat-type environment than tensions could be stressed as higher. and also the conditions you're living in are more complicated. do you think that's what drove that number? >> i think it could be that i think in the units predominantly are principle combat units, they are all male. typically there's a few that have females in it but predominantly male. i think it's the function they are just worried about combat. they are not sure what to expect. i think it was expectations and anticipation. >> okay. now, the way the policy used to work, particularly in one of those combat situations, or whatever admiral, if it's a submarine or wherever there's tremendous amount of pressure, if someone's behavior started to

become detrimental to the mission the way it used to work, then they could be asked to leave the service. so that tended to be a pretty strong -- sort of kept a cap on behavior, perhaps. with the new policy, you have to figure out how it's going to work. you could say everything is going to work. obviously you've had to do a lot of thinking, if this happens, if this happens, how to you handle those different types of situations. if there is somebody who is openly homosexual and their behavior starts to get in the way of the mission, what are your alternatives now and how are you advising the officers to handle those kinds of situations? >> thank you. i would say that the fact that someone is gay or lesbian

doesn't really enter into a disruption to the mission. as you know, on most, almost all of our communities, and very soon to be the submarine community, we're a very diverse force. it is not necessarily someone's sexual orientation or even someone's gender. if there's inappropriate behavior, the kubt is unacceptable and undermines good order and discipline, that is the mechanism that causes a commander to take action and process that individual or individuals through a judicial process or administrative process. so the same standards, the same regulations, and standards of conduct will apply as to good order, discipline and sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.

so it's not as if we're having to create new policies. we will be enforcing these as we have for many years. >> so then in the scenario i'm talking about, that's handled the same way as if somebody were disruptive in a heterosexual kind of context and if somebody's behavior is therefore a distraction in getting in the way of mission you discipline them the say. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you. miss sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, gentlemen, for being before us again today. when we were going through this whole process of don't ask, don't tell, i did not believe that our military units were so fragile that finding out having somebody next to you that was openly gay would be so disruptive to our units.

i am very proud, so far, as you've discussed today, of all our men and women in uniform who have -- who not only go out and fight for us every day but who are also working through this new policy that you're trying to implement. so i always thought they were strong and a great military force, and i think they are proving us right. my question today, gentlemen, is about those gay and lesbian members, service members who were discharged because they were gay under the don't ask -- during the time of don't ask, don't tell. now, it's my understanding that those service members if they didn't have anything else on their record, there was no other problem or judiciary issue or anything, they would be discharged with honorable

discharge. is that correct? okay. now the policy will be in the normal process, those who were discharged under don't ask, don't tell can come back and ask to be put back in military services. is that right? >> ma'am, those former members can apply to reenlist and will be considered for reenlistment based on the needs of the services and our normal entry process. >> okay. so will they have to start all over, or will they get to reenter given credit for the service they have held. if the only reason they were put out is because it was known they are gay. >> it is an individual case consideration, but there is no guarantee for returning at the same grade necessarily. again, it depends on the needs

of the service. >> but if that position were open, is there a process, or are you working on the process in which a person says i've been out for two years. i'm still fit. i want to go back. i had a career. i'd like to go back to where i was. i see there are openings there. >> once again, if that scenario unfolded, it would probably be accommodated. >> what are the guidelines if someone feels they have gone back to the recruiter or they have gone back to try to reenlist and they have pushback? what is the -- what are the policies in place or what are you working through to make sure they get a fair shake to get back their career. >> there's opportunities to appeal both to the inspector general of the recruiting service in their case as well as the air force board of corrections for military records. and in those two mechanisms,

former members can appeal the des ig nation that they have received. >> and lastly, what are the reporting -- if you get harassed by someone of the same sex, who happens to be gay, is it the same process as you would in any normal -- i know i heard it from the other side. what happens in the perpetrator is in the chain of command, the supervisor? is it the same rules we see, for example, you said sexual assault or sexual harassment in the normal context we've been working with. >> zero tolerance. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, those are my questions. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you. we have a series of votes probably going to take close to an hour.

if the -- mr. simmons has said he will make his office available if the chiefs would -- i apologize for this, but this is -- we're trying to go see that your pay continues. we'll be in adjournment until the votes are concluded. army,

air force, navy, and marines. live coverage on c-span 3. >> so i think that naturally begs the question about as we're going forward and looking at how this policy is put in place, are

we going to expect from you all the proper due diligence to make sure evaluations take place that are rigorous and really drill down to look at our readiness capability and making sure, too, that we understand if there are problems with the implementation here what is then going to happen? i have a couple questions. one is from each of you the rigor under which you will pursue evaluating the impleme implementation of this policy and then if it does create issues on readiness, operational issues, how do you expect to address them and then will that affect certification? and general schwartz, i'll begin with you. >> sir, the bottom line is we will do this through the chain of command. and we'll certainly monitor all the typical metrics that we look at whether it be inspector

general reports, whether it be sexual harassment indices, and certainly the commander, the commander contact which is continuous. if problems develop, we will design and approach to mitigate and to eliminate those challenges. we understand what the law of the land is and that's the approach we will take. it is my conviction that we will probably have some occurrences, some mediations from our standards of conduct. and we will deal with them as we do others, whether it's heterosexual, whether it's personal conduct of other matters, not of a sexual nature, and so on.

we are a force as we all are that are compliance based and we're going to continue to be that way. >> general? >> congressman, this may sound i guess trite but really the back bone for all our services and i speak for ours is that it really is leadership. so we're not putting additional training, additional hours of training. once we get past, get through and complete the tier 3 specific kind of training because our leadership is going on 12 months a year every week with our young marines. there's face to face. there's how are we doing? that's when we'll get a real sense that -- what are the real issues that may come out of this? we can probably expect there

will be some. i can't anticipate what they will be. i don't want to be naive and i want to manage some expectations here but i am absolutely confident that good order, discipline, standards of conduct, those things that are the hallmark of all our services will prevail at the end of the day and that's the part that will make sense to our young men and women. it's not okay. we're going to go another 30 hours of this instruction or every year hit the refresh button and do this. it will be that constant, persistent leadership by our ncos and staff ncos and officers. we'll get that feedback and work our way through that. >> thank you. we monitor readiness and all of the complements of readiness continuously and all of the factors that are involved and we

look at how we are constantly making those improvements so the visibility we're going to have om readiness i think will be very good. i think it is also telling that in the survey itself in those units where members served with gay and lesbian sailors that they rated the unit readiness either well or very well. so i think that our observation of readiness, the factors, the elements of tone or the force that we pay attention to will be clear indicators of where we are. >> my time is running out but i did want to emphasize how important readiness is and our role here in oversight to make sure that in no way, shape, or form in any respect is readiness to be sacrificed with the implementation of this policy. with that i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you. mrs. davis? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you all for being here. i certainly apologize for the time. i know that you are all extremely busy and we respect greatly what you do and respect your professionalism. i wanted to also express my condolences to general casy and certainly his family and i also wanted to acknowledge, i know he had been here just a little while ago and we acknowledged the fact that might be his last hearing and thank you, general, for being here as well but i know that as we look at the timelines that we're working with on don't ask don't tell after the training and the opportunity to move towards implementation i wondered if you could just comment, general, to general casy's comment i think to the chairman that the force would be about half trained before the time to actually certify. and i wonder whether general

dempsey has been involved in this process and the current training agenda and whether you think that he is up to speed on the process and do you see any changes in trying to conclude the training of the army which we know is taking longer by virtue of the numbers? >> as you mentioned, general casy did say, ma'am, that he felt he would be able to certify that on or around the 15th of may based on having trained 50% of the force, and i think his reasoning is the fact that we have commanders doing it and we really feel that commanders because they are doing the training are going to pick up on any issues that we might have. and the session that i had last friday was the first in trying to get any feedback. now we'll be going heavy into

the tier 3 training. i can't tell you whether general dempsey will in fact feel the same but he has been involved in the training as the commander prior to confirmation and i have readiness and the host of other criteria were being managed well and at the same time there was some reluctance to i think move

forward on the part of members unless you had an opportunity to be here and i wanted to be certain there was no pressure, no -- you didn't feel that your voices were not being heard as we moved forward with this and in fact when the actual certification was made no matter what had occurred that in fact you would have the kind of input that would be required of all of you in your position. is there any reason that people would have been concerned about that? >> no, ma'am. no pressure. no question that our voice will be heard as we go through the training and gauge routinely with the secretary of defense and the chairman on this and i have no doubt whatsoever about that. >> thank you. >> ma'am, the -- i want to be really clear that we've had

complete open communication opportunities with the chairman and secretary of defense. they value our opinion and we talk about this pretty close to weekly or at least every other week. so it is a very frank and honest discussion so we'll have plenty of opportunity between now and certification. >> ma'am, we'll make a written input. i will to the chairman on my recommendations to him and i'm sure that my secretary will make a similar interaction with the secretary of defense. >> i know general casy has mentioned to me several times the direct input that he has had often with both the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense over this issue. >> thank you. i know that you responded earlier to the question about the implementation. can i just ask you briefly in the letter the chairman to general casy, he mentioned that

it had been stated that the general felt that implementation would be more difficult than what the pentagon survey would suggest. any -- is it going to be more difficult? is it going to be as expected, less difficult? how would you characterize that? >> well, it's always difficult when you work with a force of 1.1 million with the large reserve component we have and the fact that they only meet three days a week if not deployed. with soldiers moving in and out of theeteer err, that's the difficulty. add to that the fact that some concern with combat, arms officers, and soldiers in the survey indicated they had more

concerns than others. but what we feel about at least at the beginning is the training package is a quality training package that at least with early results seems to be mitigating some of that concern. >> thank you, miss davis. thank you, general. congressman west of florida? >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. ranking member. to the great soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and just want to thank you for your service and thank you for the people that you represent here. i'll be very up front and honest. this is going to be implemented. we don't need to banter about what is going to happen because you being great leaders will take the guidance given and make sure it happens the same as i did in the military. but once again my concern is very simple. the military exists to win the nation's wars and i think when we get to the point where we are starting to discuss how the military con forms to accommodating individual behavior, that's what i get

concerned with because if i'm not wrong, i think we still do have a height standard to be a member of the old guard, the third infantry regiment if i'm correct? >> i didn't get, what standard sir? >> height standard. yes we do. >> absolutely. i'm 5'9", i was a shorty so i never could get into that unit. general amus, without a doubt i think the marines still have pfts correct? >> we absolutely do. >> and if there was a great marine that was serving well but cannot pass that pft and he has a problem with weight, we still separate that marine, correct? >> that is absolutely correct. >> and, general schwartz, i'm sure when we look at a commanding officer in your force if the commanding officer has a dui chances are that is going to put his career at risk. am i correct? >> in allhf

i think the most important thing is us on this side must understand. my concern is we have leaders concerned about political correctness and then report that situation up i want to make sure our subordinate lead fers they see problems with the implementation of this program that they are not afraid from retribution from special interest civilian groups that will cause them to exacerbate what could be a dangerous situation. with that said i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, congressman west.

at this time, ms. pengray of maine. >> thank you very much. and thank you all for the service that you give to our country, for being here with us, for your patience in waiting for us to come back. i appreciate that.ly am a long supporter of the repeal of don't ask don't tell so i am very pleased to hear your positive comments, to hear what many of us believed would happen, that our military would be fully prepared to do this and people would be handling it well. i'm glad to hear your positive remarks and the fact that all of you are working hard to implement this. last week in the military personnel subcommittee we were able to hear from dr. stanley who gave wonderful testimony about the implementation and process that we're in and talked about how this is frankly costing around $10,000 a big contrast to what many people estimate between 2004 and 2009 the cost of $193 million to discharge members of the military who are highly trained, serve their country well, and i don't believe we could afford to

lose. i have a slightly different question. while i'm very pleased to hear so much positive coming out of this process that we're going through, i have had one early, isolated report of a training session where the educator, the education training of open service was mocked and disparnlgd disparag disparaged by the commander. i know those are isolated reports but i'm interested to hear your comments. when we hear about them should we report them back to all of you or to dr. stanley? and i guess i'd ask you if you have any concerns about the idea that a commander who may mock the training or wink or nod or show something that's slightly disparaging may encounter future problems when we're in the serious implementation of open service. i do believe these are isolated and you've all said very positive things but when we hear those things isolated as they are i'm just interested in your take on them, how they're being handled and frankly what we should do and how we should convey it when we hear that. any of you. >> i've had one incident that's

been reported to me of three senior officers engaging in such activity. i will tell you it was immediately reported by their superior and proper action is being taken like it would be in any situation where something like that happens. >> thank you. >> in our case, ma'am, we -- as we do the training, there are opportunities for those who participate in training to comment on the effectiveness of that training and it'll also allow us to measure retention of certain elements of the training that we provided and so there's ample feedback on our website that deals with the topic. there are opportunities for individuals to post comments, to post questions. so we have good visibility that is not in a filtered process but one that i think is quite open and allows us to get a sense of

the tone of the training and the reception of the training. >> let me just say for the rest of you, thank you, inwe're looking forward to launching another good navy ship from the bath iron works i think in may or june. we're excited about that. >> it's may, ma'am. >> thank you. we're anxious to have that happen. >> congresswoman, we have not had any reports that have come up to me and if you, if any member of congress were ever to get that up i'd certainly want to know about it. because it really violates the very premise of marines will get stuff and do it smartly and follow orders. this is about obeying our nation's laws. and so i would -- we would take that very, very seriously. we have worked, in fact worked very hard to make sure that everybody understands we follow the law in the marine corps and so as the admiral described we have these open forums and discussion. i've asked for feedback from the

commanders. and it'll be consistent between now and the time that i recommend that the marine corps is ready to go or not ready to go to the chairman. and i would say the clear majority of it is very positive. but there are questions about bi billeting or policy changes or base housing. there are questions about gang showers. these come up in the discussions but that's healthy. i've not heard of a commander but we've got 202,000 marines on active duty and 39,600 reserve. it would be unrealistic to think that there's not a salty individual or two out there that's probably going to turn askance at this and we'll deal with that at the time. >> thank you. >> i would just amplify what the general said. this is about the constitution and our oath to it. and we're loyal and if you have information about an airman

that's not onboard i'd appreciate knowing about it, ma'am. >> right. well, i appreciate your comments and i thank you for your hard work to make this work. i yield back. >> next we proceed to congresswoman vicky hartsel of missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i just would like to ask -- i'm very concerned with what i'm hearing today that we are going to expose our troops to moderate risk and general casy said it's another level of stress. it's more complicated. i just want to know i guess for me to view when have you suggested a change in policy before that would put our men and women at moderate risk? start with you. >> well, i believe general casy indicated that he felt that the report characterized it at less risk than he felt, given the fact we are an army that had

been fighting for ten years in both iraq and afghanistan and he rated it as moderate risk. however, we have not completed enough of our training for him at this time to say it's not still a moderate risk but at the same time we put together a very, very good, good training package that emphasizes our role as professional soldiers that we believe is going to mitigate that risk and drive it down. >> have you been involved in recommending a policy, though, that, where there was a moderate risk before? that was the question. have you done that yet at some other time? your career? general, go ahead ma'am, i would say yes and i would say it's going to war, places the force at least at moderate risk. >> yes, ma'am.

when you put someone's life at risk in an operation it is often times heavy risk obviously. >> sure. sure. >> ma'am, what we do is inherently dangerous whether it's falling from the deck of an aircraft carrier, running a nuclear power submarine at 800 feet under the sea. >> sure. >> it's inherently dangerous and we know how to manage the risk. that said, for the process we're going through i'm very comfortable with where we are. >> okay. well i think there is a difference though. war is risk. i mean, obviously. but this is a change in policy that's going to add a moderate risk on to the already inherent risk of war. we're at war at two levels, maybe three if you call libya. we have men and women in harm's way. we're at war as a country and, yet, we are talking about one of the most monumental changes of policy this country has ever faced in its military forces. and i just want to speak from my heart to each one of you. i have the utmost respect for

you and i appreciate what you are doing to lead our forces and to keep our country safe. and there's no higher respect that i have for you. but i want to challenge you that you are the last force to be able to stop this onerous policy and i have to believe from my heart in your gut you know this is not the right thing. i appreciate that you follow command. you follow the constitution and you are fulfilling what you are charged to do but there's an opportunity to not certify this, and it's fallen upon you at this time in history to be able to give the final say to the secretary of defense and to admiral mullen whether you in your right mind and your heart of hearts and your professional career, you believe this is going to help improve our forces

from this time on out and help us win wars. and i would ask you to consider this and to stand strong like you have stood strong against other forces outside foreign and domestic that have come upon our country and that you would not certify this and with that i'm going to get into some specific questions but that's an appeal. i hope you'll think about it in the privacy of your own home, your own heart, before you do this because you can stop it still. and not do something just for political correctness. regarding chaplains will chaplains face career penalties if they defer performing same sex marriage to someone else? any of you? >> no, ma'am. we expect our chaplains to minister to all but in those activities that are specific to denominations, they can practice

as they see fit. >> does that hold true for ministry assistants and having to hire them who openly engage in homosexual behavior or suffer career penalties for failing to do so? >> again, we have not experienced any of the eclee ecclesiastical agencies withdrawing their endorsement of their chaplaincies so to date that has not been an issue. okay. our time is up but i appreciate your consideration and once again i respect what you're doing and we're counting on you. thank you. >> thank you. we now proceed to mr. bill owens of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a former j.a.g. officer i want to know if you're comfortable both with the status of the ucmj as well as your regulations for handling the

implementation and as i think you expressed before the ability of chain of command to process and handle complaints and deviations from military standards. i'd ask that of each of you. >> 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.

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]