i want to leave its this, that we've got to hit the road. just as we hit the road to talk about the good policy, and i remember one trip, we travelled from buffalo new york to laredo tex., 14 days, 14 states, 4500 miles. and every step of the way we were dealing with projects in locales with people who were excited about those projects, and we were telling them how we could help them deliver on those projects. and we were telling them about again the policy that was available to us through iced tea and 21 overtime and you know that when 21 can round there was the desire to go back before ice t but because the could have been demonstrated we were able to hold the line. and so, i think if you look at

the legislation that is being formulated now, you've got a good policy. we've been able to hold that line. that's what i believe the last maybe 15 or so years has been about, this new view of transportation has more than concrete and asphalt and steel. .. >> and so, i just think that let's applaud the senate for giving us what we have always come to expect.

and that's a congress this time, just the senate though, with this committee, but coming at this from a vantage point of bipartisanship. we've enjoyed that. we've never had to really work in an and violent where, not in the last 50 years, where that hasn't been the case. i mean, i just had a wonderful time working with republicans and democrats. i just can't think of a bad experience that i had as secretary during that period. and that's not because we always got everything we wanted, but we always had the audience, and we always had the opportunity to make it work together. and it's only recently that we've gotten to a point where that is not something that you can expect. but now, the epw committee did give us that, and you can't have two more distinct and unique

titans than coming in the, a barbara boxer and jim imhoff. senators imhoff and boxer. if they can do it, then i think we can get the same thing, as we should, from the t&i committee, the fall of support from banking and commerce and the other committees across the senate. and i think we can get a good bill. now, you know, it may not be five, six years. it may be too, it could be three. may not be the kind of increase we want. it may be just, you know, at a modest level, maybe some increase, hopefully. but if we can manage that, then i think we do something that is more important than transportation and moving a transportation bill. i think we actually, through our efforts, our collective efforts and all the people that we

represent and all of interest that would represent, working with the card and working with the administration, we can show the american people that government, working with the private sector can get things done. and that's a legitimate question out there. and i think, you know, maybe it's for us to look beyond, you know, the road or the bridge for, you know, or whatever, to help make that a reality. and if we do that, then i think that our business, along with the other issues that you mentioned, jim, will be in a position to be taken care of as well. thank you. >> i am pleased to be able to introduce mary. mary was the federal highway administrator when i was

secretary. and she did a great job in that time that she was there. and then personal circumstances required that she returned to arizona. in the meantime, in 2006, i decided i was going to be leaving. and so i called mary and i said, mary, i know you have just been back to arizona not that long, but if i were to suggest your name for secretary, would you consider coming back? she said well, i'll have to talk to kerry about this. and so a couple days later she called and she said, i think i would like to do that. well, she goes through the

confirmation process. she gets cleared, voted on. the day of the swearing-in, terry came up to me and said i don't know whether to thank you or punch you out. [laughter] but she did a great job as federal highway administrator, did a great job as secretary of defense -- transportation. and i've always been really inundated and grateful to mary, from her ability to get things done, and so again it's great to have this opportunity to be able to introduce mary peters. mary? >> thanks so much. the night before the president would make the announcement, norm and i spoke on the telephone. i told him from now i know how ginger rogers failed because i have got to measure up to at all

to be up to dance backwards in high heels all the time. i think you can see the quality of my predecessors here at this table, and the quality of people have had the privilege of leading the u.s. department of transportation and serving this nation as secretary. and norm is clearly among the topic your experience on how i think played very, very well in helping us understand how to deal with these problems. but we were talking about the problem, how do we manage the message. we have done a great job in convincing each other of the need to invest more in transportation. how then do we carry this message out to the american people and convince them? i think it's instructive forced to go back and see when did it work. well, it worked during the interstate air. it worked when there was a compelling national purpose. and, therefore, the american citizens saw no problems in investing in gas taxescome in commitment increase in order to fund the completion of the interstate highway systems. and even though that money didn't come from wednesday and

could correctly back to that state, people saw the value in building the interstate highways whether it was in montana or wyoming, are some of the large big boxy western states, even if they weren't generating that much money. so what happened that moved us away from that time to create what we have now, this lack of investor confidence in a program and in delivering the program? part of it was the evolution of some of the things that several of us have talked about here. not bad in and of themselves, earmarks, special programs, things like that, bicycle trails gore historic covered bridges. but the totality of those deviations from that clear national purpose and clear national mention i think it contributed to the problem, lack of investor confidence that the others have been a project that you all talk about. scarcely talk to an american prison in public today that doesn't know what the so called bridge to nowhere is. even though both of those

projects would have value. the problem -- the public sees them as signs of success and science of waste in government and what we are not doing right. so if we're unable to recapture the public confidence in the public list invested in the system i think went a couple things. one is we have to now cut back to the very core highway and transit programs that big builders are supposed to fund. we no longer have the luxury of doing the nice things, or the things it would be good but we have to be willing to put this program back to a very, very basics of what we must do. high speed passenger real, sam goody mentioned that. i put that in need to do category. but we so we don't have the revenue to do it at this time. and i think my friend had said perhaps in the future, that may be a good idea but today, we don't have the luxury of doing that. things like transportation enhancement. railroad museums and things like

that maybe good things in and of themselves but again they are nice to do and we can't afford the luxury of doing things like that right now. we have to scale that back. last summer when the aviation bill was being discussed and for the first time ever congress led a transportation program, a major transportation program lapse and norm, you and i'll talk about this that there were no democratic i was or republican bridges. this was something enjoyed bipartisan support. i have to tell you in the aviation program lapsed last summer i said this is a very important thing that we all take look at because congress had never allowed a program to lapse before and i great fear going into september that we might experience the same thing within the service programs. thankfully we did not. get back to basics, get back to what we need to do. aviation program the essential program started out as a very good idea, serve underserved airports but now that our airports as close as 90 miles out of the capital city area here that are receiving funds

from the essential air service program. we've got to knock that off. we can't afford to do that in the aviation program and we certainly can't afford to do things like that within the highway program as well. we have to explore alternatives to the gas tax. it has served us very well, and i think we have enjoyed the fruits of the gas tax over a period of time but let's look at this. today, the corporate average to economy and that is 27 miles per gallon. by 2016, absent something changed and it has to go to 35.4 miles per gallon, and by 2025 just last week epa released regulation that would drive that up to 54.5 miles per gallon. again, by 2025. the gas tax isn't sustainable. it is not reliable in it is not going to get us into the future. so let's focus those gas tax revenues on where you can do the most good in the near term on those core programs, explore

alternatives, bring new sources of revenue in. more important, or acts as importantly, we need to demonstrate to the public that when invest in transportation that getting a good return on investment. we have to use those terms. if you invest a dollar in a transportation project you are going to make a significant improvement in the ability to attract and retain businesses in an area. and i find it very interesting that more than 67% of local initiative that would fund a transportation, whether they be from sales taxes or other types of revenue coming in, more than 67% aspects of the public isn't on went to pay for transportation when they see what they're getting, and they believe it is a good investment. we need to bring that same grammar i think of the federal level and make that demonstration there as well. i heard a figure and i think i'm accurate in saying that transportation accounts for roughly 10% of gdp, much of that, of course, is logistics costs and things like that but if we're able to take the return on investment thought and

communicate to the american people, to american businesses, i think you're trying to do that, along with other groups as well, if we can say that if we don't invest in transportation, what if that percent gets greater? if our decoration of what it costs us to carry goods just in the united states is greater than it is in china, or in south america or somewhere else, we lose in a global economy. so if we can make a transportation i think to the public in an understandable way, that efficient transportation system will help save us money, make the costs of our goods less and make us more competitive on a national stage, and i think we can begin to make some progress. jim, i thought the pew center report was really, really very interesting. that's a good baseline to go from. we need to learn from that and again figure out how can we again communicate to the american public that they're getting a good return on investment and restore the confidence that our system

enjoyed when we started with the interstate highway system thank you. >> i want to introduce normative for don't want to mention one other person that should get credit for a lot of what the miller center has done, and it's great stature, but governor baliles sitting over in the corner. use the when it really made this whole thing happened. he's a legend not only in virginia but throughout the country and in what he is done in a number of areas but particularly this one. e. we took this idea and worked with david good, got the financing and input into play and he is always there. and he is a person that delivers big amateur he is delivering for virginia and the american people. governor, thank you very much. [applause] >> in introducing norm, i first met norm i first came to washington, didn't know anybody come hard anybody. norm and i became fast friends, and that he had been around a

long, long time. now, that doesn't, but i figured out, i try to figure out how the years each of us had been in government. one form or another. and then i think that if you took the total of all four of our time in government -- [applause] it may be about equal to norms time in government. that shows you how much experience and how much depth he has in doing so many things for this country for so many years. and not just in transportation, but obviously a number of other areas but he has been to go to person for multiple presidents on a number of occasions. and he could have been they go to person for the united states congress as they have dealt with infrastructure, transportation issues and all those issues that his committee covered for so many years. he's very, very, very good at what he does. and i think we all know it, and i think it's appropriate that this time, you know, norm, kind of give us your thoughts about based on your past experience,

trials and tribulations, chairman, he and i, secretary and secretary, has an airport named after him, but all those things that go with recognition, give us your thoughts. >> talk about past experience, i remember when my father told me, and i was in business with him, in the insurance business for years, and he said, never undertake fast projects with half vast ideas. [laughter] i think one of the things that we are facing is what, i think everyone has pointed out, we're always talking to each other, and part of the problem is that when you take a look at transportation, as part of the whole picture, it really is a small sector of the economy. in everything we eat, everything we wear, everything we do

somehow it got to us on wheels, at our home, at a store, at a distribution center, at a manufacturing point. somewhere it got there on wheels. and i've never been able to understand why something as vital as transportation, it's something that everyone takes for granted, except when it is denied them. and then when it is denied them, the shelf life is maybe 45 days. i remember when the i-35 w. bridge tragically went down, and jim said we need a 5-cent emergency bridge tax. bridge went down on wednesday. he talked about that on friday. by tuesday he was, you talk about, about, what's her name, dancing backwards.

>> ginger rogers. >> ginger rogers. by tuesday jim was already backpedaling from that emergency gas tax idea, and then not too long after that, 45 days later "usa today" had a survey about this 5-cent gasoline tax emergency idea. 57% said no, we don't need it. so i figured, shelf life of a tragedy, 45 days. and yet it's something everyone is dependent on. so maybe this top down approach just isn't working. so now we've got to be able to deal with this from bottoms up. because it's really the question of how does it impact people at the street level.

and it's a question of thought leaders, policy people, labor, business, everybody at the local level having to deal with this issue. i'm not sure, i'd like to think we have been ineffective at the national level. i'm not sure aashto and all the groups here have been able to leverage this, especially when you think of the extensions that we have had on the faa bill as well as the highway bill. and the question of, well, i me the idea of evolution has been around for a long time. but the question is how do we, how do we get programs to be impacting on people at the local level. not what the national federal

program can do for you at the local level. because that top down to me just hasn't worked, especially with the nature of the polarization of people in politics today. i gave a commencement address at ucla. i talked about issues, people who are proponents or opponents of an issue. they don't go after the issue. they go after the people, and it's the politics of personal destruction. and so we ought to keep an outcome that federal level and get it down into, for the grassroots. it's something that a lot of people in this room, where you have sections or branches at local and state level, and i

think we've got to start working on those folks to be able to start talking about what transportation means. the other day, and i really am appreciative of caterpillar joining public affairs, public miller's center for public affairs. and they talk about their great achievements in terms of sales, what they've done in terms of profits. to me, the most significant part of it was, it was all, not all, but a vast majority of them were generated from their exports. so that meant that somebodies building something out there. but if caterpillar isn't selling domestically, that means we ain't building here locally.

somehow we've got to get that again, that whole picture, to be able to turn it around in terms of a domestic, local, impactful nature. we know how effective the programs are. we've had tremendous administrators and secretary. remember when i took a congressional delegation to europe in 1993, took rodney with me as federal highway administrator. and we initiated an international program on that trip that rodney administered, and effectively. and i think that, again, just

speaking more domestically, what we have to do is really deal with how, as mary blessing, how to get these programs passionate as married was saying, how to get these programs change community impact on individual at the local level for them to have that appreciation. of what transportation means, and talking about gas taxes earlier, when we first put safety together, and we ran this idea i and the garden, karl rove -- andy, karl rove, nick calio, and it was tax increases. and so i had two years, 2 cents the third year. 2 cents the 50 or. the only one who really objected to it was mitch daniels.

but everyone else was on board. so you have a 15 deck powerpoint presentation in the roosevelt room with the president, go through the whole thing, and he goes back to page three, picks out a sharpie pen, circles those tax increases and says norm, i don't want those tax increases. get them out. as i recall jeff was about three to $30 billion program i think that we had. with about a seven or $9 billion unobligated surplus. the end of that. secure. so we went back to the drawing board, come back, roosevelt room. same presentation, no tax increase the first year, no tax increase the third year, 50 or i put the cpi inflator on the 18th cent gasoline tax. go to the whole presentation, go

back to page three, president picks up a sharpie, circles the cpi and says norm, that the tax increase, gated out. so we went with the taxes that we had and then i took the surplus from highway trust fund down to 1 billion, and that's what we ended up with, what was it, a $267 billion program, then congress added some 20 billion more, made it to 87 program. -- 287 program. chairman mike it was working on it, 230 basic bill, roughly. was. [inaudible] pinnacle, hoping it's going to grow. that's what we're looking for tomorrow or whenever he makes his announcement on the bill. but again, i think we really do

have to get back to the basics. and i don't mean in a programmatic way, but in a message way of getting it back out to the grassroots so we can come and this is where the states become very, very important, and where we are going to be able to our should be able to get to the people in those local areas. as mary says, will be impacted by these programs. so again, thanks to my colleagues for joining us here, and thank you, governor baliles and heather and joann, and jeff, for your work here at the miller center. if i think we'll take a few questions, right, governor? and i would only make a couple observations on the. first of all, having visited

centerburg in virginia, west virginia, there are some democratic bridges. [laughter] but that was, that's a good example of bipartisanship. he and i put a number things together. i love to tell the story. jeff knows it i think, but i said we were going to west virginia, chairman of the appropriations committee, i've got to be a time. so i am half an hour early to the airport to go with senator byrd to west virginia. and i'm waiting around the coast guard, use the coast guard airplane. he said the senator is already on board. true story. half an hour early. is sitting in the airplane just as though he did. he has his seatbelt on. he has his papers on the front of his chair, not very reply. always politically nice pocket i was late, a half hour early. [laughter] but the gray line is that while it's all local, we get off the

airplane and this is the chairman of the appropriations committee who was revered by everybody, get soft airplane in charleston, west virginia, and the guy who's putting the jocks into the airplane was looks up and sees senator byrd and says byrd, i've been looking for you. [laughter] we are only driven by what local people i've dashed out make a couple observations to follow up. we talk about picking the right projects. it would be nice if they were exciting. every once in a while they have an exciting project of the most exciting project in illinois in the last 20 years is when we put open polling, tollway in illinois so people didn't have to wait at the gates all the time and went through and use technology to manage that very effectively. they saw that. so in this time came up for a huge increase in the tolls for eleanor it was almost noncontroversial because they

have saw something that transportation had delivered on that major life simple and easy. so i don't think we should underestimate the fight of no one come getting immediate impact and technology can play a role, and then that was innovative and creative everything for the rest of this conference will talk about a lot of some innovative and creative ways. if we just talked ourselves and just think within the box about what we've been doing before, you know, we will all love each other again and be all great, but we really won't have done the job that i think governor baliles and the team wants. and that's for us to open our eyes, think outside the box, throw up some ideas and talk about them in the next day or so, that we might be able to translate into effective ways to build a significant -- to fill the significant gap. so with that in mind, no one knows this i'm going to ask norm to moderate the questions.

>> john, can i ask you to start off? >> yes. thank you. i represent the 50 state d.o.t.'s various -- one of my bosses did great job as chair of are planning to me. what's going on at the state level, the same dynamics in terms of politics here at the national, nobody wants to raise taxes, but most people also recognize that transportation is vital to economic recovery, economic opportunity for the people to seek jobs, et cetera. but in most state legislatures, and norm, you used to work with your california state legislature, the federal dollar is used to leverage increases in state funding your jeff asked jack, what did you mean market share 45%, or significant level, it is crucial to the states that

you maintain federal presence, federal leadership, that 45% presence. because then states will leverage that to pass, sustained or enhance their funding level. so, the question i'd like to ask the secretaries gathered here here, how do we convey this federalist concept that we need both federal and state resources to ramp up, to sustain the american economy, keep us competitive international markets, make domestic markets work, create jobs, sustained the economy? how do we create that image? because what's happening at the state level, they are struggling. most states have had to cut in the last three years, and the few states are coming out of the hole and they will do to increase, but most of them are just hanging on for dear life. the last thing they need is to see the federal government go

down, sustaining will help. but how do you get across this concept that we're in it together, we need both federal and state leadership? [inaudible] >> does not view this as either second or tertiary concerns. does not view it as a jobs program. does not view it as a tax issue, so i mean, we've all served in different administration. revolves served under different president and we all have variations on those dynamics to talk about, but we are at a very different place. i've got the d.o.t. in my 1083, nearly 30 years i've been focus on these issues. this is the first time we've been in this particular place. mary touched upon what is the linchpin. and that is that whatever you

think philosophically and on the merits about corporate average fuel economy standards, café, the obama administration mandated by the middle this decade new cars on average will get 40% better miles. the fuel tax, which today not sustain current programs, is going to be hopelessly underwater very soon. and even if we don't get to this 2025 member, which i doubt we will, if we just on the path that we're going to be a, i think that 40% will stick your then we are in a heap buffer. if you think whether problem today, we have no problem compared to where we are going to be in the last half of this decade. and yet when the secretary led a very early on in his tenure had the audacity to talk about this

issue even before this 40% increases mandated, and talk about the fact we need to look at a vehicle miles traveled time within the city, he got publicly slapped down by the press secretary of the white house. and he's a very resilient fellow, as we all know, and he got right back up and kept on trucking. but he didn't say that again. so that whole dynamic has got to fundamentally shift after this next election. i wouldn't be here. i would be on a beach somewhere and enjoy life if i was smart enough to know how to shift it, but i know it's got to shift or else where we are today is my. said to get to your question about how we explain the fact that you've still got to a very ample federal resources to leverage, is several miles down that road. our problem today is a crisis that is all but the media.

it is immediate in terms of how do you find just what we've got to be without raising taxes. can't be done. you can scotch taped together some stuff for a couple of years but you can't do it on a sustained basis. you've got to the fundamental debate and it's going to take leadership. the eisenhower administration, president eisenhower personally gets credit, and he deserves a lot of credit, for the interstate highway system being born. and creating basic legislative mechanism. but there's been a lot of talk up your about bipartisanship. does a very bipartisan exercise also if you go back and read about it. and it had virtually universal support on both parties. so again, we've got to get back to that level of discussion here because fuel taxes are broken in my judgment. there's no way we will ever come we can't raise fuel taxes and nickel. we talk about having to raise and 30, 50, 75 cents. to sustain current programs for just a few years.

it's not going to happen to anybody in the room disagree? anybody in the room think we will raise fuel taxes by that much? okay. we are at a point that is unique. it's a fundamental departure from where we have ever been before in our collective experience. and it takes first recognition of that, and then it is going to take i think presidential leadership. which is seldom have seen on transportation issues. it must become a bipartisan faces. we don't get presidential attention very much so i think that's sort of the next step. and then hopefully we figure that out, we can answer your questions satisfactorily about what are the state functions. [inaudible] >> but i don't think, jim, you are not suggesting the president should be moving forward on fuel efficiency. it's -- >> that's another debate. >> but that doesn't make sense.

that doesn't make sense. >> we disagree. i don't think that's the role of the federal government. >> well, it is. [inaudible] >> and there probably should be some of that, but it can't be a one-sided and a one size fits all proposition. and that's where we are. i mean, we've got to figure out a way to deal with the additional funds that are needed not just to patch up, i don't think we can afford to be basic when it comes to dealing with something that is so critical to the overall economy, and to our quality of life, as to just want to do the basics. especially not when, as norm said, when we made this trip some years ago international, we could see then that the competition was getting very, very close to us, and actually

in some areas leading on major transportation investments and major transportation thought. we can't compete when countries around the world have better ports and have better airports and a better transportation systems than we. and transportation is about jobs. i mean, it's about jobs. it's about health care. it's about all of these things that the president talks about. that's how we get into that message. and with this president he talks about high-speed rail. and i'm excited about high-speed rail. i don't think that it's something that you say is for the future. you may say that it may be for another day, but if we're not thinking about it now, and when we introduced, we were not 10, 15 years behind the it's just that we haven't done anything in

10 years. we were not as far behind the japanese and other european countries at that time. we are far behind and not because we haven't done enough sense. >> jim's point, jim's point to me was, jim's point is, i think, and your point, to come is the gas tax system as we see today will not throw out the revenues. when it was devised we expected it would throw off. and it is not going to be easy to fix. so, therefore, whether you 40 miles a gallon, 30 now i got and it's still going to go down, it's to going to shortfalls where to start thinking outside the box ope. >> what happened in this history where people were willing to use user tax in the form of a

gasoline tax, wherein they are getting their tank filled, they were willing to sit there and pay for it. and then, now, and i remember sitting in the room down in phoenix when david, i mean drew lewis was talking to only be and said i've got two speeches. one was a 5-cent gasoline tax increase, and the other one without it. which one, which speech am i going to give? and he kept arguing as to why we needed that 5-cent gasoline tax increase. and i guess they must've finally said, because we did only one side of the conversation, all right, go ahead and give the one with a 5-cent tax increase. man, jim howard, bob roll, john paul hammerschmidt, snyder from kentucky company, we all yes, you know? we jumped.

but that spirit isn't there now. why is it that that gas tax that was a user fee, all of a sudden now it is in disfavor. we could call the vehicle mile tax, travel, we can put all kinds of lipstick on some name, but what do you think, what is it we need to be able to get movement, some traction? we've gone through all these extensions, and no, another extension. and i just wonder what is it in terms of that user tax that was pretty sacrosanct at one point, and now it's just, you can't use the phrase gasoline tax. >> if i could, first of all, back when we start the interstate system and again congress and dramatic increase

the fuel tax but it was a good earning. it was a good proxy at that time given where we were with vehicles back in that day. it was good proxy, and we're seeing that gap widen further, further, for the. the other thing is we need to define a clear national interest in funny transportation because absent that it becomes nothing but a public works program and its every man or woman for himself in terms of the bill. so if we're to clearly defined national purpose that the citizens of this country could get behind, and i agree with your term of user fee. i think -- the closer you can keep the use of the system to the cost of people are paying for the system, the better off we are. but a clear national purpose, what is it the federal, we'll do. john, to your question earlier having spent time on a state level as well, the argument that if we don't have in the state gas tax, at least match the

federal system plays well for a while but not long. i thought every state in this last two legislative cycles stripped out every available dollar they could and transportation programs and spend it somewhere else. in arizona, if the highway gas tax was constitution prohibited it would've been gone but it was evident as. that argued hold water for a little while but not long. was the federal purpose if we can to find that then we can define a methodology for having revenue come into the federal government that the public would believe him. >> alan, did you -- allen? [inaudible] they generally show up with something like six to one benefit cost ratio. and so if people believe that they would be out in front of the usd if you would march up and down saying please, tax me. clearly, that doesn't seem to

work. and i think, perhaps as mary said, that funny things happen when you send money to washington to funny things happen when you send money to richmond or any state capital. so it all comes back i think to credibility. we've all talked about credibility in various forms. you all have. and you begin to think maybe it's just the nature of all government. but, in fact, i think we've got a special problem because i can go back into the '60s, and we had that issue of making the case for a gas tax increase, as far back as them. there was a massive selling job in fact and 56. it was not easy. 55, 56 people really had to sell. aaa, american trucking really had to push. 55 years later it was a done deal. everybody knew it was a good idea. it wasn't.

[inaudible] >> one of the important factors, i'm very concerned about the notion that we have a tendency to go from what we know to something we don't know because it may be looks better. ever go to something like the emp tags which has a lot of merit to it, at the same time that the day you invoke it's going to freeze unlock exactly as the gas tax. no one, unless you make a funny accession is going to raise that tax in the year after india after. unless there's credibility that goes along with it. somehow. so i think we really have to examine the credibility and whether it is simply giving people a menu that says if you give us this, we do that. if that's the maximum -- mechanism it takes i'm not sure. but i think we certainly failed in making that case. one of the great failures i've seen this we do a great job on a project, we don't do an after state and go back and see see, this is what we did. if you look at the wilson --

well, look at the bridge. [inaudible] >> if this happens, this is what the benefits will be. and we don't go back and say to the public we did it. what's the benefit. the benefits of the wilson bridge our glasgow paid off in two years, three years of investment it but i don't think the public, the public of sees that kind of description. [inaudible] >> moratorium on earmarks is so important right now. and also don't forget their marks are just not exclusively a federal problem. the state and local has just a bigger problem as they allocate. but people's confidence coming in, they're kind of attracted to $259 bridge, between small town in alaska. they are not focused on wilson bridge or some of the other projects, major projects that they've undertaken, or they think about the big dig which

was 20 years ago in a different and viacom different different time which probably could not be allowed to have in today's world with the way -- so i think it's part of, but you've got to get local because people don't give government just washington and local. today there looking at it there local government is broke, they're spending money on things that they don't think is pride -- is highbury. the federal government is spending things on high priority. neither one of them is spending it efficiently in their mind because they die to one or two project. so you have a culture change in turn and both the state and federal government. and then number two, you really got, going to your point, among several public boards, i always insisted to my board has insisted on having a look back after one, two, three years of a major capital investment to see if it performed and what we thought it would perform at. but don't forget, if you don't perform at that level, your state and local government, you

don't want to look back. so, you're afraid of a look back and there's no public directors to say, you know, do is look back. so you're right. you could sell a lot with what we've really done. >> i think norm has touched upon another critical issue here, which is the idea of a user fee is just been obliterated. of me, to begin with on a federal level when you crank up the printing presses and transfer $34.5 billion into the highway trust fund from general treasury account, there goes the idea of a user fee. you can't have it both ways, yet that's what we've done over the last three or four years and our country it would defy the next $12.5 million to fund the senate to your bill. so we are at ground zero on the use of the concept. there is support for that still out there. the american trucking association has been on the public record for several years

as supporting a diesel fuel tax increase. so long as it's spent on highways. so long as it is spent on highways. it is a true user fee. if it is spent on bike paths, they are adamantly opposed to an increase of diesel fuel taxes. and if it's spent on museums they are adamantly opposed. i have a very nice bicycle. i love writing it on the weeke weekend. and i will tell you, in which you don't want i do not wear spandex. [laughter] >> thank you. but i will tell you what -- [laughter] if you haven't priced at bicycle resort for bicycle repair, they are expensive. and i don't know what the spandex cost but i suspect that costs a lot, too, okay? so my question is, if people can afford bikes that cost anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars, why do we have a bicycle user fee to fund bike

paths? you know? if it's that important, then let's let the users find it and lets, nor, go back to the fundamentals of user fees. and i think that would take us, that would take us a fair way down the road of reestablishing credibility with the american public for a programs. if the people are benefiting from the programs are asked to contribute to those programs. but don't ask the trucking industry to subsidize the bikers. they can see the fancy bikes, too. [inaudible] >> i would be very nervous about a federal policy that said washington is going to tell you what you can build. we will have a national system, if you're not on the national system for get a. i think we have to not give up on the idea that there's flexibility, choice the commitment of the. is good projects and is not simply an engineering decision by certain number of roads what

we're going to pay for and everything else. that didn't actually work well on the interstate system. if you live through a number of years of the. it was not a picnic either. >> washington should not dictate. that's why we -- [inaudible] >> i think that's a we've got to build to get across is what are you getting. it may not be a very specific road you are driving on, but it's some degree of improvement other like that you're getting by paying your taxes and being part of a system that decides how to spend the money to go back and define, what is the federal interest and what is, what is the interest of the nation, like connectivity, like freight movement, things like that. like having interstate standards from one state to another. i think those are things that i could all argument i would argue the safety programs are in the national interest if we don't want commercial vehicle drivers license deadly from state to state like they used to be, nor nixon or things like that but i

think there are a handful of things -- >> think outside the box lead you to bypass. it leads you to think that people actually want to support them at why should those be funded locally though instead of federally? if the local government wants a bike path or something like that, they should be willing to pony up local money for doing that as opposed to federal dollars in local money, federal money, it goes into the pot and you make decisions about it. that we are saying restraint those decisions. >> that's where i believe lies the lack of confidence. [inaudible] >> i think we have a couple of issues going on here. one is a real divergence, and the comments that some of you made about us talking to ourselves, and then the going out and listening, as norm said. what we are buying and how we are passionate how we articulate it as a national level i don't think it's as to what the public

wants to have investments being made in. and if we were willing to change the mix of things, we might have more support. at the local level and the state level, measures the balance issues every fall that they occur on. at about three quarters of them get approved. some with two-thirds vote. there is a mix of investment and it's a way different grounds than what we talk are here at the national level. it's a bike path, transit, highways, made even the rail in some cases. so they are willing to pay when they have a sense of what it is and when there's much more of a balance in what the product and the output is. i work with a lot of people who say why should we find anything if all they're going to do is keep on doing what we've always done, which is more than me. which breeds part of the cynicism that we talk about. mary, you understand this as a former uta. i've gone out, been hollowed out about building roads, night and day for endless times.

everyone else has been a secretary at d.o.t. at the same level. people see an increase in capacity, opens up for more development, which and crowds of the roads all over again. they don't see a way out of this vicious circle. we are not offering other ideas to help them get to a different place. so i think there's a divergence in the product that we are parting out there that makes it really hard for people to subscribe to just more of the same. >> governor baliles. >> there's been a common thread running through the comments today about the lack of investor confidence. i think secretary peters used that phrase. and to me, it appears that is true in the way money is raised as well as the way money is spent. i think the public perceives that we have waited so long to raise new funds, and the costs

are so high that you can't possibly raise taxes high enough to meet the needs that have been validated. second, i think the public sense is that however money is raised, whether it is through the gas tax or through even a vehicle miles tax, the funds are supposed to be dedicated. they're supposed to go into a trust fund. and what i perceive is that the word trust, trust fund, has been devalued. so my question to all of you is, as former secretaries, would be how do you keep the funds from being fungible? how do you keep funds from being perceived by congress as well as the public? as transferable, even though they've been forwarded into a trust fund. >> well, i think again we are talking about the same issues but from diverse viewpoints. and i think you do exactly what

i suggested, which is if you want bypass, then you generate revenues from those are the beneficiaries of the bike paths that are dedicated to the bike paths. so that is not a radical concept except for the fact that the people writing on the bike paths today are accustomed of somebody else subsidized and and so there's not a lot of support in the bicycling community i would suggest for a bicycle user fee. but, in certain urban areas, come back to mary's exchange a little bit, in certain urban areas the kind of mix we heard about it is going to be very popular. but in other areas it's going to be very unpopular. and so we need to have devices on state and the federal level that permit us, given locales, citizenry wants to diverse programs funded, do that. not tap into federal funds that have been paid, for example, by the trucking industry. i mean, we haven't even talked about this today, even if the

economy grows a little bit over the next decade, we're going to have 30% more free to move in this country. 30%. railroads do not go to 80% of our communities. and an emotivism is the concept we're all familiar with, where you put the trucks take the freight to the trains and the trains take it halfway are all way across the country and then the unknown for the last few miles. and that's a concept that is very efficient and works very well. but 30% more freight will have to be moved and it will take highways. so when you say to the trucking industry, oh, but you have to have enhancement and have to flex ability. they say wait a minute, we've got to move freight across this country. and is going to be a lot more of it. and i think, governor, that's a concept we have lost the we have to reestablish. if we do have to i think as we try to sort this out narrow past, you want me to pay a tax

in the transportation field, i want to get back to norm and the other's point about users fees, that spend it on money that i see the benefit from what i can use it. and if you want flexibility, fine, we can talk about turn back to the states. we can talk about a variety of alternatives that give states and locales flexibility, but certainly on the federal level i think we've got, we've got to narrowcast approach again to any chance of reestablishing credibility. >> at the risk of being blasphemous, i want to press to you a little bit on this abolition of earmarks. it just occurs to me that ever since congress stopped earmarking we haven't had a successful authorization of any programs. [laughter] the first thing that happened when it marks were abolished with the transportation

infrastructure committee shrinking membership quite dramatically. and i, forgive me, i mean i'm not a fan of earmarks. >> we waited for two years to get safetea-lu because they're working on 6000 earmarks that had to be part of the bill. anybody thought that was offensive. but secretary skinner said it's all local. are to earmarks in a sense the way you connect members to the local dimension in a way that, which we haven't seen without them? i mean, can you talk about, would you have delivered without the negotiating coined that in marx undoubtedly provided to you as chairman at that time? >> the earmarks were large earmarks. i mean, when we were secretary, there was no discretionary fund. i remember the r&d, a piece of safetea-lu, they authorize 125%,

earmarked 125% of the authorized amount. and then they said, then you choose which ones to fund. and i said to hell with it. i didn't go over the 100%. you guys did. you pick them. u.. that's 10% of 287 billion. i'm not suggesting that's not real money.

>> let me make this observation because several of us have said this today including jack as he started out. we have to acknowledge the national fiscal reality we are dealing with today. we have to acknowledge the fact that this nation is under more fiscal stress than we've ever been under, likely since the great depression, and many of us know if we don't correct that that's where we are going to be today. and the public realizes that. so, the committee the was tolerant of the number of earmarks that had been passed in 2005 doesn't exist today. it doesn't matter how many members on that committee. leadership is not there today. we really have to demonstrate to the public and america we are spending the dollars we take from them wisely and well and we are not spending excess money doing things we don't need to do right now. i just don't think we can divorce where we are in transportation from the national fiscal reality. >> the 1987 surface transportation reauthorization bill passed in very early january at 154 earmarks on it. now unfortunately one of them

was a big day and president reagan vetoed it but it was a going away gift to the outgoing speaker tip o'neill and his veto was overridden. remember that, norm. and so it is possible -- it is possible to pass surface transportation reauthorization bills. in my lifetime and yours at least without thousands of your marks. and i'm not here to debate the merits or the lack of merits about your marks. alana was 75% of the people in state after state say they are opposed to the fuel tax increases. there is that fundamental loss of trust as the governor referred to and it doesn't matter if it is 2% or 1.5% or 20%, it is the symbolism. and that's what we've got to address and get beyond i think. >> i've heard a lot of great comments and questions.

i have one observation and then a question for the panel. first of all i think when you have a meeting in washington you get stuck in the jargon of washington too much. and i do think rodney slater said it right. the public opinion polls show people care about jobs more than anything else. so if you do not brand transportation for what it is which is a potential engine for job creation, then you're missing the opinion of attending. why is that important? because of a point of this conference is about love with purchase provision is important for the nation, but whether there is a batter into message that to connect it to the lives of people and right now there are at least 14 or a million of them that don't have a job and probably another six to 8 million that are underemployed so to say that it's not connected to job creation is a mistake by those that care about the transportation system in the country. and number two, i think we get

caught up in the jordan. i don't think the average person knows what enhancements are. i don't think the average person understands whether or not the super committee was a good idea or bad idea whether they did did their job or didn't do their job. what they do know is they don't have a paycheck and they are looking for a government that works better. and i think if this conference accomplishes anything else, it is to come out of here with a better messaging approach that doesn't get in the policy people also the beltway don't understand. one question about that i hear the business community talk about the need to invest more in transportation and the last time i checked public and private partnership has public and private in a and i wonder whether there is a way to engage small and large businesses to talk about a reliable robust public sector role there will be no private sector role because you hear a lot of the private sector saying we are not going to jump in to the projects if we

don't have a reliable funding and policy mechanisms of i offer that as a sort of question and observation. >> i think being a random big public company it's still when we talk about his trust and confidence in the projects and ability to deliver yes they want to do that. they pay a lot of money, do we love of associations to make that case. unfortunately when the directors associations come back and say we've got to go to the hill and talked about these projects. and then they find out is this money that you are asking us to to to washington, is it being effectively spent? there are a lot of good projects with different your marks. they might have been built anyway. the problem is if you don't have, it's whether there is a public corporation, school, if you don't have a method of accountability in some process

to put these things through so that when they come out at the other end everybody knows they've got and maybe there will be a few of lawyers that at least they went through some rationalization and take the jobs bill. we had to do something and we had the same issues they face today. we didn't have the money. but the point is if you went back and validated how the money was spent and how many jobs created i think you'll find that it didn't do, and most people know that now because it was -- it took a project that was already under way and was going to be built, brought it forward i can give you three in my state alone, projects in the bill, so therefore when we talk about jobs, we talk about funding money and infrastructure to build jobs, but the point is the infrastructure that we are building or currently jobs under the temporary basis to justify the jobs on a permanent basis.

and if you don't -- if you don't connect that then what happens is you leave with a bad taste in your mouth, we threw money in a hurry to get money out that didn't go through that and i am not faulting anybody because they weren't ready. there would have been a lot of good projects if they knew there was going to be that kind of money available you would be shettle ready. but they didn't know it happened too late for a lot of good projects to catch into the queue. and so american business is saying i'm paying taxes, people are paying taxes. i want people to get to work, one them to get home, i want to have my cost of transportation to be effective, as cost-effective as it can. and how you do that is your responsibility. and we are glad to be a partner but you better do it right because if we don't see the you do it right we won't come back the next time to support you. >> we are getting close to the hour but i want to call on

street people who had their hands up. greg cohen, jack shannon and greg? >> the users about 18,000 are either trekkers or motorcyclists to weigh in on transportation issues. >> either because they spend their life working on the road or for recreational purposes. and these are advocates they still sends a large number who feel if they paid more it would go into some black colin washington and we don't know where it would be going. so listening to some comments about how great it used to be i wonder if the idea of the cost to complete the system it seems

to me, and i don't know if i have my history right, but the old system where the cost to complete is when you get and what you pay for a long what kind of an elevated status of the mom elected bureaucratic leaders i guess mainly engineers that occurred back at the time in the 40's and 50's and 60's led to this feeling of the country and building something worth paying for and i don't know if they are spending time to get have the issue of the vision that kind of stuff and to convince people that this is worth paying for. it's some kind of modified cost to complete model lines on the paper anymore, but real national goals with a price tag for someone in the federal highway administration came up with a cost to complete and it would be

helpful. >> can you give flight to what he's talking about? >> the comment i was going to make is somewhat similar and it's based on experience that i've had with one of my clients i've had for ten years which is a car that runs from mexico to canada, and runs through western texas, western oklahoma, north dakota, as of dakota, very rural america, parts of america where the anti-tax sentiment was formed where the tea party is strong and get this is the message it seems to me we are trying to raise a lot of additional money in the federal level because we need greater investment of the federal and state level and the question is

how can we build public support around getting those additional resources we need and support for the program and what i found working with the people along that corridor is they are not going to buy into something abstract. they are not going to support an abstract concept flexibility, economic development, productivity. but they are going to buy into is updating the corridor, and they talked about it in terms of jobs and productivity. they get it. people understand what transportation means tall local and state level. when you talk about upgrading that, this area with the members of constituencies along the way those mayors and county executive support an increased

gas tax or any increase revenues as long as the program is structured in a way that they've got some degree of assurance that it's going to be a great over time, the kind of thing that greg is talking about to use as a cost to complete the kind of approach and so as we get into the defining of the federal rule i do think we have to define it in a way that really means something to the public and what i think in my experience that means is some understanding what transportation improvements are actually going to get because they can then put two and two together and secretary peters pointed out that was the interstate system. people understood it, then it becomes transparent and to conceive the investment being made and the progress and you solve a lot of the problems that we've talked about. so just based on that experience i do think that as we move forward and identify this federal vision, the federal

emphasis that we are going to have we actually can't we get too abstract and the more we can make it so that people understand what they are going to get for it in the real transportation since the better off we will be. >> to fit with what you get dhaka talking about interstate 2.0. much of the system today qualifies for the aarp card because it's 50 years over age and is engaging rapidly. it needs to be not only maintained but improved and expanded some of the corridors that are not on the map back in 1956 like the north and south corridors so it seems to me something like that we could get our heads around and say okay if that is where the money is going to be spent and this is the very narrow parameter under which it is spent perhaps we could give people more in the sea is did about putting more money into a federal program. >> the way that i envision at

whatever it is the total government is going to invest in we need to be able to describe it in a transportation way so the businesses, local constituents, they know the transit system is going to be upgraded and we can see what those improvements are coming. my experience is they don't buy into it. >> the highways and interstate system invest in bridges [inaudible] doing the $3 billion, so you can't just pass a bill that looks at this limited. there are other interests of their who talked about the bypass so you really have to market this in a program that encompasses all of this in the considerations which are effective project designed to

properly implement the benefits of the end and what that filter is and then put them in because absent that you have the same fighting going on. all this call needs is in the highways and it's bigger than highways we have in the bridges we have talking about. >> janet? >> i've been there for five years now and i had the opportunity to hear multiple times from many people in this room from my coalition members and others that say you need to bring the business community to the table. and i think we've brought the chamber to the table. i think all of us collectively has brought attention to the infrastructure issues and the big challenge is how do you get it over the hump and actually get action to that. a lot of times people to bring the business community to the table with a lot or a lot of brand name companies standing up in front of cameras like we have

in this room and say what we really need to do is raise the gas tax and what congress needs to do is step out and do something but a lot of it comes back to the question of what is in it for me and these are companies that are under extreme pressure because of the rising health care costs because it and i will be on a panel tomorrow because of the unionization pressures. they are concerned about taxes. they are concerned not everyone looking at them and looking at wall street being able to tax them to nickel and dime everything else and that boils down to main street. and so, you know, at the same time that we can all talk under the veil of been bipartisan and we need to bring the business community to the table one of the things the center is doing here very well is giving us an opportunity as a transportation community to try to lay some of these things out so that we can attack them tomorrow. the bottom line is i think we can get the business committee there, the caterpillar support this effort, other companies that are looking at this are critical to that. so we have got to speak to what their needs are and the

transportation community we did a great job of the tax hikes safety and enhancements and section 4 of this and that can we get my stuff and my people to and from places in a way that is cost-efficient and a way that is safe and reliable and what i decide to make the capital best what is they are going to be the compassion and to bring in the future and i don't think we've answered those questions for them yet. >> i think to of the major voices of their are the chamber with tom and john, and they are finding common ground, and it may provide us some fertile soil for selecting out a couple of specifics going forward last

year. good job. >> before i ask you to join us in thinking our distinguished panel let me say that this session is precisely what we envisioned. a robust discussion with the distinguished secretaries helping us see through some of these issues and because it helps us set the stage for the hard work tomorrow how we develop that message as we said before that national concern that really translates into a local one shift. so, we have a lot of work to do and we start tomorrow morning with a breakfast at 8:30b start the program sure that 9:00. now, we are going to adjourn across the street. we have a real treat for you

tonight. from 1940 to 1973, the president of the united states conducted a secret conference of conversations without the knowledge of the people in the room. [laughter] they are conducting a record program where we are going through the tapes and producing recordings for historians. tonight we are going to use those secret recordings involving transportation issues. lyndon johnson with gerald ford about the highway trust fund and

you'll hear lady bird johnson just ended a conversation about the highway beautification program and some other greats. then after that presentation, i have the little surprise for one of our distinguished former transportation secretary i think that we will enjoy also. thank you very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] mr. gillmor was governor from 1998 to 2002. he says mitt romney can beat president barack obama. mr. romney and texas governor juan paul are the only republicans who qualified for a spot on virgin yes march 6th gop presidential balad. the president in the u.s. chamber of commerce criticized new gingrich for his attack against mitt romney over his venture capital firm. thomas donahue says the republican presidential hopefuls are setting up an ad campaign for president obama to use against mitt romney. to conceal mr. donahey's for

comment on c-span.org. in this episode we are going to take a look at the surprising comment on climate change and the scientists behind the research. >> i think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated that. >> what i do is i waste different comments by politicians on a one to four scale. if you say something really outrageous that's completely you see something that's a level slightly misleading or out of context you might get as little as one pinocchio.

>> with the vigor deliberately lying and i think the politicians is the same thing over and over again even when it has been pointed out that it is not true that they know that they are saying something not true. and they are just going to say it any way. british lawmakers return to the house of commons following their holiday break. in the first question time of the new year prime minister david cameron tackled questions on increased transportation costs and the legality of a possible referendum forreseed independence. this is about a half our peerymr estimate mr. gramm stewart.sterk >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house would wish to whole house will wish to join and join meserviceman who have fallen in service of our country since we last met

for prime ministers questions i. captain tom jennings from the royal marines, squadron leader anthony downing from the royal air force, private john king from first battalion the yorkshire regiment, and riflemen from first battalion the royal rifles. who died after a long period in hospital where he was much loved by the staff who looked after him. they are asked any courage and selflessness will never be forgotten. they have given their lives serving our country and making our world more secure. and our thoughts should with their families and their friends. >> this morning i agree with mr. of colleagues and others in addition to my dues in sales i shall further such meetings later today be that mr. graham stuart. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the whole house will wish to associate itself with the prime minister's tribute to the fallen. can i ask the prime minister join me in congratulating country foods onto 50 million-pound investment creating a state-of-the-art facility in my constituency,

license for export to the is department of agriculture from exporting throughout the e.u. and employ no more than 1200 people? here, here. >> unfortnuately, mr. speaker, the food standards agency is blocking export from this excellent plot to the parties. can the prime minister assured me that job history on this is a regulations will not be tolerated by his government? >> i serving to my honorable friend congratulating the company in his constituency further expansion of the welcome new jobs that they bring to it is my plan would balance our economy with greater emphasis on investment, on business investment and on exports. and in terms of exports to china they went up by over 20% last year. i'm sorry do everything i can to help resolve the situation. i'm very happy to ask a minister to meet my honorable friend to discuss this issue. >> ed miliband.

[shouting] >> mr. speaker, can i join the prime minister in paying tribute to captain tom jennings from the royal marines, squadron leader anthony downing from the royal air force, rather john king from first battalion, the yorkshire regiment, and riflemen from fourth, third battalion the royal rifles. all of them showed enormous courage and bravery at making sacrifices on our behalf, and our deepest condolences go to their family and friends. >> here, here. >> the chancellor said in the opening state of the drinkers would only rise by 1% of inflation. and he therefore explained while rail companies this month some of these amateur roots have increased their fares by 11%? >> the power was given to them to do that by the last labour government. [laughter] >> ed miliband. >> know, mr. speaker. no.

no, mr. speaker, no mr. speaker. the prime minister is wrong. the last, the last labour government stopped them from doing that and there's prime minister, and this prime minister when he came to office reversed that policy. that we produced. that's why, that's what the companies we are able to rig the fares. that's why so much on from north hampton to london will see a rise of over 300 pounds. will he now stand up to the train companies, get a better deal for commuters and changes policy? >> i know the honorable gentleman has had a different start to the your. [laughter] he's made it worse by getting it wrong. labour allowed in 2009 fare increases of up to 11% because they introduce this idea reflects 5% over and above the rpi plus 1% that was against, and was in 2009 is the case today.

but i think the key issue is this. there's own to places money for railways can come from. they can come from the taxpayer or it can come from the traveler. what really matters is are we going to put money into rail investment? this government is putting that money in. we are building crossrail. we are electrifying the great western main line. we are electrifying the line between manchester and liverpool. we're putting 308 billion into crossrail and, of course, as my right ottawa been announced yesterday we are building a just to as will. >> ed miliband. >> i'm afraid the prime minister is just wrong about the facts. the last labour government saw the train company were taking advantage of consumers, ripping them off by increasing fares more on the busiest route and we started. we took away that power from them. he came to office and he brought the power back. he made a wrong decision. after his idea that this is all to help the passenger, the national office warned that the

problem was this money it would result in increased train operating company profit. i ask him again, mr. speaker, will he now go back and reverse his policy? >> we are rigidly set out and rpi plus three policy, 3% policy for drinkers. we found money in to reduce that rpi plus 1%. but i have to say, if he wants to see more money, go into our railways, presumably he supports the electrification of the great western main line. he supports the electrification of the railway lines in the northwest. he will be touring the country telling us who supported these things but he's never prepared to take difficult decisions in order to support them. it is time -- >> the answers for the prime minister will be heard. prime minister. >> i think it is time for him to listen to his defense secretary who wrote very candidly over

christmas there is a difference between populism and popularity, and that difference is called credibility. time to have some, i think. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> instead of his prepared remarks, he should get his facts right. [shouting] he's just wrong. he is wrong. he says that he is continuing the policy of the last labour government, and he is simply wrong on the facts. the last labour government saw the train companies were doing and said we're going to put them into a. the prime minister said on the weekend he wanted to take action against crony capitalism. he has failed the first hurdle. [shouting] i ask him for the last time, mr. speaker, we now reverse the policy? >> we are now on to the issue of hires peoples pay. on the issue of the rail fares, on the issue of the row, let me be absolutely clear.

labour introduced the policy of 5% flexibility. they changed it for one year only for an election year, but no intention of making a permit if he doesn't know that, he should. [shouting] >> now, if he -- i think if he wants to get on to the issue of executive pay, i think he's entirely right to raise this issue. [shouting] and unlike a government. >> order. i want to hear the answer, and let me say -- order, order. and however long it takes, i will. the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i think he is right to raise the issue of executive pay, and unlike the last government that did nothing for 13 years, this government will act. [shouting] >> sir roger gale. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i understand my right honorable

friend is recommending present and i'm not asking for another. the league of the opposition is talking, my constituents on the coastline have been paying up to 10% increases. under the last labour government, the last four years, until they lost. mr. speaker, in congratulating this government, in its courageous decision to pursue high speed to mac, can i ask a right angle for now to turn his attention to these unfinished business left by the last government, high speed one, it runs effectively -- vca driven through so that we can enjoy the benefits the individual will be enjoyed by everyone? >> first of all? congratulate my right ottawa friend on his well-deserved honor for his service for many years are his constituents? he is and how to write about what happened under the last government were regulated fares went up by over 18% and unregulated fares by over 23%.

on the issue of high speed one, uncertain look at what he says but i think high speed one is an of virgins for which you can get by linking up our country with high-speed rail, shortening commute distances and helping change the economic geography of her country so the action we can build a stronger economy. >> thank you, mr. speaker. over 80,000 in liverpool will live up to 100 pounds this wonderful if the governors -- governments cut for fuel a loud. will the prime minister adopted labour's policy ensuring companies automatically put the elderly customers onto the cheapest, gas and electricity? >> first of all i'm afraid this is an outbreak of collective amnesia on the labour benches. because what we have done is actually keep the last government's policy on the winter to a loud. are meeting in full all the

promises that she made and her party made at about the winter fuel allowance. but we have gone one further than that. because they introduce higher cold weather pay only for election year. with me them permanent. [shouting] >> the prime minister will have experienced firsthand the quality of nursing. what steps is the government taking to make sure that patients throughout the country are receiving the highest possible standards of nursing care from the nha? >> the honorable lady innocent i read. i well remember and, indeed, will never forget the time i spent at the hospital, and the happy days i had there. is a great boost to go back again last year. i think we have very high standards of nursing care in the country, overwhelming majority of nurses to a fantastic job. i don't think we're serving our constituents properly if we don't highlight those few cases where it goes wrong. and we've seen through the cdc reports there have been areas

where it goes wrong. i think and comment upon, to try to move the bureaucracy that can get in nurses way, but i think it's also important for us to highlight best practice in the best hospitals in a country and i visited an excellent hospital last weekend and to see let's copy that right across the countries with high standards of care and we look after the nutritional and all the care needs of people who are vulnerable in our hospitals. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, i want to ask the premise about scotland. [shouting] >> we on this side of the house -- [laughter] >> we believe the united kingdom benefits the people of scotland and the people of the rest of the united kingdom in equal measures. we are stronger together and weaker apart. does the prime minister agree with me that we must make the case for the union, not simply against separatism but the positive case about the shared benefits to scotland's part in the united kingdom?

the shared economic interest, the shared institution by the nhs and defense forces and the bbc, and above all, the shared values we hold together? >> i'm happy to say this is an area where the right honorable gentleman and i are going to be 100% agreement. i passionately believe in the future of our united kingdom. i passionate believe we are stronger together rather than breaking apart. frankly, i'm sad that we're even having this debate because i support the united kingdom so strongly, but we have to respect the fact that scotland vote for a separatist party at the scottish parliament elections. so the first thing that is right to do is make clear the legal position. that is what my right honorable friend the scottish secretary has been doing, and we've made the offer that we will hold a referendum for a referendum can be made in scotland and held in scotland. and, frankly, i look forward to having the debate because i think that there have been too many in the snp were happy to

talk about the process. they're happy to talk about the process. they don't want to talk about the substance. i sometimes feel when i listen to them it's not a referendum they want, it's a never in them. let's have a debate let's keep our country together. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, can agree with the prime minister and saying that this is not about a fight that this is not about a fight about process between the western government and disgusted or between an urge the minister and the scottish first minister. i think the way to tackle that is to have immediately cross party talks in scotland about issues around the timing of the referendum, the nature of the single question referendum and the vital involvement of the electoral commission? but doesn't prime minister also agree with me that we need us as possible as he said to get beyond process and have the discussion about the substantive issues involved? because this is a momentous decision which frankly have children and grandchildren will have to live with if we get it wrong.

so we need a serious, thoughtful and conclusive debate on what the choices are and the benefits to scotland's of staying in the united kingdom. on this issue come on this important issue the people of our country deserve nothing less than that serious debate about the benefits of the united kingdom. >> i think the right honorable gentleman is right on those three points. firstly on the process of negotiation i think he is very important a particularly that the snp have come out and made more clear what it is they want to do. i'm very happy for the u.k. government, the west mr. barletta, to speak directly to the scottish to become the scottish part of an let's come to conclusion about the best time and the best way to hold this referendum. it must be clear, it must be legal, it must be decisive, it must be fair. those are the absolute keys. i agree with the right honorable gentleman come as soon as those process questions are settled we need to get onto substance be the only point i would make about the timing, as the

honorable gentleman who can't seem to keep quiet is so cute to lead united kingdom i don't quite understand why they want to put up with the question for so long. [shouting] >> will the prime minister take to tackle the importance, issue of marriage both the u.k. and globally? >> i think the honorable lady is right to raise this issue. we have taken some steps as the last delegate to try to crack down on the practice of forced marriages which does tragically take place in too many communities and to me places in our country. we're looking specifically at the issue of whether we should take further legal powers and make it a criminal offense but i'm taking a personal interest in this issue as i think we should be taking every available step. it is simply unacceptable. in 2012 in a civilized country like ours have such a barbaric practice. >> lillian greenwood. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [inaudible] some of the highest crime of in the country.

hmi sees as nothing -- senior officers timothy government will impact front-line police. isn't it time to implement the please funny farm to get my local the police the resources they need? >> i will carefully at what she says to go ahead say is this, all police forces are having to make efficiencies. i would raise chief constables for the steps they've taken to deliver these efficiencies without affecting front-line policing. and at the same time still delivering a reduction in crime levels. in terms of the nottingham police that are still 47 officers working in back office jobs. there are still trained police officers working in h.r. finance and corporate developer. they're still further work to be done to civilian eyes those parts of the police force and make sure we get all of our police officers out on the front line. >> andrew stephenson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. following the murder of my

constituent by a former partner in a rapist, i presented a bill to the south. in october the justice team agreed to change law. of the prime minister confirm to the house and to her parents who sat in the public together today when that will happen? >> first of all, on the have become a canopy traded to ottawa for and for the work is done on this issue and, indeed, on this case. and our sympathies go out to the families suffered so horribly. there should be a right of appeal against crime court decisions allowing bill. there is of course that right and magistrate courts this is a strong case for changing the law and will be tabling an amendment in the laws to the punishment of offenders bill creating a right of appeal to high court judge against the grant of bail by a crown court. i hope this will improve the law with more helpful to victims and get some satisfaction to the

famine that he is represented well. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the scottish government was elected with an overwhelming mandate to deliver an independence referendum in the second half of the parliamentary term. [shouting] in contrast, the conservative party has led to move the parliament and the our giant -- [inaudible] [laughter] in a quite the opposite. we want to get to scotland the power to hold a legal referendum. that is the power that we are giving and right across this house there is uniform belief that that needs to happen. so discussions can now be entered into about the timing of that referendum, about the precise nature of that referendum, so sure it is fair, it is decisive. the people of scotland deserve nothing less.

>> mr. greg mulholland. >> thank you, mr. speaker. care of our older people is one of the most pressing issues facing this country today. will the prime minister join me in welcoming the campaign launched on monday? and we commit that the white paper due in the spring will present a real way forward on this vital issue? >> can i pay traded to my runnable friend for the work is done on this issue, and also to the campaign. i think we have a huge challenge to rise to this agenda and we want to do so through this white paper. and i think there are three element we've got to make sure we do something about the rising cost of commissary care. rectum actually improve the quality of care people receive and, of course, i've got to address the issue of people having to sell their homes and all the assets to pay for care. so we are looking hard at all of these issues and working out a way forward that will be right for our care system and that the country can also afford.

>> since the sunday times showed that in the last two years the thousand richest persons in britain got richer by 137 billion pounds -- [laughter] enough to pay off the entire deficit, and believe therefore tax them to fund the creation of a million jobs which is a far better way of cutting the deficit that prolongs ask your? >> for him and others talk about the prime minister he served under. [laughter] but, of course, i is absolutely essential that as we reduce the deficit and as we take difficult decisions where both fair and seem to be there. and the fact is that what we have done so far issue in the top 10% of the country paying 10 times more than the bottom 10% of the country. and crucially the top 10% in terms of earnings are not only paying more in cash terms but i pay more as a percentage of their income. as we go ahead with his agenda i want to make sure that people

behave responsibly and the government does, too. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure both you and the prime minister will want to congratulate mr. tony watley has served as postmaster for over 60 years. [shouting] and is still not retired, caring on. however, one-third are being let down by those post offices provision to can the primates encouraged the post office to use their generous subsidy to ensure rural villages are served, not left stranded? >> well, i certainly join my honorable friend in paying tribute to mr. watley to run your village post office for six years, a huge achievement. and it's people like that that keep our country going. in terms of the government and we have committed 1.3 billion pounds to improving the network. as a condition of this funding the post office must maintain at least 11,500 branches, but i think she makes about mobile post office is a good one. this is the way you can serve many committees and make sure

that elderly and vulnerable are getting the services that they need. >> davidson sent. >> thank you the deputy prime minister has reported to have said in the last few days that in due course of the united kingdom will sign up to the e.u. at the prime minister rejected only a short time ago. was the deputy prime mr. correct? >> deposition is very straightforward. [laughter] we did not sign, we did not sign the treaty because we were not, we did not get the safeguards that we received. and so that situation is not going to change. what coalition partners want to put into their election manifestoes the next election is entirely up to them. >> andrew jones. >> mr. speaker, does the prime is that we would mean that people should pay their taxes, keep their businesses on shore and not --

[inaudible] what is the prime minister to to stamp out such predatory business practices? >> welcome to my honorable friend does make an interesting point which is for all the lecture about predatory capitalism and sing with got to tax to do business in different ways, the one person that the leader of the opposition has chosen to advise them on this issue face all his company in the british virgin islands. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, prime minister, the united kingdom resource -- has been cut given there are a million women unemployed and women make up only 12.3% of people in science, engineering and technology. could've prime mr. look again at funding the u.k. rc, and thereby restoring britain as a leading role for science in this country, to nurture the downs of dorothy hodgkins and rosalind franklin? >> well, i will certainly look at the case the audible they set out because she knows despite having to make difficult

decisions across a range of public spending areas we did not get the science budget and, indeed, in the statement of the chance to provide a series enhancement for specific science-based projects so i will look at the specific when she mentions and get back to her. >> mike crocker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today unfortunately the 10th anniversary of the opening of guantanamo bay, acoustical institution which still holds to this day one u.k. national. will the prime minister commit to do all he can to see that 2012 is the last year that this institution operates? >> in a right angle friend the fourth of you is working for hard with united states to crisis secure this issue and to bring this chapter to a close. and as he will know we've also taken steps as a government, as a country to try and achieve some closure about what happens in the past by settlement with those people who were at guantanamo bay. and also sending up a proper inquiry to make sure that the british government was not

complicit in any way in terms of torture to those people who in guantanamo bay or indeed elsewhere. >> thank you, mr. speaker. a moment ago the prime minister was clear that his crucial government economic policy seems to be fair. and the prime minister therefore confirm that tax rate income above 150,000 pounds will remain in place for the duration of this parliament? >> we take pretty much the same point of view as the shadow chancellor, former shadow chancellor when he introduced it who said they should be a temporary measure. and i think we should also take a judgment on how much money the tax is raising that the purpose of the tax is to raise money for the funds we need to put into our public services. and i think it's important would look at how it works in practice. >> had to wheel her. >> mr. speaker, with the prime minister congratulate the secretary of transport and the good work for securing the

180 million-pound contract on the 20th of december and it doesn't that is so important to the worker's? >> i congratulate everyone for winning the contract, and as i said before, i want the government to be a good customer of british firms and to work with its supply chain, not to make the mistakes frankly that alaska but made that two of the contracts for the railway service. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister will probably be a winner at the chief executive of this stock exchange is paid 35 times as much as a hospital consultant who keeps health and safety laws. if he is going to act up on high pay, can he give a day, a year from now, within the lifetime of is part of where we will see that obscene 35 times come tumbling down the? >> first of all on the issue of pay ratios i do think we should

make progress on the issue of pay ratios, and if we can start with a government setting out its own pay ratios, as an act of leadership actively this leadership has some some leadership by cutting ministers do everything in and by having total transparency across government forbade. on the issue of the specific case he raises, the point i make is this. this year we've seen a 49% increase in pay and yet only 4% increase in. i'm not against people running great copies being paid lots of money if their growth and, if their expanded, if they are succeeding. but what we should have is rewards for failure, but, frankly, the last government has 13 years of doing it and did nothing. >> nicholas the balls. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister think it can ever be full for a single-family to receive 100,000 pounds a year in housing benefits alone? >> that i think biographer and makes an important point.

the top peoples hate issue, and this issue are in many ways link. we need to get rid of a something for nothing culture in this country. because, frankly, we inherited an out of control benefit system we did get families on many, many, tens of thousands of housing benefits. had an out of control immigration system where it is page and we also had an out of control banking system where reward wasn't linked with success but unlike alaska will deal with all of those things. >> tony cunningham in the prime minister, the current health economy is in crisis. a real crisis. how does he purport to do with the? >> the first most important thing is that we are committed to year on year increases in nhs spending. that is not a position i'm afraid is backed by his own party. alongside the extra money we do also need to make sure those reforms so we give clinicians a leading role in the health services, and also frankly we have to do more on the public

health and health promotion agenda because that is the best way to reduce demand on our nhs but i think there's one extra think we need to try to cheat achieve and that is looking at the links between alcohol and crime, alcohol and hospital admissions. it is an issue of what this government to do with. >> sir bob russell. [shouting] >> ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing and apartheid are evil. sadly, successive governments have supported a country where these vile actions are inflicted on indigenous people. we welcome the arab spring, but the long arab winter continues for palestinians. prime minister, on tuesday last week, the israeli government said it was to receive forced evictions of 30,000 arabs from

their historic lands. is it not time we pleaded israel as we did apartheid south africa? >> what i would say to my honorable friend is first of all we should respect the fact that israel is a democracy. it is a country that has a right to exist but it is a country that is frankly been threatened i never speak but we're also a country that should stand up for clear human rights and for clear rights and wrongs in international relations. and on the issue of settlement, this government has been very clear that it doesn't agree with the practice by the israeli government. i raised this issue myself with the israeli prime minister in a new your telephone call, and this government will continue to act and vote on the issue of illegal settlement. >> stefanie michl in per, a 14 year ago in my constituency, has leukemia. and desolate needs a bone marrow transplant. despite an honorable campaign by her family to get more people to

join the stem cell register, she still doesn't have a match and is having to cope with the disease. what plans does government have to improve public awareness about this vital issue and increase the number of potential bone marrow donors here in the u.k.? >> first of all i think you are the lead is right to speak up for bethany consistently, but also for all bone marrow cancer sufferers. i think it's not widely understood enough about the need to get more people onto the register because of the importance of trying to get a match. the government will be spinning i believe about for nine pounds this year to help promote and help make that happen. but i think all of us in her own constituency in her own way can promote the idea and encourage people to do what she said. >> thank you, mr. speaker. could i draw my right honorable friend's attention to the excellent paper published by, this one which seeks to build on the governments initiative, building up cadet forces on the one hand and getting more former military personnel into schools,

teachers on the other hand. proposes that we set up in some of our most deprived communities military academies and free schools? but managed by the reserve forces and cadet associations? >> first of all let me take you to my honorable friend to do so much to speak up for our reserve forces and also for cadet forces. they are incredibly viable assets in a country and it's worth noting that issued the cadet force will be doing a huge amount to try to save and preserve our war memorial from the appalling crimes they have been suffering in terms of medical affairs but i will look very carefully at the report he suggested i think we should be about our cadet forces to expand, perhaps to go into parts of the country where they haven't always been present in the past and i think the link he makes between cadet forces in schools is one that is a very, very good idea and one that we should promote and support. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

my constituents is 32 years of age, has lived alone for eight years, and was forced onto housing benefits because of redundancy. that benefit has just been cut by nearly 50%. which does the prime minister think is most like, that the landlord will reduce the rate by 50%, or my constituents will be made homeless? >> first of all can make and i congratulate you honorable lady for her affirmative honorable lives? although i disagreed many of the things she's trying to do over her political career, mostly disarmed britain one side of the, i ask, i praise her for her persistent efforts. and she quite rightly, no one can accuse -- [shouting] i'm sorry, i'm sorry, let me answer the question very directly. all parties are committed as i

tend to reform housing benefits. that was labour's commitment to for the last election. the housing benefit bill is completely out of control. labour's own welfare spokesman said last week at 20 billion pounds it was unacceptable and it had to change. what we have seen so far as housing benefit has been reformed and reduced is actually we question and there's lights on c-span2 every wednesday at 7 a.m. eastern when the house of commons is in session. you can watch it again on sunday at 9 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. watch any time at c-span.org where you can find videos of past, mr. questions and other british affairs public programming. this evening "new york times" columnist david brooks interviews jody candler author of the new book fi obamas.

.. i wanted to welcome you all to the event for the release of our new brief including more student voices in higher education

policy making. for those of you familiar with the work in post secondary education, we spent a good part of last year working on the issue of college affordability, but from a slightly different tack than some of our peer organizations to do excellent work. the conversation has tended to evolve around how you make college more affordable regardless of the cracks in meeting financial aid. and we have been trying to do and policy analysis is how you make it more affordable. but it evolved over the last years. to court bodies of work, one is around pursuing information. it has been rolled out by julia morgan, the principal author of the brief we are releasing today. that was basically about creating user-friendly consumer information to improve college choice for the hubble creating a more competitive market in higher education.

the second is technology and how deeply embedded across the administrative instruction and research function -- functions in higher rates can bring down costs. today we are beginning an additional point a policy announcement. students have typically entered the policy-making process after things have happened. and cap is beginning to explore how all of us to invoice can be more deeply embedded in the government of higher education. this brief is our first treatment of that topic, and i am looking forward to the conversation both today and that its starts of the next few years. to kick us of like to introduce tobin van os trend to introduce our opening remarks to the -- speaker. >> good morning, everyone.

good morning. all right. there we go. monday. so, it's my pleasure to introduce our first guest speaker today, the senior advisor for education at the white house domestic policy council, zakiya smith. she previously worked at the department of education where she worked on building solutions to the challenges of college access, affordability, and completion. prior to this she was the director of government relations on the advisory committee. her research focused on college access programs, community colleges, and the ability of low and moderate-income employees to afford college. t obvious -- she also previously worked for teacher america and the congressional caucus foundation. she holds a bachelor's degree in political science and secondary education from vanderbilt university and also holds a master's degree in education policy and management from the harvard graduate school of education. let me just add by the way on a personal love relevant to the

topic today, zakiya smith has been incredibly successful at the white house request as large and small and has always been interested in hearing the student perspective. please join me in welcoming our first speaker, zakiya smith. [applause] >> thank you for being here today in been interested in such a relevant topic. one of the most interesting topic areas. it's silly garners a lot of interest when i think about my colleagues at the white domestic policy council and the staff there. there are people of work on health policy and energy policy and you don't usually have random people on the street telling you what you should do about housing policy. anyone i mean will give a perspective, and i think it is largely in part because everyone has gone to school at some point in their lives, and so everyone

has a perspective of how schools should be. everyone has a perspective of education policy. in this role and focus on higher education policy. college access, affordability, completion, and i hear a lot of those perspectives in my personal role. thankfully, though, we have pretty clear direction, or i have pretty clear direction of what my role should focus on. the president in 2009 outlined a 2020 gulf war college completion , and that is we would be first in the world with respect to the portion of our young adults with college degrees. so in backing that : thinking about how we achieve that goal a and realizing we have a college completion crisis in the nation that people don't really think about in the same way we think about k-12 policy or high-school dropout faugh. nearly half of the kids to start do not finish college, and that is denim alarming.

a lot of people and they think about why we have the goal think it is primarily economic a strong economy, and that is certainly true. the role of higher education in society is much broader than that. think about the role of colleges and universities. be prepared to participate actively in democratic life. they are supposed to be prepared to be good citizens. and the benefits of higher education are broader than just those of a purely economic needs. by having a college degree you're better off. if you have a bachelor's degree your unemployment rate is about half of those who do not have a master's degree. but the role of higher education for civic life is something that we don't necessarily talk about as much, perhaps because of the times we are in.

it is really interesting that this is the role of higher education and we don't necessarily a model that as much as we should. the distance are supposed to be prepared for civic life what better way to be prepared than being engaged while on campus in the role of decisions that are made while on campus. being an active part tip -- precipitant -- participant and being involved in the decisions that impact do is agree with a model we would expect of students that have completed higher education. too often that voice on campus is missing thomas of the perspectives of a year of to of those of college presidents, vice presidents, deans, student financial aid administrators, college counselors and all have something to say about college and higher education with the end user is the students.

it is not that we never hear from students. when there are tuition increases impending long after the actual decision has been made then the plan, and ministers know how to deal with that. they realize that this will make some students and happy. we will figure out how to deal with that. the decision is made of the pullback funding at the state level. i went to vanderbilt which is probably the only school in the sec that has not had a violation and the last and years. can have an impact. decisions like that being made, where is this invoice. the reason berries.

this paper does a great job of laying them out and explaining the transient nature of student life. the college president that is longer lasting or the administrators and faculty will be longer lasting than the students. those are things that impact. but i do want to thank the center for bringing this issue to lives of hopefully we can start to address some of the solutions to this problem. empower students with increased influence and power through the use of information and data. especially when we think about cost and value of college, students in particular and they're families have all lot of power. they can vote with their feet. but you can't if you don't know what the outcomes are and you don't know what the true cost is. so you're kind of waiting in the

blind. this administration has done a couple of things to try to address that. one, we have a new center for transparency on our department of education website. it looks like the trend is varies over time. you have increased transparency with information so that after you get your report back does you a little bit about their outcome so the students were thinking more of the graduation rates than the different type of college they're attending. recently in the midst of an announcement about student dead and ways that we're trying to tell students mayor is a debt, there was maybe less mentioned portion that i think is important, which is a financial aid shopping sheet of sorts that we have developed in conjunction with the consumer financial protection bureau which has broader racing authority and also helps students better understand the differences between the cost and values for different types of colleges.

how much would be coming out of pocket, verses you getting a direct grant and scholarship and eight and compare that on a similar basis. those of the types of things that we're trying to do to empower students and they're families with information that they can use to make a difference, but really knowledge is power, so we are trying to be as transparent as possible and encourage college universities to do the same, and we are always looking for additional ways. i don't think we have the answer for how to solve the goal, but we're always looking for more solutions, and if we arm students in of families we are more likely to have an impact the center for american progress is doing great work in the opening up this conversation about how student voices can make a difference. and i am glad to see so many of you all here. i am looking for to this.

thank you. [applause] >> c-span.org can take a few questions, if anyone has any questions for her. it looks like you might get off easy. actually, i have one question. what is next? >> what is next. well, for one, the consumer financial protection bureau is taking input on the financial aid. that is one where students can have an impact. if you look at it and what -- say what we developed is not good are missing something, they're taking feedback. we hope to have a final version of that the people can use in their everyday lives. i think beyond that we have these lists of colleges that are increasing costs and looking for better ways to make sure that students have that information. >> how about what is next? >> that price calculator. we are looking. right now there is a requirement

that every palace that receives federal financial aid dollars have on their website the next price calculated. the difference between their cost of attendance, the sticker price if you go to the website minus the average amount of scholarships. too often low-income students are scared away because they see it costs -- my alma maters maybe costs $45,000 -- i'm just making it up. when i was there a cost $30,000. to me it was free. had i known it was freed, i might have applied. that is not true for everywhere. you have no idea what the difference will be, and so you apply. perhaps you filled out a cfs profile, and then you get it back.

but it helps students and families understand how much the college will actually cost. we are looking for ways to pull that information from those of sites, all of the different web sites and aggravated and make it more acceptable for this since to have 1-stop shopping. >> great. any other questions? we have this league right here in the back. >> we represent hundreds of thousands of underrepresented students. what can we do to encourage institutions to share more information about desegregating graduation rates so that they can make better decisions about where to attend college. >> that is a great point, and i think the college access organizations have a great role to play.

colleges themselves. one thing is that colleges right now are required to provide pell grant graduation rates. so pell grant goes mostly to of low-income moderate students, and by looking that -- looking at that, now, it is not a reporting requirement, meaning we don't get that the information from every college and university, but if you call them and ask them or if you're on the tour and ask him what your graduation rate is, they're supposed to tell you. there has been work of another thing take that says maybe they don't do that and no one knows that they should do that. one thing i would say is as an inordinate -- organization like that he should be asking for that information and shaming people when they don't give it to you is a great role for a consumer or the general public to play with our disclosures that are required but not necessarily reporting consequences from the federal government.

>> one more from the gentleman in the back. >> so you are talking about resources for consumers. that is really good. looking for best practices on how they can complete college education. what are they doing to help? >> that is a great question. we are a big believer that institutions -- there are differences in institutions that are doing good things. others say we get a bunch of kids. open access. we take everyone in, so you have to assume our completion rate will be low. look across open access institutions and they're is a difference when you control things like low income status. colleges can do something to it improve. obviously they knew something to improve the quality of students coming in. but we are doing is in every competition we have had in the office of post secondary education, the grants for

various things, most of those, we had state party for college completion and dated tracking. you get an extra point if you are focused on college completion. whereas it may have been about building your capacity of for the complete college. isn't that what they're supposed to be doing? it is interesting when you ask, there are a lot of different constituencies, and the student is not always the primary person. there could be viewed that colleges are here, and if you're not taking advantage of what they have to offer, shame on you. we take the perspective of we are providing lots and lots of subsidies, and because the public purpose of higher education is so great both for economic and civic future it is incumbent upon colleges to think about things that they can be doing.

>> trendy again in thanking zakiya smith for joining us today. [applause] >> i want to take their virginity tissues are lead author. caped julie morgan is my colleague here. she has her doctorate in higher education. c. hazard j. d. from boston college of law school at her be a from the college of william and mary. she is our lead and was excited to take on this project. [applause] >> they keep for being here. and i am excited to do this work.

sort of tied then. we started this work. a simple idea. since the the biggest stakeholders and they are so often not included in the policy discussions that can have huge impact on their lives and how much they pay for college and what kind of services they're getting. what kind of campus the live on. and so this goes along with the work on post high-school education. parley premised on the idea that higher education should be more students centered. it seems funny, but there are a lot of different constituencies. we want to encourage them to take a good look at the student body. however as a -- how it has changed over time.

you know, it seems silly to think about creating a more student center to higher education system without including students. that is how i feel this ties in really well. but when we set about the problems of student voice in higher education we felt like there was a problem, but it has to be defined pretty well our own campus price is working every day of higher education policy issues, but i think the occupy wall street movement has helped us to think about the problem here. you know, you have these students out there at the occupy wall street protests who are demonstrating the fact that a large group of students are ready to speak out on higher education issues and the issues that matter most to them. as tuition rises you all the students are taking on more debt to finance their education. they're graduating into a slow

job market. they're frustrated with their situation, either unemployed or underemployed and are struggling to pay down debt. if you look at the tumbler, we are the 99% movement, there are a lot of students writing about their student loan debt, so i will just read to you from one of them. i graduated from one of the country's top universities with my master's and $150,000 in debt. i wanted to work in non-profit and help make the world a better place. and now working in business giving advice to billion dollar companies and how to best push their products and deceive consumers into buying them. i do this because i have 80-year-old daughter hinnies to be provided for, and a nonprofit salary with the $1,100 a month sued loan payment won't cut it. i started saving for college education. i want to be a will to let her follow her dreams.

i still warn her that when people tell her she can be anything she wants to be it is a light. clearly students are -- recent graduates are is pressing quite a bit of frustration. he added that the whole american dream is a lie is a powerful statement. allow the state -- students and former students are protesting at the occupy movements are asking for student loan forgiveness. they have gotten a little bit of this from the white house. there would lessen payments for student involved in the income-based repayment program and as it can consolidate a direct student loan with a non direct loan. you know, those of us who work in higher education recognize that the problem of rising tuition and a steady decrease in financial aid for the institutions, these require a

series of solutions. student loan forgiveness will be part of it, obviously, but there are other things that we need to do. we need to think of ways to cut college cost. more and smarter for investment, a strategic uses of online course work, and they're rethinking of how to manage equality of educational institution. so the question that we felt the find this to invoice problem is can students on college campus of a stronger voice in the complex rescission including cost, quality, and financial aid we think the answer is yes. that is a great takeaway. so our report examines the type of student voices out there, and some of the key barriers that students face from being a an effective participant in this conversation. it turns out they voice their

opinion. student government is a big way that students voice their opinions and campus. on the other hand, and on many college campuses it is just simply another club that doles out money to the student loan organizations and is ignored by the ministration. it depends on the structure as well as how so it really represents the interest of the student body. student newspapers can also hold the administration's feet to the fire on university policy issue, bringing to light some of the challenges that students face. on the other hand, have to have access to knowledge of the decisionmaking process on campus on higher education policy

issues. we have state-wide and national student organizations. so these are larger organizations or across multiple campuses with a lot of potential to support student voice on campus. the professional staff that provides continuity as students are graduating. there are also grass roots student movements. i think the protest and the university of california system is a good example of this. not coming out of any institution nuys group on campus but rallying around a particular cause. and working from outside of the university structure, it can cut the effectiveness. there are also these institutionalized some invoices, but they don't come to mind when we think about activist student movements.

colleges do have ways of eliciting opinions and getting feedback. the university is trying to get feedback from the student. the only problem is it is entirely up to the university how well they incorporate passive voice. so each of these avenues has some potential to help students voice their opinion, but there are some barriers to the effectiveness, and here are some of the most common. first, there are practical barriers. these can be campus regulations or rules around organizing, andrew were talking about this before the event, the campus is oftentimes have rules around how many students can gather in a place at a particular time, what type of permits you have to get. also police presence around student activism can be a huge barrier.

a recent mixing of pepper spray use on students that has a real killing effect on this invoice. and also, a sort of like of unity, either within one campus or across several of the policy solution. so occupy wall street gives a little piece that there is a broad agreement on the fact that true indebtedness is a problem, but less agreement on what the solution should be. that lack of unity on the solutions can deter this invoice a bit. there is also a failure to develop strong student leaders. of course strong student leaders who are arriving on campus all the time, but we need to make sure that they're coming from all aspects of student life, is a particularly low-income and minority students who often are the most affected by high tuition, though financial aid. we need to be developing leaders

out of those groups. another barrier that students often don't have access to the people in positions of power within the university, including administrators are at the state and federal government level. a couple of final barriers, because i am boring you with barriers, as more and more nontraditional students enroll at nontraditional universities -- a debt over the like those terms because it is becoming the new normal in our universities. we need to find a voice for them, as students who are involved and on-line programs you don't have any contact with the campus, often times they have more of a voice than the traditional student who is on the campus and feels like they're part of a community. then i think one of the major barriers to student voices and higher education in particular is a lack of transparency within the university and also within

the government decision making around higher education policy. it makes it difficult for students to be fully engaged in higher education policy debate with a dove of the language being used. they were not there when the decisions are being made. there are only notified later on so with the diversity and variety of student voice, there are a lot of different policies solutions that we could recommend, but there are a couple of common elements. star student voices need leaders that, for all kinds of background, particularly low and, nontraditional students. also they need to preset the table and higher education policy discussion which includes greater transparency around college in a government decision making on policies that affect colleges, and access to the people and the positions of power. i think in all of these areas

there is a role to be played by the federal and state government , colleges themselves, but also organizations that can do a better job of communicating directly with student groups, and even student groups themselves. so as we mentioned, this report is meant to be a first step. a strong burst in voice, and we hope that we can delve more deeply into some of these areas commander in up to your organizations will do the same. [applause] >> can i ask the panelists to come up and joins julie? their biographies are on our website, so i'll do a quick interaction starting with the for this to my right.

dan herb. it to his immediate left is tiffany loftin. directly to her right is angus johnston to get away. >> i just want to talk. of course you can read their bios. you can get into the interesting part. if he would not mind talking a little bit about how your organization's work with students and may be one of the campaign that you have been involved in recently. >> good morning, everyone. tiffany loftin. we have been around since 1947 and believes education is a right and not of privilege. we are a student-run,

student-led national organization, and i cannot stress that enough. we have a board of directors of 33 students that are elected every single year. the stays fresh. the president, vice-president, which is myself, and full-time staff and work for the organization. graduates of the university's. of by since are still in school and college and we have been fighting to tear down barriers are really long time. airbase in d.c., and we work with the state licensing associations. we have six states that are direct members of u.s.s. a common banking go into what those are. we have been working a round of grants right now. we just three issues to work on this year.

the pell grant program, a pipeline program from ice with the colleges and community colleges, and we want to make sure we're registering folks to vote so the students have access to dorms and accessing students in different student centers and things like that. so those of different issues that we chose. working on the program to issue the super committee is making some crucial changes. the program only serves 10 percent of the students said they could possibly serve. and so students across the country and including minnesota, which is not a member, but we did most of our campaign this past week and went back to west existed, social beyond facebook and twitter, 18 percent millenniums have the twitter in 20 percent of congress uses twitter. we figured that was as far away. we did that, facebook, a call-in

to congress to different representatives that represents students on the federal level, of course, and needed a postcard campaign where we have over 45,000 postcards and delivered them tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. dreary said about that. a very successful campaign. we get a lot involved in new york and got a lot of places engaged in the education and what it actually means. all of students need the po rant. but those changes could be, might be, and then finding pro-active ways to keep this student voice heard at the front table. >> the federation, austin directed and student funded. groups working on a whole range

of social issues. the idea was that students would pool their resources to hire professional staff to help them run statewide and local campaigns, and lobby on behalf of students. i want to keep this short. when i was a student at the university of california santa barbara was involved in a steady there. i actually did a lot of work in 2010. a very similar to programs. need-based grant program in california, and governor schwarzenegger at the time of california was looking at budget cuts put this on the table which made a lot of students nervous. there were dependent on the grants to stay in school. none necessarily against them,

but putting them on the table as an option. whereas the campaign to help save. and what we did was give personal stories from students on campus. essentially the response was i would not be in school anymore. taking those stories and compiling them. we have ten chapters in california. having a lobby day to let them know that this is an extremely important program for students to stay in school and california, and the victory behind this, which governor schwarzenegger came out in 2010 and came out saying how important it was. six months later completely changing his position. that is empowering for me. becoming a student leader and being a role to train other students.

and then coming of, i am working with college park students on similar issues and helping them. aha. >> this sounds like you guys are using pre sophisticated methods of getting attention in congress . how the think we and help other students to involved in those kind of sophisticated campaign? >> come to a meeting in get involved. i have close to 40 student interns. not just their education poverty issues in our community, and if you have an opinion you want to year involved, whether it is the student groups involved with student government, what i've come to learn is that students have a lot of issues, a lot of

evidence in the paper that it is really on organizations like us to sort of make it a solid voice and find the specific solution that we can advocate for and get them to the set of bloody days. running these grass-roots campaign to make their voice more heard. >> you want to talk a little bit. you say you're an expert ross didn't voice. i was hoping you could tell us a little bit about what is going on with the occupy movement. >> i run of website which has been tracking not only historical trends, but also what is going on in the contemporary world. of large occupy wall street has really been coming together, a few different trends, one of which is listed and movement that has risen since the fall of

2008 in the course of the current financial crisis and. starting in the middle of 2009 there was a large scale new student movement coming up in response to cutbacks in state funding to public higher education particularly, and also increased tuition combined at the same time with cuts in enrollment, increased class size, all of this difference stuff. as the movement, which actually in california called its of an occupy movement started in the fall of 2009, has been growing for a while and has sort of a merged with the larger occupy wall street's movements in the last couple of months. will we have seen their, justice a little bit in your opening remarks, we have seen a tremendous amount of regression,

steven organizing, more than 300 students is the cal state university system have been arrested in the last two and a half years including 66 students at berkeley in one incident who were peacefully occupying a building who were woken up in the middle of the night 12 hours before they announced their occupation was going to end and not given in order to disperse or a chance to leave with just arrested, taken 40 miles away and kept in holding for a date so that the could not rally against their treatment, and we have seen what happens that only a few days ago, but in berkeley the week before that. that kind of police force has actually become routine, particularly in california. so we're seeing now is an interesting moment for us to be

having this discussion. the protection that the uc davis incident is getting. we are seeing a much bigger spotlight. >> we make a bed of a reference that universities don't always encourage, what we are approaching it from the position that universities should be encouraging a student voice both from the perspective it is good for education policy, but give rendered tools development. so what do you think the approach of university administration has been and should be? >> i yielded. >> actually, very positive being an minister on my campus. our trip 13 years in santa barbara.

it chesnutt -- de definitely tied to the. college park has over 200 activist students on campus. the administration is there to help them and try to create a system where they can foster their voice. the important thing is that students are working with the administration on issues. and santa barbara was similar. how can we hold events? what source of resources are available. often it -- obviously different schools will be different with different administrations, but my experience has been positive overall. >> i have a different experience . the university of california's santa cruz.

and i have a different approach. in my first year of college talent to a student to open house government meeting which got me involved in an with the president of the student government on campus. she opened up for me and i was in need of a job and money. i had no idea what i was getting myself into. from then on i ran for vice president of the campus and won two terms. my third year iran for president of the campus and one my senior term. developing and fostering relationships from different communities, i was able to be a liaison between the a ministration and students. but the four years i was in school tuition went up over 40 percent.

we went all over this state. at the to the santa barbara to protest and to stand against, after the fact are right, the tuition increases. i have had the benefit of crafting relationships with administration and student affairs. the first on the table to get caught when budget cuts happen to the campuses and states. melissa begin to who was our vice-president for student affairs was laid off because of budget cuts, an african-american woman and prole the only woman in power that we had to relate to. but in that position and in that role we have a really good time getting people involved in the campaign and election work,

statewide and nationwide when things were happening. so i had a different experience working and organizing, but i think what can be included are the university of california student associations, their region board represents over 200,000 students and ten campuses. we have one voice. we have been trying to reach out and get more student voice on that position on that board of directors, and it has not been successful. i think that is another way we could encourage that. having a student-run board is that boys. educating other students because we believe it is and should be, of course, stakeholders of war front.

>> if you look at it historically what you find is that the late 60's and early 70's were a watershed moment in the history of student involvement in university government in the united states, and the biggest reason for that both directly and indirectly, the response to student protests and in many cases extremely disruptive student protests. a lot of this soon uprises were reactions to policy. we think of the 60's as being about the civil rights movement in the anti-war movement but dorm policies and that kind of stuff motivated a huge number of students. and what they found was bringing students in, not just with a consultative role, but for the actual act of governance did a

huge amount to transform the nature of student involvement. and so what we saw in the late fifties and early 70's was a rise of control over student fees, the creation of a student of regents, many of them with the voting power. student involvement in the university committees. all of this step designed to make students stakeholders in the university. well we found subsequent to that is a gradual retreat from those principles. a gradual withering away, and i think what seems to happen is that students tend to be the most likely to protest in an

aggressive and disruptive way when they feel they have no other men need a -- venue to be heard. even in the case of uc-davis, announced that there is going to be a passport to examine police policy, but she has given no indication that the students would choose their own representatives for this task force or that it will have in the decisionmaking power. and there is no indication that the students really have any direct state or will have any direct say in the shaping of university policy. if students had a direct one then the nature of "we are going to see on campuses with shift. >> i think of the movement has a strong -- but it might be

because they're weaker link to the administration. >> the fact that the administration has been of very major factor. >> i have asked you this question. some people were active in the 60's sort of had this warning for the good old days, you know, students did that. i couldn't -- [laughter] i was a student recently. i felt pretty good about my role there. and so i wondered, you know, this just the stalled jet or is there actually a difference between the way students participate today? >> one is students are much more likely to be older, have kids,

full or part-time jobs and graduating with a large amount of debt that leaves them with less freedom to engage in activism and organization. the rise of a commuter colleges changes the nature of the campus itself. that is one piece. i think is very easy to neglect what is going on today. one of the things is obvious to me, but is often forgotten. look at the american university of 1968. how many campuses have black students? how many campuses have women lectures? how many campuses have gay and

lesbian students. not every campus has, and those are active organizations which in many cases are performing multiples and sobor work, giving advice, counseling, support and are organizing, in days with the university of ministration, but that kind of involvement is flying beneath the radar of most. another thing, very, very quickly is the 26 the men met in the early 1970's giving students, young people, 18, 19, and 20-year-old the right to vote. previously students were disenfranchised.anchised. after the 26 the m

>> your definitely thinking about the issue. on our board of directors we have different communities and

different identities are represented it. we have jewish students. one of those pieces, actually from colorado. so i know financial data and programs. we did not want the cover of their armed. it is practical. right now we all have to us suffer right now. that is the umbrella issue and we're all working on. >> you have been doing a lot more work with community college students that any point in the past. >> and recruited -- recruited a lot of campuses. grassroots conference happens in march.

we train susan how to lobby to educate them on issues, and bring community colleges and sometimes students who are seniors in high school to lobby our legislators in congress, and then we have a really big press conference. we have definitely been recruiting and educating. it is harder because students on campuses have -- president of the campus in oregon and are also on our border director. so the voices are there and heard and we're working out by now what is proactive. >> definitely had a similar experience. as far as an engine ship goes, we have commuter students, people who are families. i think the biggest way to

combat that would be to be really flexible. traditional students working with organizations within the government is that the government runs. sues critical s9:00 to 5:00 monday through friday. inaugurate physical people. it makes it difficult for traditional since to do that. the biggest thing would be relief flexible and have meetings on weekends and when they are available. community colleges, and it is vastly different. some don't have campus communities. the university of maryland has a large booth as part of their

home. i guess people actually feel like it is their, where they live. with community colleges it is different. they come into school and have class and they can. that is the only time they are on campus. what can you find time to work with everyone schedule and it becomes a nightmare. that is definitely a big issue. those are flexible things. [laughter] >> i want to keep time for questions from the audience. let me ask you one last thing. from the perspective of this tuesday represent or your own perspective, what do you see is the biggest problem in higher education right now, and how do you think that listening to the students could bring as the best

solution. >> from my perspective it would be the lack of student participation. the biggest issue is students don't realize how much power they have. working on things like shared governance, when a decision is made, having to participate in the discussion in the first place. we can talk about access and affordability and quality, but the studs with students participating in the first place . making that voice more institutionalized and what you mentioned above making that work is besses you could. >> i would say of costs for higher education, we have been

talking. double major in and triple my entering. this acceptability and time for the issue of cost of tuition. my annual salary is the cost of my loan. i would be student loan debt free, but i think that it is intertwined with student input and shared governance. united council of wisconsin has an amazing statute. 36095. it speaks to the fact pestilence of the soul and put an of prairie constituency for this

invoice in that state. no other state has that statute, but it discourages do is to be involved in the process of policy-making in to be at the forefront of the conversation around higher education. it's a big issue. if higher education was free or lower it was of a lot of our problems. tickets focus on issues that are important, and i think, yak, students are disenfranchised with their voice. the cost of education is important to discover. they keep losing these streams and support services, students see these losses and don't want to stay engaged because they feel like their voices not being heard. ..

not only has that transformation happened, but in the last two and a half years the proportion of our health state students and incoming student pool at berkeley has tripled to 30%. so admission decisions at berkeley and throughout you see into the public education are increasingly driven by the revenue stream and so what you have now is a school which berkeley a third of the incoming class from a financial perspective berkeley is essentially a private university and not a cheap private university. and i think that the way in which that, the sort of reverberations around those policy changes, but, you know, we talk about the increase in the cost of higher education far more than we do the really radical extent to which state funding to public higher education has been slashed. the degree to which the student

spending has been flashed in the public higher education in the united states the magnitude of that is something that i think is a vast majority of americans are completely unaware of. >> thanks so much and let's take some questions from the audience. somebody will be coming around with a microphone. and if you could give your name and your organization. >> i am a graduate student staff member at gw's career center and speaking of financial affordability the issue i care about most is students' frustration with their earning potential and talking about unpaid internships. so a lot of times students to meet with are very afraid of breaking the relationships they have with potential employers but, you know, they won't be able to network with them if they are fighting against them so can you talking little bit about the conversations that you have regarding retributions and things like that?

>> i will just at the occupied wall street last week there was a massive citywide student demonstration at the union square and the most tweeted chant from that demonstration was less internships. the way that internships not only cut the student purchasing power but also warp the nature of who is able to going to the not-for-profit and who is able to go into entry-level jobs, you know, if you want to be a public interest lawyer you've got to be rich because the only way to get into the pipeline is to work for free. and that model is increasingly splitting for about the work force and, you know, the affect that it's having on the class mobility in this country is really profound.

i'm not an expert by any means i worked with recently bridget from william and mary and actually and had a hard time deciding if she wanted to work because of hurston debt and that is one of the biggest things she had to work all through school she couldn't take a paid internship. she wasn't able to afford it and it really limits your options. i had a conversation with a student with an article in the paper a couple of weeks ago that was talking about unpaid internships and was another interesting point was kind of like that taking away with the entry-level jobs for people who are already graduated and the supply over the unpaid internships. the most important thing for students is to really look at what the internship is going to be getting and looking ahead in the future of what the job is of the internship what are they getting out of the internship experience and they are learning

is that really what you want to be doing with your summer and or one of your semesters. so during the background research my experience students that have to make is an unfortunate experience because they can't pursue things like public interest or my job to make the point of the debt is true for me to and i'm going to use that from now one. it was a tree big decision for me. even in this job because the economic director of the business i really wanted to be doing this and the interests in the jobs were unpaid and it was more difficult and it was really that purchasing power then and now for sure. >> i think it is an interesting thing we have seen come out of occupied wall street is students are expressing frustration with student loans and it's difficult to say is this about the bonding of the loan debt or the fact that you can't find paid employment at this point and it's been difficult in the perspective, but i think that the recession and joblessness

brought light to this issue of the unpaid employment some improvement and conversations around that. another question may be over here. >> my name is clarice, and by student at howard university and also a staff member at the education trust and i know one of the major higher education issues is for-profit colleges and how they are kind of purgatory on low-income and underrepresented minority students and a lot of these students have the highest loan default rate and don't know what you're getting into so they have already left the cultures. so i just want to know what initiatives have been started to raise the student voice and reach out to these students say you can kind of get them to stand up for their rights. estimate that is a really interesting question the we write about in the paper is a was difficult to get students

for the profit colleges and back in the debate over the regulation which would have improved the situation in the college's one can you speak to your experience with this? >> i think that is right predatory underrepresented low-income communities we've definitely been sharing some work with documentation that's been happening so the students did graduate from the colleges have graduated with tremendous, like trouble with my debt is and there's nothing they can do about it and there is no help being provided for those students and families in need to get out of that process and the things spread over youtube and social media to shed light on that issue because it isn't taken care of and whether or not they are able to have financial aid or not is a very under the

rug constituency base so we haven't really been doing much on the policies that cannot aren't the colleges but we've definitely been sharing a lot of the testimony in the students and the students within the public universities there's a certain stigma that the bases have. >> very very briefly this is an area in which students are voting. the enrollment at the not-for-profit colleges is plummeting. i believe it is kaplan that saw 47% year-to-year decline in enrollment. the company of the phoenix is not far behind. students are abandoning these institutions in drones and that has been without a huge going on among them. >> somebody over here.

>> i am a professor with the graduate school usa. i've been in the higher education for 32 years. i was a student five times in higher education, and i'm debt free. i think the biggest shay assad in this country and i have an education in three different countries is the word non-profit organization. when a president of a college that has only 240 students making $1.75 million a year when he was about $841 our. what do you expect the tuition to be? when the associate dean for the

same university is making about $300,000 a year how chemical that nonprofit organization? the problem is i think the students activities were are always focused on social activism with groups, but nobody ever questions because the idea of nonprofit organizations in this country is the income versus the disbursement, and the problem is we never questioned when whether this disbursement is actually legitimate or not. that's the major problem. and therefore i know when i went for my first bachelor's degree the course for the whole bachelor's degree was about him thousand dollars. and when i went for my ph.d. it

was 250,000. that's where the students need to be active and they should focus on their work rather than -- the problem i think that created this is we start calling the students customers. and if you are going to make these you are not going to decide how much you're going to buy that sued for because you have a customer. >> i want to have time for other questions so that we find the panel. do you want to address this? >> i think a couple of things. one is this is a place we see a big gap between the private institutions and public institutions. students in the public institutions have a lot more leverage over the university policies and private institutions. and so when we are talking about the university policies we have in the last couple of generations seen a lot more activism coming out of public institutions and in terms of the concept of the student consumer

we were talking of a while ago i think there are two different ways in which that concept appears in higher education. one is the way that you have been used in terms of the consumer protection. and i think that that is absolutely a legitimate use of it. the other is the sort of consumption of students as consumers and a sort of consumer mentality among students and without going into a huge amount of detail about that, that is an attitude which the university administrators often ascribed to students but it's an attitude and a conception of students which actually arose among the university of ministers in the early 1970's. it was the response to the creation of the pell grant and other ways in which students got more power in determining how the money was going to be spent. and you are exactly right that the conception of a student as a consumer from that perspective is intended to reduce the student's role in actually running the courses. >> i just want to add, you know,

i don't think that we framed it as the schools for profit or nonprofit, but something that we raise in the paper is the idea that students don't have access to enough information about how the universities are bringing their revenue and what they are spending it on. so i don't know if your organizations have that would have run into that barrier to the estimate we definitely have come and we have the student government on the campus is really intends to say now but we have been doing a lot of work because our director for the center got fired and then like a was telling you earlier the students will also lead off because of budget cuts and so where is the budget, we want to see where somebody's coming from or why they are letting these people and why specifically for student affairs and why science and physical the education as they marched together. why are they missing glasses and we ask the budgets they were not ready or they were not acceptable to us and they also

were not reader friendly. we had a meeting to with one of auditors in the office in that space and the report was 171 pages long and have no pictures and is not in color and was until on what explained, so i think that when students, like a lot of -- you wrote an amusing article last year when students are saying okay when people are requesting this didn't come up with a solution it tells you to do that and we don't have enough information and education that we need to be able to come up with those creative solutions and you wrote an amusing article last year which is like all we have to do is just say i don't know the answer and that is as a policymaker as a president or congress to come up with these solutions and answers to those so we have had that and this goes back-and-forth like the administration and calling us kids because we are not and i think that needs to change also that we are trying to and power of the student's voice to be in

charge and involved in that process of the takeovers and we need to search calling us kids and take seriously that light and share informations we can come up creatively at the table with those solutions. >> can we take another question over here on the right side. >> -- before. american federation of teachers higher education division first of all things you for putting this on and for the report that's going to be very useful for us. i your education policy becomes a very concrete in the classroom and is a big role on educators in the classroom as it does on students and also college faculty members and other indicators see the impact that this policy has on students. so i was going to ask very simply what role do you see the college educators having in powering students to put their voice out there and encouraging student activism? >> there's a group that formed

called the coalition but talked about before with the cost but the biggest advantage that we had in that purpose we had the faculty credit sitting with us talking to students. they also have representatives from the union, the workers' union and it's interesting directly be able to have students in the workers' unions in the room talking about the budget cuts in time. and for me it was just so interesting to hear their perspectives. they realize that affect students. faculty are very aware with what is going all the policy on the campus but that didn't always happen. this, that's not happening tall our students could do a better job of working with faculty and faculty could do a better job of coming to us and actually having the mark reunify on the entirety of the campus. so the students have their issues and faculty have their issues but there's a lot of things that kind of cross the boundaries. and was really cool for me as a student to be sitting across

from the head of the faculty talking about what we should be doing and all that. it was great. >> i think also my experience is that educators who have been great allies for students and there is a lot of overarching relationships and things students are developing with their professors and educators because they have their own set of issues and they are also taking furlough days and getting cuts to education to different resources they are able to teach their students and then one thing is educators, are now and go to classrooms and try to announce it students are living off campus for their summer of they have to come to class and so we go to the classroom and we try to a little tense and commercial for the class at least arts and invite students to come to the different actions in the different meetings and educators allow us to that most of the time if we have a good relationship with them. and they also let us know what is happening that we would otherwise not know about. we had an amazing professor on campus but let us know and academic faculty meeting that is happening in the budget and

appropriations and we are like what? when did they let go? they are coming on tuesday at 10:00 to articulate the student voice so educators and students i think have been working very closely together to do a lot of those different things and supporting student activism when it happens. more on the table level and not taking over buildings and what what else we have done before, but more of the table. so i think that the class allowing the students to be educated on what meetings are taking place and what kind of things are happening. some of the sort of a conservative and don't want to talk about student activism in the classroom. we are talking of history and that's it. there is no other outsider in the political figure how would we are doing in a classroom to make the nation relating in our test. and so the work closely together. >> very briefly, looking at the

way that the story is the public in the last couple of weeks, two of the absolutely crucial turning point was first the professor at uc-berkeley being on the receiving end of the police violence, so that it is being videotaped in net so there wasn't just students getting beaten up it was a tenured faculty member who was dragged by her hair to the ground and brutalized by the police and then after that uc-davis incident on friday, the first detailed report on that came from a thin brown who is an untenured royalty member who described what had happened in extremely graphic and powerful terms. and that kind of faculty at efficacy for students who are engaging in direct action is something that we have very rarely seen in the last few years. i think the faculty being willing. i'm a faculty member.

i love signing petitions as well as the next guy that is what everybody is expecting us to do is finding the petitions and express our disapproval. the fact we actually being involved, being actually present not necessarily to get beat up, but certainly to absorb what is going on in these protests can have a very powerful effect in shaping the public opinion. >> we have a question of here. we have to take that one. >> this idea of systemic issues in higher education so i will be flexible. two or three weeks ago the university in the state of washington introduced that it had -- was making the open course on an open course for a library available for all of the curriculum materials for a good 45% of their between courses across the system which would reduce the cost to the average student of textbooks and other materials at close to 400%. what i'm wondering about is how

the student organizations like the ssa would look at how do you scale but nationally, this is a material reduction in the cause of the course. the other issues that spark the challenges are things like competency based education, you know, the on-line programs you are seeing the technology approved to the point where you can reduce the cost of living of the course. how does that get passed on to students, how do you deal with the issues where the education tends to require less faculty? and the faculty might not necessarily be all that supportive. these are key issues to drop their now that can radically reduce the cost of delivering higher education. how do you deal with how that cost gets passed on and how do you deal with those issues? >> i think we are going to talk about reducing the cost of higher education and also saving the quality accessible the affordability of higher

education. i think it does away with the life experience we are talking about to mentor students and get students that flexibility or the skills they need to join into a space society in the future and i think that online class is don't do that. for the reason that we are human beings and that it takes away the experience of the building relationship to come to a professor like i have a relationship and we're talking about free internship a lot of them to come in my experience and so i think it's great to lower the cost of education for to do with those different costs themes or reduce the cost of those things but i don't think it does a good job of keeping the quality of higher education. and so that is where i would probably stand on that. >> one example of life and activism and affordability, flexibility and quality.

it's the affordable textbook and this is open for the textbook. according to the college course the average student please $1,137,000,000 a year on textbooks on studies that were done last year. one of my in terms pointed up the was about the cost of a meal plan which is the best comparison that i have ever heard so far. but the idea being the huge financial burden to your education already paying tuition cost of the residential cost and living costs and in the textbook cost on top of that is just huge. one of the biggest things they can actually do to talk to the question before is to adopt the textbooks and materials on line. it's a growing field. we have had a love success. they are not aware that these books are available and the financial burden to students. compiling data and having monday to meetings with professors to make the decisions of the text produce in glasses are getting them to adopt these books. so this is a monitor example if i get an average 200 students are taking a class and the book

cost $100, $200,000, for the whole class and the adopt the open source book they are sitting their students to hundred thousand dollars. that's a lot of money. and it's really that simple. and these are books that aren't available hopefully i would encourage professors to read more of them. there's a limited number of them available but we would love to see more. and also the ones that are available are being adopted in classrooms would reduce the significant cut and it affects everyone to the taxpayer is paying into the program and that is less money that students will need for the textbooks if they are available for free online. they are customizable. if you think this chapter should go before this chapter you can move things around and it's open for you as well as an educator. so i think that is a way in the future i would love to see more of. in a closet in santa barbara and they've taken pluses and maryland as well as the idea of being able to have a thing online if you don't like getting your text book online i hate reading of a computer screen you can get it printed in black and

white for the cost of printing instead of paying for the cd and the hard copy book you really don't need that. you just need the information instead of the $230 saves you so much money. on the educators and as that working with teachers and having more students uprising about this one year textbooks. >> we are about out of time. thank you so much to the panel for being here. [applause] it's a great conversation. >> [inaudible conversations]

the u.s. postal service has proposed closing at 3700 postal

facilities throughout the country by 2015. in order to save $20 billion. one of those facilities as a processing plant in white river junction vermont 245 workers isf

i made before we begin. in the unlikely event that we need to vacate this space, the emergency exit is to my left, to my right, in front, two doors in the back. mentzer mideastern are located at the far end of the hall. for those of you who currently have a cell phone or an electronic device, a kindly ask you turn it to me at. and for any hearing-impaired people here tonight, we have signed service is available, seats available reserved as well to my last. let me begin by thanking the american legion post 26 and specifically commanded deanne reid for allowing us to be here tonight to user space. commander, where are you, please? thank you, commander.

[applause] i would like to introduce a number of folks with us tonight. i would say to first introduce senator that he is a test. [applause] senator sanders. [applause] congressman welch. [applause] governor shumlin. [applause] i'd also like to introduce a representative from senator shaheen, bethany urich. [applause] with us also are the representative from congressman bowser's office, chris collins.

[applause] also representing the u.s. senator from new hampshire, mica skylight. [applause] also with us, jim condos for and secretary of state. [applause] new commissioner from department of labor. [applause] also, vincent losey, vermont state senator. also with us are a number of folks in the united states postal service. district manager, and a bass essler. delete plant manager for the northern new england district, michael breed.

[applause] be acting plant manager for the white river junction, mary woodward, also known as woody. [applause] and from our postal unions, jonker ziskin a regional coordinator for the northeast region of the american postal leaders union. [applause] wayne martin, local president at local 520 for the av debut. [applause] frank rogerio on agents for the american postal workers union. [applause] representing the national association of postal supervisors in vice president, i do mouse. from vermont state president of the national association of postal supervisors, rayfield.

[applause] and randy sharon, the burlington national association of postal supervisors. [applause] from our mail handlers union, local 301, new england president of the mail handlers union, tim dwyer. [cheers and applause] and the branch president of the white river junction, bill kramer. and i'd also like to recognize a number of current postal employees that are here in the audience tonight as well as and i would ask for a lot of applause for every tire postal employees. [applause] as information come with two

cameras located >> in the back of the room and i would like to invite c-span being here tonight and they will be filming throughout the night. i very much appreciate you to take your time to come to white river junction tonight. into my rate, the two women will be recording all that is said tonight and making it as a matter of the record. just briefly, why are we are here, the purpose is to get input from postal service is looking for input relative to a current study that is being conducted with the white river junction plant processing facility. the reason that this study is being conduct did this the postal service fans ourselves in a financial difficult situation. and that is no new news to anybody. as information since the year 2006, our urbanization has seen

a loss of 43 billion pieces of mail per year. because of that, it is requiring us to take actions to ensure the greater efficiencies are the efficiencies of the postal service on a national basis maintained. we find ourselves in a situation it will have a presentation by deb that will clearly articulate the enormous challenges we us americanization face. we thank you for being here tonight. we look forward to the input. any comments or questions you may have, understand, no decision has been made relative to the white river junction plant as we speak today. this is a process again that we have instituted on a national basis. this is a segment that is very important to us. what you have to say is that they will take forward and consider as we begin to create

the postal service said the future. so again, welcome. with that, i would like to introduce to everybody the district manager of the northern new england district. the northern new england district covers the state, deb essler covers new hampshire vermont and maine. [applause] >> okay. we will speak real loud and i invite -- i encourage others that will be speaking tonight are the problem with the room as the speaker system and halfway through the room. so what we have done is put a temporary speaker here and we'll try to extend as far as we can. but we will definitely speak out. these continue to let us know if it's difficult to hear in the back. all right? thank you. >> thank you very much, mike. welcome, everyone. this is a very important part of

the process. as mike pointed out, it is preliminary information we will share with you in terms of the area the processing study. one of two out of 52 studies currently going on across the united states. as you know, the postal service has recently announced it intends to see some significant changes. in the mail processing network among other things. i've given you some background tonight on these changes and why we believe they are necessary. i will associate the proposed changes for mail processing operations located at white river junction, vermont. i have a lot to cover tonight and as many questions and hopefully a lot will be answered as we go through the presentation. i'm going to have to sit or questions, comments and concerns until we're finished with their presentation tonight. we are here tonight to hear from the community and we hope you focus your questions and comments and concerns on service and cost and customer issues. potential employee impacts are

summarized in the presentation as well in labor issues are handled internally within the postal service with the appropriate personnel. let's begin tonight with just a short video that will help illustrate the process mail today. ♪ first-class mail is declining at a rapid pace because people are mailing last, with less mail to process and deliver, postal service has to make smart business decisions that are critical to preserving his future. the postal service has undertaken area mail processing. these studies are one part of the overall strategy to get the postal service on the path to profitability, strengthen its financial future for those customers and employees. right now, the postal service has saved vast network of mail processing facilities here at

the facilities were established many years ago to process increasing mail volumes. as a nation group, so did the postal service. but now it's so many web-based communications available, people and businesses are moving away from the postal service for sending those, statement and other documents that were once held exclusively through first-class mail. the simple fact is that the postal service must adjust its mail processing network to evolve as our nation's mailing habits change. most mail processing occurs during overnight hours, with the majority of the processing occurring between midnight and 6:00 a.m. during the day, however, there is little processing that actually occurs. most people our mail and accepted meanings. for a significant part of the day, the plant is largely idle. here's the problem.

but there's a lot of capacity to process an ever dwindling volume of mail, how can the current system of mail processing be changed with little or no impact to the customer? the answer has to do is something called mail service standards, what most customers may not realize is first-class mail currently receives overnight service in metropolitan areas. because of this standard, the nationwide processing operations has been set up to handle this need. the sobering reality is that first-class mail volumes will not return to the levels in the past and changing service standards to match reality is one way of keeping the postal service bible. viable. ..

will allow us to transport the male further distance to more centralized locations for processing buy simply making a smaller standard the postal service could reduce the number of mail processing facilities from about 500 to fewer than 200 realize billions of dollars of annual savings. >> postal service is very vital to the american economy. we realize that, people realize that. we have to stay profitable to provide service to the american public as we consolidate the plans we will be moving people from one place to another and in some cases from one job to another and that same time frame we have a lot of people that can retire we will be here for along time we just have to get our we

finajuncial house in order right now to the estimate these changes would bring huge cost savings and also lay the foundation for a financially we continutal stable service wil serviceeserve our customers for many years to come were 64. before i go forward with the presentation i just want to make a couple of comments. i think it's really important that we all understand while there are 252 sightings going on currently across the united states there were no facilities selected based on any criteria that was specific to performance. the junction performance is outstanding the employees are outstanding this was a network

realignment of the social service. [applause] and it's based on looking at the network changes we are going through right now and where we want to be between now and 2020 to really be successful and support a very large industry as well so in no way is this an indication that our employees again are not doing an outstanding job because they are. the postal service is responding to a changing marketplace. the reality is the value of the mali process annually has declined more than 43 billion pieces in the past five years and we know it will continue to decline. as a result the mail processing network is not much larger than we can afford. looking ahead the declining volumes dictate that we must make radical changes to the mail processing network and so this

evening we will provide you information around two very important topics. first that we intend to rely on the mail processing network in the next two years based on the to to treat a standard for local delivery of first-class mail and a second the initial results of the area processing site of preliminary information on the reduction from last. to bolster the case for change let me start with this graph. it shows the trends in the production through 2020 it shows our first-class product which includes both traditional cards and letters that you put a postage stamp on and the standard mail also known as advertising mail. 2006 was the high water mark. since then first-class mail has declined 20% deutsch electronics and version and the economic

slowdown. the sobering reality is first-class mail will not returned to the previous levels. more and more people are continuing to use electronic means to communicate to pay their bills. experts predict the continued decline in the volume of the first-class mail which is the product that drives the network requirements and pays our bills and the postal service contributes the most to the bottom line. during part of the businesses advertising mail which we expect to show some growth in the out years but even significant growth and continued growth of that we are experiencing in the volume is not enough to make out for the ongoing decline in the first-class mail this change in the makeup of the male for first cost of advertising mail therefore has significant institutions for the postal service infrastructure for two

major reasons. one is the volume of declining with less revenue to cover the cost of the infrastructure and number two we also have excess capacity through the network. simply put to process less kneal we need to look at your facilities. i'd like to mention the word capacity a few times tonight. it relates to the devotee to process mail and packages. our mail processing network footprint involved for many years in response to the volume fluctuation for the improvement technology between 1970 and 2006 our focus was on expanding to handle on the then current volume from 1970 to 2006 we increased the used to the greater efficiency. we build a large new facilities to house the advanced processing

equipment it was the purpose of growth and a significant capital investment to the postal service. we build facilities with the confidence at that time the the population and the economy make rules that the volumes will also increase. since 2006 the confidence in the perpetual volume growth has evaporated. prior to 2006 our operational goal was to stay ahead of the growth curve to ensure that we had the capacity to support the larger volumes. now our operational goal in this cost curve is to ensure that we have just enough capacity to meet the lower volumes. and to operate at a lower cost than our revenue can support in the future. so now we are going from the expanding environment and to a contracting environment. we have to reduce the mail processing infrastructure to get ahead of the declining volume. this activity is at the core of

our ability to the profitability. reducing our infrastructure in response to the volume decline is really nothing new. since 2006 the mail volume dropped 20% and we reduced our network buy nearly 200 mail processing facilities. we did this successfully without any impact on our customers. in fact we delivered record service during this period. these reductions were accomplished without laying off any of our employees. how did we do that? in part through the process involving area mehl processing studies which we are here for to discuss tonight eventually had been using this process for a decade and has served us very well. using the study data and objective criteria we determined whether the business takes for the consolidation. and there are opportunities built into the process

opportunities including the input meetings such as the one here tonight. and also a written comment period that extends 15 days beyond tonight. these are times for the committee members and any stakeholders to comment ask questions and provide concerns to the postal service and many times from these meetings suggestions as well as how we go forward and looking at the right thing to do. we will continue to follow the process with the study data the public input and objective criteria in making our decisions. by 2013 the network makes up fewer than the 200 mail processing facilities which would put at the head of the cost curve for the remainder of the decade. we know this has been a plan with of the operating network that would need to be to meet the needs of the nation the next 30 years. here is what our mail processing footprint looks like today.

you can see we have facilities throughout the country, facilities in varying sizes that employee anywhere from 50 to 2,000 employees. what happens in these facilities is relatively simple. first the mail is brought in almost always accommodation of the mail collected from post offices and drop off directly by business customers. then it is sort of almost all of it during an automated process and either shipped back for local delivery or shipped to another mail processing facility depending on its ultimate destination. to support our overnight service commitment, most of this processing takes place in the middle of the night. in fact our entire network was designed based on a requirement that we maintain the capability to deliver first-class mail on the next business day. this requirement presents us from being able to sort the mail until all the mail that needs to be sorted gets to the delivery

order for the last year and a right to the facility. this has enormous implications because it constrains our operating window to process mail in the middle of the night and enforce us to make a large number of mail processing locations. >> this represents all of the mail processing facilities for possible consolidation. the blue stars and i realize they are hard to see from the audience here, the blue stars represent facilities for which studies are already underway and the rest represent the 252 additional mail processing facilities that are on the list would be released by the postal service on september 15th. as you can see -- >> why don't we just talk about -- new hampshire >> we will be getting to that.

appreciate that. >> [inaudible] [applause] [inaudible] [applause] the study's will have the overall financial impact of closing and consolidation and significant stakeholder input. this is what the mail processing network might look like in the future if after consolidation all of the studies were approved the standard is the stated goal for the service achievement for each class of mail the postal network is built to meet the existing goals. that means that even though the dramatic decline in mail volume is resulted in excess and a

network it will reduce the network to address the excess capacity problems we would not be able to consistently achieve the existing service standards. that's why we intend to propose to rebuild the network based on the two to three days standards for the local delivery of first-class mail. the operational would be tremendous. and even though the change would go relatively unnoticed by the average customer this would allow us to design and much more efficient lower-cost mail processing network to the facility. [inaudible] here we get a sense of what the changes would represent. let me show you how we meet the current overnight first-class mail delivery requirement. the circle represents 24 hours. on the left you see that the overnight first-class mail delivery requirement in the mail

processing time into a small window of activity. beginning roughly at midnight and continuing the next four to six hours. i did meet last night and earlier this morning with some of the employees at the junction post office at the plant and they wanted to be sure that you knew that in white river junction you process more than the four to six hours, significantly more. even with that, we are going to show you a little further along in the presentations there are strong business case is but this represents the national the average of mail processing and it is a little bit longer window in the junction. deutsch the overnight first-class mail service to her to have to maintain its capacity even though it's not especially efficient. given the time and distance associated with getting mail to and from each facility it also means we have to maintain numerous facilities. the proposal operating model

would be based on changing to the two to three day first-class service range. this would allow meal to be processed during much longer stand in the 24-hour slide. we anticipate that this kind of future network would support a two to 31st class standard. what include revised time for dropping of first-class mail or what we call entry time for first-class mail. we would also expect the consolidations would result in an estimated 50% reduction in the mail processing equipment and significant reduction in our physical footprint eliminating the capacity many times when the equipment is not running in our network. but also enabled of us and our customers to optimize transportation. the question about these changes

is how does it attract the customer? there are two major areas of change that would attract the commercial customer. first the local footprint. literally where business customers would need to drop off meal. customers can drop me off at most any accepting facility. however estimating the scum that some currently receive may not be entered where it is processed the team is available to discuss the specific concern to the mailers we did meet to discover an ongoing dialogue with them. shouldn't this be a study that goes forward we would want to problem solve with them on a regular basis to make sure that this is not impacted. we also think our commercial customers would be able to really accommodate the new schedule. many of our largest customers and have told us this is something we need to consider. we know the proposed changes

would have a significant impact on the mailing industry and local mailers. we outlined the proposal to both the major industrial groups and successful basis and generally have been pleased with the response. we have a good track record of working with the industry and global mailers and are committed to making sure the transition would be as smooth as possible, again if this were a sight that were to go forward. list speak for a moment about our employees. the business decisions were not made lightly and these changes would affect many of our employees. we've dedicated and committed work force not only in white river junction but across northern new england and across the united states. postal employees to a phenomenal job and they deserve tremendous credit for achieving record service and efficiency means over the past few years. even in very challenging times. [applause]

nearly every employee in the mail processing facility can be helped by these changes. changes even the possibility of change is very unsettling. change becomes reality we would make every effort to accommodate employees and provide positions where we can. we also worked closely with our unions to reposition the affected employees. over the past 12 years the work force has been reduced by 250,000 positions mostly through attrition which largely involves requirement. we've never had to lay off employees as part of the culture for a responsible employer and that won't change. now that i shared a little bit about the general information on the processing, let's talk a

little bit more about this study. again, let me make it clear that we have great employees at the river junction. this slide shows the extent of the white river junction of the manchester location at approximately 82 miles apart. this gives you a little geographic information here. the next slide shows 91 miles between the white river plant and the burlington vermont plant processing center. if the consolidation of operations at these facilities is approved, there is an expected annual savings of almost $8 million. the business case shows the data that the mail processing work hours savings are estimated to

be $3.3 million annually. the mail processing management savings are estimated to be $487,000 the maintenance savings $3.2 million annually and the transportation savings of 490,000. there are other miscellaneous savings you will notice the slide doesn't add up to the bottom line. these are the major categories the we keep you here tonight. in most consolations employees jobs, hours the often can .. over rotation. reassignment will be made in accordance with the agreement that we have with the union in this time to go forward. the study shows that projected net reductions under 51 employees. every event will be made to place employees in a job with a number district. so you understand what that net impact is. it's taking the number of

positions in the three plants involved, manchester, new hampshire, white river junction, vermont and burlington vermont which is an ethics junction. and after the study if we were to close white river junction there would be a net increase of the 51 positions for the three facilities. the proposed consolidation would support a two or freed a service standard for first-class mail. other local customer considerations include retail services currently available at the river junction processing distribution center. those would remain to be a business meal acceptance units that are currently at the white river junction processing facility will also remain. the collection by the time could be adjusted slightly if it went through. in local postmarks continue to be available for first-class mail to take that to retail and delivery times to the residences customers would be unchanged and

unaffected so the mail delivery would be the same time each day that it is now. for the commercial mailers who presort the mail continue to receive appropriate postage discounts. mailers who dropped shift the section also devotee discount can expect that there could be changes if it is approved. we did discuss some of these changes this afternoon with some of our larger mailers and they are giving us some very detailed information on the impact would have so we can start looking should this go forward on how we invest and support each of them. >> can i ask a question? >> if you can wait until when finished would appreciate that. thank you. as i stated earlier this evening it's currently under review at the area headquarters there may be changes to the study made. we will continue to take

comments through january 19th so that we can take all of those comments for work to the area in the headquarters office that the at&t proposal can be considered at that time. we take very seriously our obligation for the entire industry. it's a trillion dollar industry that employs more than 8 million people across the united states. we are soliciting your input to night so that we can make sure we make good business decisions that you heard your comments questions and suggestions are heard and we continue to make the male strong for us, for you and the industry for many years to come. we will leave this up there to remind you that you do have 15 days after tonight and want to be sure that in addition to the information that's been written down here for questions and comments tonight that you also are encouraged to mail in any of those to us as well to read

>> [inaudible] before we get into the question and comment section -- >> [inaudible] >> thank you. before we get into the general question and comment part of the presentation, we have some very distinguished guests i would like to invite up to speak and i'd like to begin with governor shumlin, please. [applause] estimates before. i'm honored to be here and i will be very brief because i want to hear -- i know we want to hear the obligation wants to hear from the hard working employees of the u.s. postal service that do such an extraordinary job delivering in our mail on time in vermont. so my hat goes off to you. thank you for being here

tonight. i want to thank so much all of you for being here and our congressional delegation for helping to organize this forum tonight. i feel blessed as your governor to serve in the state that has the best congressional delegation in america, senator leahy. [applause] they don't get any better than senator leahy. senator sanders and congressman welch our hometown boys a thank you very much. [applause] before i say a few words about the sheer idiocy of shutting down the white river junction processing facility -- [cheering] i want to thank our congressional delegation for the announcement that just came through from washington where they with their extraordinary

power rests convince the congress who does almost nothing to send hundreds of millions of dollars back to the state of vermont to help us rebuild from the worst flood in our history. thank you, bernie, patrick, peter. we are proud of you. [applause] a couple of quick words. i was born and raised in windham county and we understand what closing the white river junction processing facility would mean to vermont. we are a rural state the and we require mail to get to us not only to communicate with our loved ones, but to run our businesses, create jobs and economic opportunities. it is critical for the to wondered 50 hard working people who process the male right here and do a great job of it. it's critical as we slowly crawl out of the worst recession in

american history and start building jobs in vermont that we have a postal service that delivers mail when we send it not to the four or five days later that we send. [applause] i say this to the u.s. postal service you do a great job. it doesn't get a better. in my other life in the private sector i run a small business just south of here called put me student travel. we rely on the white river junction facility to get our product to the market that allows us to employ vermont, and they don't do it any better than here. but we happen to do in that business is sent community projects with high school students all over the world to developing countries and the one thing that helps us is that the

u.s. postal service gets mail reliably to people when you need to get their. we dread sending mail to the third world developing countries that we are dealing with because their postal services don't. this proposal will join that in having a backwater postal service that costs us jobs and economic opportunity. [applause] i will close by saying this. we in rural vermont are an internet service is spotty, cellphone service is at times nonexistent needed the postal service more than anyone else in america, keep it open, keep it strong, keep our hard-working postal employees working and go somewhere else to find pretend

savings. what i find extraordinary about this is -- [applause] and i ask this one question. if the studies on the madison avenue videos intact suggest that there are going to be savings to through employees but are somehow not going to lose any jobs i ask what kind of math you are using. [applause] so i will be standing together with our congressional delegation to do everything we can to bring sense to the u.s. postal service could keep the white river junction postal center open and keep us a growing jobs and economic opportunities in vermont. thank you. [applause]

>> okay, thank you come governor. [cheering] [applause] thank you, governor. at this time i would invite senator leahy, please, senator [applause] >> does this sound better? okay normally i would go first but i'm not going to. as senator sanders who has worked so hard on this along

with the congressman and myself to speak first and i will speak after but i want to read just one thing. we got a lot of christmas cards this year, a lot. one that we saved especially is from chris richardson. is he here? [applause] there he goes to get my family and i just want to take a second and thank you for all you've done for the post office, its employees, their families, their customers, we appreciate everything you've done. i want you and your families to know senator sanders, congressman, governor shumlin and i will not stop one moment. [applause] >> thank you. [applause]

let me begin by thanking all of you not only for being here this is a phenomenal turnout, that think you for the extraordinary work you do every single day. sometimes we take for granted. we shouldn't. you are doing a great job and think you for that. [applause] i also want to thank the post office. this meeting was originally scheduled for december 18th. there was a very bad time. i appreciate your rescheduling the meeting to a more convenient inappropriate time. now let me begin by taking up on a point that the governor and senator leahy had already made. we are in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression triet 25 million americans are either unemployed or underemployed. on the floor of the senate and

the house senator leahy, congressman welch and i and many others are doing everything we can to try and i have to tell you again very strong opposition to try to create millions of jobs our economy needs. we are also trying to make sure that our veterans get the jobs that they are entitled to. in the midst of all of that it is in san to be talking about throwing 100,000 americans out of work. [applause] the post office has made a case which is certainly true. this is the 21st century. many of us use e-mail. we know that there must be changes in the postal service.

but in my view if the postal service does the right thing and in congress senator leahy, congressmen welch and i are working on legislation to do that, there are business models available to grow the postal service rather than cutting and cutting. [applause] , this is the business model of the postmaster general in the postal service right now. they want to eliminate 252 processing plants, or they are looking at that concluding the one here in white river junction. they want to shut down thousands of the rural post offices which in many parts of our country and our state are the centers in town if we have people come together including 15 in the state of vermont.

[applause] they want to eliminate saturday mail delivery. now when the you do all of that in my view when you do as the post office indicated slow down the mail delivery so when i put a piece in the mailbox if they get to the destination in today's, three days, maybe even five days, when all the people will be delayed in getting their prescription drugs, when you begin to do that, you are the sort of way that cycle, a death spiral for the post office. [applause] because who is going to use the post office at its strongest attribute of the speedy delivery the longer exists? now one of the things that senator leahy, a congressman welch and i have worked on with some success is that i had a very strong feel that with the

post office wanted to do is ramrod these cuts against congress could act. so no matter what legislation may be out there doesn't matter if congress doesn't have the time to deliberate and deal with country inns of legislation. we met with postmaster general donahue a few weeks ago and had a very long meeting. i wanted a six month moratorium on the cuts. we agreed to a five month moratorium. the importance of that is that when we return from washington in january, the end of january, one of the first orders of business up in the senate will be comprehensive postal reform. [applause] now what is disappointing about the postal presentation i really have a hard time understanding

it to the it is absolutely true the first-class mail system. no one knows that, but one of the great financial problems facing the post office in addition to the decline of the first-class mail is in addition to the recession is absolutely unfair and onerous financial requirements be made on the postal service. [applause] and it's very hard to understand and presentation how this is dealt with. the postal service as a result, not their fault, as a result of congressional action some years ago is required to come up with about $5.5 billion every single year for future health care retirees. there is no other agency or government that comes close to having this requirement, and its best as we can understand there is no company in america that has to do that.

[applause] now i talked briefly to the gentleman who was the head of the office of personnel management and he agreed that this is an onerous and unnecessary requirements. there is already enough money in the future retiree health benefit program to pay off benefits for the next 20 years. the post office does not need to come up with 5 billion. that number can be very significantly reduced and that is part of the legislation that senator leahy, congressman welch and i are working on. will that solve all the problems? no, but it's a good start. [applause] second of all, the postal service has overpaid the federal employees retirement system and is now agreed upon over

$11 billion. if the post office can report that money plus the cuts in what they have to pay to retiree health benefits, that will come close to giving the postal service the $20 billion they need in the first four or five years to reach the kind of solvency that they are talking about. [applause] in addition to that of the house side, congressman welch is on board legislation, which would provide that $55 billion in overpayment made to the civil service retirement system be returned to the post office as well. [applause] so the point is does the postal service have to change? the answer is yes. but we also have to be fair to

the postal service and not place burdens on them that no other agency of the government has or no other private sector company has. so we have to short-term focus on these accounting issues to give the postal service the three, four, five years that it needs to begin the kind of reorganization. now, the business models that the post office is talking about now is basically cut, cut, cut. i disagree on that approach. we do need a new approach, but the new approach must be an entrepreneurial approach, an approach of growth, an approach of being aggressors in the business community. for example, right now, giving some examples of this, right now i walk into a post office, and i say to the clerk you know who writes this letter for you know the clerk says, it is against a law for me to notarize that

letter. it's against the law. if i say to the clerk by the we can you give me ten copies of this letter, i can't do it. post office does not allow to do that. it's not doing that today. if i'd been a rural post office and i see by the way, can you sell the fishing license orie hunton when simms, can't do that, it's against the law. i think if we get some smart people together to understand that we have a letter carriers knocking on 60,000, 160, every single day we have infrastructure all over this country if we sit down and say how can the post office work with other government agencies, how can the post office be more with the private sector generating for business i think we can come up with solutions that is a lot more positive than the cuts that the post office is

now bringing. [applause] for the last several months i've been working with some of her leaky on these issues now let me reintroduce senator patrick leahy. [applause] faugh >> thank you, bernie. deborah told me the hearing back in the back and i said don't be unusual and shaw, speak up so we can hear you. thank you. [applause] serious for a moment. one of the hats that i wear representing all of you is as the chairman of the senate judiciary committee you may wonder why i bring that up. i want to remind when people talk about post office is being

run in the business and so on, there is only one business it's referring to in the constitution of the united states. an article 1, section 8 of the constitution it gives congress the right to establish the postal service. that has been that way since this country was founded and all of you people work for the post office be proud of that. you are in the constitution. [applause] if it isn't subtle, if it isn't too subtle color that means congress needs to be consulted before the postal service implements reforms that threaten to destroy itself. [applause]

every day i wear this pin this was given to me when i was first sworn into the united states senate. among other things i took an oath to uphold the constitution. part of the constitution is how we established the postal service. i am not one iota on my oath to uphold the constitution and neither will senator sanders or congressmen welch and i know the governor is with us on that. and you can count on that, too. [applause] you have not been shy letting us know how you think. i appreciate that. the mail handlers union, the others that have spoken up, thank you for doing that. you know, all of us worked

together in 2006 to successfully reason the closure of a similar facility essex. now they are glad they didn't close it. senator sanders and i am congressman walsh feel that way. we haven't changed our mind about closing this facility or any of the processing facilities. it's not a case of us trying to hang on to something that's outdated and gone. making it work, and make the constitution work and keep the postal service running. it is part of america let's not forget that. [applause] now, we do not have the testing moving -- fastest moving congress these days. we did have a lot of gridlock, but we are all going to work hard and we are going to see him to leave to seek help from

republicans and democrats alike to make sure that we can to protect vermont and the service they expect from their postal service. i don't believe this is not the issue here tonight we are talking about processing but i don't believe the postal service should be balancing its budget on the backs of the rural post offices. and the door on the service standards the mail processing facilities. we are a special state, but we work only if everything does work. so let's not -- i don't need to tell you all the things i have here what you should know them. but stop and think for a moment if you're going to do cuts that slope the service, that slow of their abilities, doesn't harm the future competitiveness of the post office? [applause] how in heaven's name is that

helping? i'm just a small town lawyer born in mount the earlier and i can't figure that out i can't figure out anything. they want to survive and thrive the postal service has to find new markets. the postal service will not cut its way to greatness. it can grow its way to greatness and we are going to stand and help. [applause] thank you, senator. the third member of the delegation, and again i just want to make no every member of the delegation is with us this evening and we are proud and thankful that you are all here. i would like to ask congressman welch to please come forward. [applause]

>> thank you. we are going to be hearing from you very soon, but i have to tell you my office was literally went on the road used to stop in at the processing facility to come three come sometimes four times a week after a few years i actually got the tours in the back where all the magic happens. i really want to thank each and every one of you for the work that you've done for us. the four corners, the street corners, norwich, you got everyone here. when i walked in and i shook hands saying how long have you worked here? 33 years, 28 years, 37 years, this has been your life and your life have been serving us and i want to tell you we appreciate it, we notice it. we know that you have been an anchor in the communities and each and every one of us and

governor shumlin want to say thank you for your service we are going to keep doing it we won't get out of it that easy no matter what they say over their. [applause] if you on the job you've got to have that job and folks the 25 million people that are not in a job that want a job sometimes wonder why anyone should protect someone else's job when they don't have it. and you know, at the moment when we have to remember that we are all in this together it's something that our country is in danger of forgetting. the pressure israel on you. but you see folks coming in on

christmas time trying to figure out whether they can afford the stance to send the package to a grandchild. you've been seeing that. it's tough for lots of folks. as we've got to be generous a spirit and we've got to be smart. you know, the postal service has been with us for 237 years. now we are talking about e-mail, electronic processing. but you think that there were not huge changes that have to occur in those 237 years? from 1775 when benjamin franklin got this operation going up until now of course there were but of course the postal service adjusted it and why? yes, your jobs are worth saving but the united states postal service is worth saving. [applause] in our goal has to be how what do we save it, and altogether

dewey save it, we do make the changes but when we have a plan it's not in the plan that we are going to exempt or take up this excessive burden of billions and billions of dollars of funding and over funding this isn't to avoid meeting your obligation, it's too over fund the retiree benefits and health care oncoming to impose and inflict its financial burden and make it impossible for us to be successful and to make the slow and gradual change that needs to be made not just so that you can have your job which is extremely important but so that this community and white river junction, the state of vermont that we all know, this country in the united states of america, rural and urban will have a postal service for another 237 years and counting. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much. at this point, i will invite anybody who would like to ask a question, make a comment i would ask that the line and from the podium back because the significant number of folks here tonight it's important that we recognize the time. i will be instituting a two minute limit on those who wish to speak if you have an additional question beyond the when you ask i would ask that you go back to ensure that everybody has an opportunity to make a comment or ask a question also as part of the article i would ask that you identify yourself so that people recording your comments will

have an accurate record. so please come in your name? >> i am bill kramer the local branch president for the union in white river junction vermont. [applause] and also a vermonter and i want to keep my job. keep the postal service in vermont. my question to you is what examples do you have of any business that to get away with their service that survived? how do you think by cutting your service and delivery standards in the age where everyone wants something now that's going to save the postal service? i think the senators and congressmen and the governors were correct if you go from the one to three days service and if you go from five days to whenever on the third class service people are going to leave us. we are not going to have a postal service anymore and that is unfortunate. [applause]

>> we appreciate your concerns on the service. is there a question, comment? >> let me rephrase that. how do you expect to save the service by cutting service? [applause] that's the reason we are here tonight we appreciate the comments as well only from the but from the delegation over here and that is what will happen to make some decisions going forward is if we do consider exactly that one point will insure it is part of the record. >> let me ask all of the vermonter in the room tonight to what your postal service degraded? de watch as service? yes or no? >> no. >> thank you. [applause] thank you. >> next, please. >> in the northeast regional coordinator for the postal workers union. [applause] i'm in the microphone.

>> [inaudible] >> i have the distinct pleasure and honor to represent the postal workers at the white river junction vermont and every time i come with the great centers sanders we have a great crowd. we get a program about 40 days ago we had 100 people in the public meeting and the message was very loud and very clear, keep the service in the united states postal service the was the message. but as the senator said, we are here today because we are not being honest, we are your because we have to pay $5.5 billion every year before we start the year off. no company can survive that, not even the postal service. as i said, this isn't my first public meeting i come from maine and down to jersey and to the virgin islands and puerto rico so i've been through a lot of these. when you came up with a flat rate box that was a good idea. closing down these amts isn't a

good idea. let's talk a service standards. the service standard is what predicates this entire process. it hasn't even been approved yet. yet we are predicting all of this information. we are predicting all of these moves, 252 studies all predicated on the standard that has not yet been approved. i think that this criminal. in addition to that -- [applause] let's talk up the number of jobs new york city that's what this is is a shell game. this is a shell game. 46 jobs being lost because it looks good to the stakeholders and it looks good to the congressional people. but the real impact is the 200 jobs. one of my jobs as the union official of the region is to

find jobs for other impacted employees. that's what i do. and i can assure you that we do not have 200 jobs available. in addition to that, we don't have 35,000 jobs available for all of these impacts the fate all of these that they could in fact cause. so i ask you please read into this. i thank the congressional delegation from vermont coming up with that piece of legislation i think it helps you as much as it helps us. gives you more time to rethink. let's put a stop to this madness. let's put a stop to the madness and the change in the service standard as we say what other company says we are going to do a tv commercial and rather and say we will get the pizza to door house in 30 minutes you say we will get the pizza to your house and three to five days. it's nonsense, it's stupid, i know you are only the messenger is here tonight but we have to make sure that you listen to the public and we have to stop this

madness. let's stop it right here in vermont. [applause] >> next, please. >> my name is amy and i am not a postal office person. i am a general person. i citizen of west hartford car and i came to speak because i had a small reservations i wanted to make available. the state of vermont is now the most rural state in the nation. unlike other states, however, our population is almost evenly spread across the whole state. not like montana or idaho whether delete where there are hundreds of miles of land in the larger city. the state of vermont also has a total population smaller than the city of new york. forget the suburbs. in new york the distance between

the processing centers is only a few minutes. the distance between burlington, white river and manchester is five hours. apart from the population exactly who is here? vermont is also one of the fastest aging states in the country and the poverty level is high meaning the ability to move around is more limited than the other states. even compared to new hampshire are massachusetts we don't have easy access to public transportation, shopping centers or other conveniences. even the internet is so outside of many people's reach here. for some, the male is the only way to pay bills come contact friends or relatives or make purchases like medications as our leaders have said. for some it has dared lifetime to the world outside, and that contact needs to be timely and

assured. another consideration is the companies that people do business with. i happen to know that many utilities charge extra to make payments on the phone or online and how many of us in vermont can afford that? with the loss of processing in white river junction male becomes unreliable a raging at a company on time as it is companies tell customers they didn't receive a payment on time when in fact it arrived, the company processing could be the culprit and in vermont is known as the mail arrives in the state after one or maybe two days of the loss of the plant would make the mail so unreliable as to allow all kinds of the fiscal to cannery to occur with various companies who can claim it didn't get there on time. ..

this affects our entire state. thank you. [applause] ! enemas lawrence miller, secretary of the agency of commerce and community development for the state of vermont. one frame in question and then a couple of comments. the $8 million in savings, what is that of the total operating expense related to the effect to its facilities? >> i don't have that. the >> $89.7 not.

mayor may not be allowed. it's hard to understand that the relative impact intelligence of your saving is that it doesn't seem like a lot. i appreciate your talking alert shippers. i come from is not manufacturing background. i've had to compete with overseas manufacturers and may not facilities and i know what that looks like and i understand the challenges you're facing. i understand looking with our shippers. we have thousands of thousands of small business and home-based businesses that rely on the post office is for a meaningful portion of their income. the service change is not minor. i watch you think about what changing the cash cycle of businesses by a couple days implies. it implies moving our cash position is 7.5% to 10%. that's a meaningful financing component. this is not money that's going to come out of nowhere. a couple days of receivables in the state of your mind as they pack a lot more than 8 million

bucks, probably 10 or 15 times that. and that is the result you're going to have. i think understanding the total system costs for all the users as well as for the service is important in judging where you ought to be cutting services or where'd you may need to reflect appropriately in charges. having lived a whole bunch of small business shipping, small packages to the postal service because they did such a great job, you take away that delivery service. we're going to have to go back to the competition. it does not work. thank you. [applause] >> by name as mary ann will send. i work for a nonprofit organization here in labor junction. i'm also a resident of white river junction.

the process of payroll under contract to a state of vermont for over 13,000 employees in the state of vermont to provide home care for individuals with disability. the delay -- the change of the standard to two to three or four days delivery will have an immediate and direct impact on all of those employees. those employees currently mail their timesheet into their solutions and expect to be paid within seven days. without the ability to receive those timesheet on time, to put them in the mail on time and turn them around so employees can have their pay one week later on friday can be devastating for those of a 13,000 individuals and their families. in addition the delay of pay to those employees can have an adverse effect on individuals at risk in the state. they depend upon the care that their employees provide for them.

those employees must be paid so that they can continue to provide that care and safeguard those vermonters who were oppressed. we process a number of 12,000 at 13,000 paychecks eat lunch. i was disappointed to learn that we were not included as part of the larger shipper conversation earlier today. we mail out over 30,000 pieces of mail, 36,000 pieces of mail from the white river junction post office. the white river junction post office has done a valuable action fabulous job of prostheses in the mail and making sure -- [applause] at employees across the state of vermont are paid the wages that they are due. without the ability to have overnight or two day delivery, we will leave many vermonters that risk and many more who are

at risk of losing their jobs. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> yes, hi, affects floyd, a resident here in the town of hartford. i came tonight to speak to the fact that i do not believe that the business case has completely analyzed the geography situation that we have here in vermont in the same way that previous speakers have spoken about on the rural character of vermont and its needs. you also understand and don't take enough into account the value of the local employees who understand that the delivery area as the chosen point area zip codes than just the p.o. box is are so often the mail is misaddressed by people, but they look and no where people are

trying to get to. they deal with it right away. now, if you have people doing that work down in andover, massachusetts, i'm sorry. they're not going to know the local geography. the business case probably inherently misstates the value of local employees appear. i would also point out that this area is the sixth-largest micro-metropolitan area in the united states. in order to be a micro-metropolitan area, you have to basically be more than an hours drive away from any other senses to find metropolitan area. for more than an hour from burlington and manchester. we are more than an hour from springfield, massachusetts and therefore this area contains a pretty significant population, which if you mapped against the list of cities in the united

states comes out to right around 200. now, can you pull up the potential network site, please and zoom in on the northeast? the fact of the matter is if you look at the potential network side, you'll see that the potential network has zero facilities in vermont and new hampshire. zero. could you enlarge the upper right corner. so clearly, if you have mapped out the post office is better in massachusetts and andover and framingham and we share an springfield and made that on a map of vermont, that would be like brattleboro, springfield, windsor come away richard junction. the travel time between those places is relatively insignificant. the speaker earlier was talking about how difficult the travel

time is around here and importance of the local delivery and so forth. i don't believe the business case has been correctly analyzed by the post office. finally what i want to say is that i went on to your website to understand how these business cases are put together. you can get all of the documents that show what needs to be filled out in order to prepare one of these business cases. but you know what, you cannot download the filled out forms for this study that's been done around white river junction. in fact, you can download and read what has been sold out for any of the post offices here. and another thing is they are is no evidence that there is any investigation of consolidating into white river junction as opposed to eliminating white river junction and consolidating elsewhere. so, i say this material should be made available. we all should be able to understand your business case

because right now it just is not up for me. and i thank you first time. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is liz blom, an elected blister in the town of norwich. and just so you understand in maine and anywhere else, vermont was hit terribly hard by hurricane or tropical storm irene. we have not recovered and we will work for years to recover. many of our towns have to add over $100,000 to our town budgets for town meeting in march to recover every year in spite of the great hope is gotten from our congressional delegation. so this is putting -- making the situation worse.

you asked when you give your presentation what is the right thing to do. the right thing to do is to get rid of the requirement for the post office to prepay and overpaid benefits for 75 years and to work to pass reform legislation sponsored by vermont entire delegation and other congresspeople and get other people, other congresspeople to sign onto the delegation. that should be the first order of congress this year would make it back to washington. many people have asked what kind of business plan is it to succeed by reducing services? it can't succeed this way. you need to expand services and change services to the united states postal service has been

doing this for 237 years and it needs to continue to do so. >> thank you. >> i just want to say to me and many other people this is an undisguised plan to destroy our postal service guaranteed by the constitution and to privatize it. and i urge you to rethink your plan. [cheers and applause] >> i am kilkenny, a resident of new hampshire and a clergy person with the south danbury new hampshire united church of christ come a small rural congregation. my congregation is like many small rural congregations all over the northeast and frankly the entire country in the rural parts of this country. our congregants depend on the u.s. postal service.

many of our congregants depend on a postal service with reliable next day delivery in the areas where it is now being delivered. and in addition to i also run a small business or home based business, which as mentioned before. i absolutely depend on the u.s. postal service. my milk is processed in white river junction and if anybody wants to know how people like me, depend in white river junction and the distribution, i know based on what is it because because i mail it what is going to get there the next day or the day after or the day after that. right now i can calculate what might mail is going out. from 7:30 to 7:59 at night, the people who depend on the next day delivery and what they can do. but i can see here today that we are talking about the wrong

thing. if we are pinning wayfarer junction and arguing over who gets cut, lucas closed, it's the wrong argument. the argument should be the mail processing standards should not be reduced and i implore our congressional delegation. [applause] to say, this shall not stand. this is clearly -- there is no question if you reduce service standards, what you are doing is someone that should me, attempting to destroy the service from within so it becomes a shadow of his former self. you are privatize it, privatize it and no longer is the u.s. postal service. as a clergy person, one of the things i learned to try to remember on a daily basis is bowsher are not bear false witness. i'm not saying anyone here is

purposely lying. using talking points that have been given to you, but somebody is witnessing falsely when they say you can reduce service standard and you are going to come up with those numbers on there about all you'll say i'm trying to save and how you'll thrive. you cannot reduce standards and drive. it is a road to destruction of the u.s. postal service as we know it and it cannot stand. [cheers and applause] the mac my name is susan clark and i live in a very per hampshire. have a strong connection to vermont. my former husband as a full-time employee at the plant and first of all he want to say that you can see that maybe they were a little harder working than your figures show from 46 hours or whatever it is. i know he's for different tours. they were very hard 24 hours a day. so i don't know where those

figures came from. i just want to add that. i cannot care because i have a home-based business. half of the last 16 years and i have delivered sent to new london, new hampshire come a company called flash photo. i have to say and always praising the post office and telling them that they need to do more publicity about priority mail. first of all, yes, we are losing people doing e-mail, but on the other hand we are gaining because all those orders being placed on the internet have to be shipped. so wise in the post office doing more with? i have to tell you my experiences i have a delivery sent to flash photo. the reason why an essential po boxes i look to a liar just sugar in greensboro north carolina and employ a lot of people that i know when it's shipped on thursday, i will have that in my hands on saturday. if it goes to ups, it is a week.

the other side is this. our company sends out checks on friday afternoons. we have a small rural post office in newbury. i have my hand monday, tuesday. if this goes into effect on us when i'll see it and i'll be back the pain all my bills. the last thing is because i have a small connection to my children, what to vermont for college and make him appear that, all you need to do is right around and see the devastation for the flight and how in the world can the post office at more insult to injury by doing this to all the employees they are quite >> thank you. [applause] my name is david breaks. i'm a volunteer chairman of the hartford development corporation. we'll deal with economic development by citizen involvement and are supported by the town of hartford. we are is an protective of the

economics of the town, especially when it comes to jobs. whenever new developments of any kind is proposed, the concept of the multiplier effect is always the main fact year. jobs lead to a very deep impacts that touches all. once in place, the loss of jobs has a deep impact to the entire community and none of it as possible. reducing jobs is not viable for community. if you have a productivity efficiency problem, don't move the jobs come and find another way. my input to you tonight if you have an entrepreneurial challenge and entrepreneurial opportunity. don't take it down on the community by slashing jobs in bailing out. [applause] >> animists try them a shot and a mobilization coordinator for the vermont afl-cio. welcome to vermont.

>> thank you. >> my understanding is that the postal service retiree health benefits fund now has over $42 billion it. that is enough to cover future retiree health premiums for the next 20 years. also, audits show that the postal service overpaid by 50 billion, maybe 80 billion into the civil service retirement system. further the postal service overpaid at more than 10 billion into federal employee retirement system. also my understand is nearly a quarter of the postal workers are veterans in the postal service is paying the entirety of the veterans pensions. despite the fact that many of their workers service is divided by the postal service and the military, just despite the fact the department of defense pays this proportional pension shared for every federal tea except the postal service. givet