let's take you live to the senate floor on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, may 23, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jack reed, a senator from the state of rhode island, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 12:00 stands adjourned until 12:00 legislative work picking up again the week of june 2. more coverage when they have all

comes down on c-span2. we will go live to the heritage foundation a panel discussion scheduled on the upcoming presidential elections in ukraine set for this sunday may 25. citizens will vote for the successor to a place be ousted president that fled to russia back in february. topic expected to be discussed include involvement in ukraine, security concerns during the election and policy implications with the u.s.. let's go to the coverage under way right now on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the heritage foundation and the louis lehrman auditorium and welcomed to those of us joining on the heritage.org website. we would ask everyone to be so kind to check cell phones as we check that they have been turned off and i guess our panelists will address the fact that we can thank president putin for discussing ukraine as the lead into the panel. the post this morning is helle dale for public diplomacy for ththe sarah allison center for falling national security policy. she focuses on the government institutions and programs for

strategic outreach to the public countries as well as more traditional diplomacy. she's also a fellow at the hoover institution stanford and serves on the board of visitors at the institute on political journalism, the center for the pan over college and is also a member of the council on foreign relations. please join me in welcoming helle. [applause] >> we are here to talk about ukraine. it's been a subject we talked about quite frequently this spring and today we will be focusing on the presidential elections coming up on sunday. these are quite contrasted. it is a subject that our three analysts will cover from a number of perspectives, one of which i'm sure will be whether they will take place at all. there are some in ukraine particularly eastern ukraine and the russian side who would assume that didn't happen.

the first speaker will be janusz bugajski. he is a jack of all trades. with a television or radio as well? bugajski times, a television show that it's showing a double balbalkans. he's a colonist of several media outlets. i would just give you the title of the most recent book published this year "conflict zones the north caucuses and the western balkans compared." the next speaker will be ariel

cohen. he is the senior research fellow in russian and eurasian studies and international energy policy in the douglas and sarah allison center for the foreign and national defense policy here at the heritage foundation. ariel cohen, who is also a doctor and a doctor of law, has served as a consultant to both the executive branch and the private sector on policy towards russia and eastern and central europe, the caucasus and central asia. the final speaker today will be speaking from an authentic ukrainian perspective and we are lucky to have her as a visiting fellow at the heritage foundation. she is an atlas corps fellow in the center for international trade and economics. she was previously the base consultant for the institute of economic research policy.

without further ado over to our speakers. >> okay. thank you very much for inviting me. it's always good to be back at here at page. i think it was about russia at the time as well. ten minutes is a lot to say in a little time to do it so i'm going to be as brief and as concise as possible. what i would like to do is to briefly outline for the. moscow is objective and its solutions, and its options towards ukraine. i think we are going to cover the u.s. policy options as well. maybe ariel is covering that and we can talk about that in

question. let me focus on what i think russia is up to. the objectives i think these have been fairly clear for so many years they have become more transparent during a presidential term. and moscow's top priority is the reintegration of the former soviet republic based on the tighter economic links and culminating in the political security pact within something called the eurasian unit. the unit itself is supposed to consolidate their position as a major power. they believe we are in a multi-polar world to challenge the united states and in competn in europe and other parts of the world. it is a pivotal component of the kremlin's goal. as ukraine's inclusion within this union, i would project russia's power into central

europe and europe as a whole and in the union a strong european component. without ukraine, the union becomes more of an asian construct. at present they are on to sign the treaty. it is going to be a fairly limited structure. i think the kremlin's big fear is ukraine will spill out of its grasp with the victory of the pro- western president and government leader this year and parliamentary elections that will pursue closer ties with the european union and united states. this would damage the agenda in assembling this imperial union. moscow is also anxious about the

democratic contagion and the reformist ukraine that may challenge the authoritarian system or seek the allie alliesd other post-soviet states including those that are say in the winds during the union. hence in this respect the key of success could become the failure or let's say putin's failure. in allegedly defending against a western sponsored takeover, russia's leaders believe they are fighting to secure their own political survival or the continua d. of the system as well as the territory of russia itself. there is a fear in moscow the contagion for ukraine could have some regions away from the center. those regions that are dissatisfied with the policies. the third point, moscow's solutions for ukraine in order of preference moscow has pursued

for different plans. i don't find them as plan a., b. and c.. let's start with a. ukraine integrated with an internationawithininternationaln dominated by russia including the eurasian union and this has failed giving the protest and to the commitment to the majority of the ukrainian population to the european perspective. plan b. the mutual ukraine outside of the western structures. the kremlin believes this has also failed because it is the association agreement. in other words it cannot keep ukraine in the sort of non- block natural no man's land on defense status. a plan number c. decided them outside of the west with a separate east of dependent on russia. this has its advantages from moscow but it is also significant cost as i will come

to in a few minutes. and plan d. that is a possibility that russia will pursue is an unstable ukraine unable to qualify for either the eu or in the future for nato. and basically remains with peripheral positions on the edge of europe. now, given the plans. the strategies and tactics are flexible but fall into the options. let me out babies. first political option. swallow crimea, wait until it subsides or distract from crimea and russia's partition of georgia in august of 2008, claim that the elections are legitimate or only partly legitimate.

putin then seeks the commitment to the federalization in ukraine and the constitution which affects the divided state that the blocks the u.s. international aspirations and ad prevented from making progress towards the eu. ukraine government is clearly rejecting any kind of federalization plan among the lines, thus undermining putin's political option. second option, the territorial option, the proxy separatism in the southern and eastern ukraine has been promoted by moscow to test the prospect id dispatches special forces and for several regions to engineer the conflict and establish the secessionist government. the kremlin here i think i've been testing on the two alternatives creating a split state much like mobiles in which the autonomous regions block the central government

decision-making were ukraine's further partition and partial absorption by russia in the continuation of the crimea demario. however the military takeover and parts of mainland ukraine would be very costly for moscow and could actually deflate the nationalist imperialist euphoria that we've witnessed among the large segments since the absorption and the annexation of crimea. additionally, the attempted separatists sorry out registered the success. i checked that the actual in which they are active only one third of the district into two out of 24 blasts have been affected by the attempting separatists. the opinion polls clearly indicate only a small minority of the population supports either the little low in outright secession from ukraine.

the third option, destabilization. in the absence of the sufficient public enthusiasm for the partition putin may decide to promote the violent civil conflict and we are beginning to see that now but with allegedly necessitating the russian peacemaking intervention this of course would be an invasion as humanitarianism. it is conceivable that such of the population in the blast stuff i've outlined may favor the restoration of the law and order by outside forces if chaos is instigated and if they cannot exert its authority and there we have a mixed picture. the russian military peacekeepers may be seen as the lesser of the two evils at least temporarily, but the strategy is risky for russia because i'm sure that it provokes significant resistance by the ukrainian forces outside of these two regions by the

international community. my last option which is the subversion option. they have been in the separatist option and in the political option. i think it's reminiscent of the post orange revolution scenario. this would entail collecting ukraine officials and making deals with the only guards and the political divisions and waiting for the economic downturn to bite as ukraine undertakes major structural budgetary reforms. in citing the social unrest against the new government. and the other forms of subversion pursuing the western half while drawing the closer country to russia through various incentives such as the cheaper energy supplies. it's been largely elected and

appraised and western capitals for not pursuing the military options when he continues with the shadow war against russians neighbors. it's imperative not only for ukraine to hold presidential elections and the clean parliamentary elections later in the year and in the incoming administration to conduct effective structural and fiscal reforms with sufficient public support move closer to the western institutions and maintain sufficient national cohesion during this process and resist temptations and pressures that are certain to come from moscow over the coming months and years. and as i said i haven't gone into the recommendations of what we should be doing but maybe we can do that later. [applause]

>> good morning. as janusz bugajski outlined quite a number of aspects of russian policy, and of course i can talk about russia for hours, i would like to put the elections in ukraine and the perspective of europe and what a challenge it is to the european security and global security and i believe that we are witnessing a pivotal transformation of the post-cold war world order. this comes from mr. putin's belief that the united states is not providing the necessary

leadership and that this is the time to challenge for the next two, two and a half years to challenge the world order as mr. putin inherited when he took over in 1999. this is a challenge not just to reform that and to reconfigure the world order and make russia a strong pull in the allegedly bipolar world but specifically to bring down the relative power and that powe the power equilibt also recall the rising china and the rising india countries that russia of course is a part of.

we have the sanctity of borders in europe that were guaranteed by the 1975 helsinki accords that the soviet union was interested in securing provided that the baltic states were recognized off by the united states but recognized as a part of the soviet union and eastern european unions were also recognized as a part of the eastern bloc. the helsinki accords said that the borders will not be changed in europe through violence. next, the pair as per the call of 1990 come and then the budapest protocol that's that guaranteed the ukrainian security when ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons legacy

nuclear weapons that it inherited from the soviet union. today of course when all of these instruments of the international law are violated, this is very little that the european for that matter in the united states are doing de facto recognizing that russia is an imposing through all of the tools and its foreign-policy toolbox. this isn't just the military action that is in crimea that high in the air a whole type of warfare that is especially relying on the special forces and not just special forces but special forces that's not easily are identifiable with the military of the country that they send to take over a big swath of territory that is bigger than some of the european

territories. and also the use of the militia that are trained and sometimes led by the special forces operatives or intelligence officers as we saw in eastern ukraine. the views of information were fair especially the mass media propaganda. eventually it brought a whole new vocabulary painting the ukrainian leadership. mostly the liberal nationalists like the president of ukraine basically being the liberal nationalists painting them as not the sympathizers of the fascists and painting the whole protest as neo-nazi, and that of course driving a wedge between

the european public opinion and the ukrainians. we would've missed -- i just came back from london this weekend had some conversations there that's demonstrated to me the lack of commitment and interest in supporting ukraine, not just from germany which i would expect from the massive business relationship because of the dependence of the german industry and german utilities on the russian gas and that relationship between the former chancellor with mr. putin and his capacity, the capacity of the chairman which is a pipeline company to bring us to germany and also great britain, and thes

influence as a political approach led them in the backyard do what they want and what's not intervene with ukraine. it is sweden and poland and you can go back and the russians do rhetorically. 300 years back and they say these countries are still on the defeat of the russian empire visited on them in the 18th century including the partition of poland and its disappearance from the map. no wonder they are trying to fight this war and use the ukrainian as a battery around them and using the ukrainian activist as the father against russia. this is essentially the repeat when i heard this to me it was a repeat of the moscow talking

points, and there are people that are willing to repeat his talking points unfortunately. first, we have the first european presidency i don't think mr. obama has any particular affinity or place in his heart towards europe. just one piece on the map on the colonial occupiers have commented in the past. i think this administration if it is preoccupied with any geopolitical matters it is first and foremost asia, china and also the middle east as much as this administration is trying to givtake it away from the middle east comes back. with that ukraine has become the tertiary priority if not lower

in the priorities of the administration that can deal with two which we had a couple of vice presidential visits to ukraine. we have massive involvement with the massive secretary defense over the president until now. and before the events in ukraine for six years and helle as my witness i tried to raise the new word neglecting the former soviet area. and i talked about that and of course it's very frustrating, but the administration really didn't see the former soviet union westerners eisa and the

caucasus and central asia as any kind of priority there were no visits, there were no significant discussions. they do not perceive any strategy towards that. people thought in the framework of the recent that it would be a signal of the benevolent neglect that the cultures it was not. it was in order to be filled by those. so the u.s. now is deliberating whether the first wave of sanctions that are personal sanctions are sufficient and the

fact that moscow does not invade somebody goes to say it is a great achievement in the u.s. and european policy, yes, she intervenes with putin in the language a number of times and maybe in russia because she speaks russian and i understand, and the fact that there was no innovation is a plus. however, the whole new toolbox and pattern of engagement that inflicts propaganda and economic pressure includes the price of gas. they would agree it is good to 70 range and 486 a good chunk of

this money will go to the treasury in moscow to pay for the gas. ukraine is only the first stage in this reconfiguration of the power balance in europe and in the world. what happened in terms of the post-cold war arrangement and even post-world war ii arrangement when the protection of the co- ethnic status because england which it is permissible

and reason to interfere to the liking of crania and eastern ukraine and what if china decides that same approach that can apply to taiwan or two other places where overseas chinese live. would that allow her majesty's government to send the british navy to protect english speaking south africans speak english or -- people spoke other languages as well. does it mean that russia can say now that russian navy to brooklyn new york to protect russian speaking populations i think the europeans need to

recognize their commitment to ukraine and to the current order that should include a clear pathway to ukraine. it doesn't have to be tomorrow or even a day after tomorrow but a pathway that brings them into the european union. maybe 20 years, maybe 50 years. these things take a long time, but if you can bring them into the european union you would expect the europeans now to revisit their military budget. i was told that estonia and greece have a budget, 2% of gdp. we have 3.5% of that range of gdp. they need to wake up and understand that military welfare that they receive from the united states cannot continue.

in terms of the ukrainian policy after the elections a lot of folks are expecting him to win either in the first round with a seconor thesecond round, but tht of things he has to do, whoever the next president he or she need to do. he was stone blind by the regi regime. it's where the exported or laundered by the yanukovych people and his family and his business associates even if it is half of that in the country of gdp. it is a term in this amount.

in the economic reform i am a city advisor to the american cochair of the economic section of the policy dialogue. the prescriptions are there forever. this is something we can talk about for ten years. this is what ukraine needs to do. we all know that. make the economy less dependent on energy. ukraine was at some point calculate and generated 10% of the gdp but consumed as much energy as germany. the streamline regulation, etc.. the security forces demonstrated that they cannot control the territory of the state. this is a sign that this is the symptom of a failing state if

they couldn't deal with several hundreds or thousands of separatists in eastern ukraine led by maybe a few hundred russian operatives it is clear that they need to be very serious reform in the modernization of the ukrainian security apparatus and armed services to corrupt people that are related to and connected to moscow that took money from the foreign countries that have to be pushed out of the security services. finally, ukraine, the central government after the elections will have two find the right way to balance the language and culture issues with people in the east. i am not here to give prescriptions, but the issues like the language that russia exploited, they need to be addressed and everybody needs to

understand where people stand. finally going back to europe and of the policy package that german intelligence already leaked a couple of reports of what they are doing in bulgaria. they went out and made a very alarming speech about what the russians are doing in that country, and that is just the beginning. the europeans need to work with central and eastern european countries and governments, and as well as focus on the baltic states. it is good we said the tripwires and very few will be 600 marines rotating in and out of eastern europe including the baltic states that do very little. it's a signal that it's a weak signal. so, to deal with local

separatists were people who are funded by foreign governments should be a priority both for the security services in those countries and for the media that has to be careful how they filter and how they analyze, how they understand the different messages. they put a moratorium. why? because they are interested in building the nuclear reactor and there are a lot of reports about somebody paying the quote unquote activist to fight and just to finish on energy and ukraine bringing the liquid natural gas into the south of

ukraine to the sources other than russia. turkey is not allowing that and this is something the u.s. government could address to convince the turkish nato allies to give a hand to ukraine in a period of the humanitarian crisis in the security crisis. so things like that and creative policy to shore up the independence and the commitment by the new leadership that will be elected to get them back on their feet and make it modern and make it transparent for the domestic investment, and then god willing we will be in a better world. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you and good morning. to give a more detailed picture and what are their objectives so as you know, but you elections in ukraine are by the president that ran away after the long period and so they were decided this year so at this time when they didn't know about the annexation and it didn't expect that they would have been in ukraine now so they have been set up back in the winter and still all of the events of the agenda was different from what we have now.

but now because of that one in the process was to have the new places to the european integration into the structural reforms but on the other hand they are the likely candidates of the politics as we call them so the person that is mostly likely he used to work with the government of the orange revolution and he used to be a friend mr. and is running off. in the latest form he is likely to meet in the first round of

the elections because now he has around 95% of the votes and according to the votes in order to win the first round they have to gain more than 50% of the vote and he has only 10% and second place after him. also, the possible candidates list is quite long, about 20 people here and the two of them are the activists who protect against the regime and these people are quite opposite of i would say from one another because all together they gain n about 3% of the preliminary according to the political pull. one of them is a doctor and activist that has her own health clinic and works during the process she was helpful because she helped organize and she grew

in the popularity participating at this point and now the leader of the radical group who used to fight on the streets of the process and now they have morphed into a political party and to try to get political votes, but they don't have this much popularity because it's nice to have someone who can protect you and will go to this end power meant that when you need reforms you need the radicals from the revolutionary times and this other person has

only 1% of the votes according to the parliamentary polls. and one more feature is that the eastern region of ukraine are those that used to go to for the former party of ukraine model may seem to very disappointed or lost as they don't really know who to vote for or they are full of apathy or don't know how they should vote in this election. the reports show more than 50% can actually 63% of the voters in the eastern part of ukraine say that they either won't vote or they are not decided yet so they have any candidate that they could support, but actually if you look at the list of the candidates they represented the former presidential party of

regions. one of them used to work at one of them used to be the governor in one of the regions so. they don't find anything new and they think [inaudible] the turnout will be in the list. [inaudible]

not all of them will be able to vote and of those that vote will travel to other parts of ukraine and they are held on that checkpoint with another part of ukraine. also in crimea there is an opportunity for those that would want to vote in ukraine access and to travel to the bordering regime in ukraine. that's not. these people. they can be preceded as [inaudible]

so probably they could decide if it would be safer for them to stay at home and not to travel to some other part of ukraine just to vote. the obstacle services and the issues that are going to be raised by the candidates and one of the star start is the main ie appropriate in the integration economic relations because ukraine now needs economic reform and also anticorruption because the political is very

much corrupt and involved, but now the part is in the east and crimea agenda has shifted on this issue of protecting against the claim on people's lives in modernizing the army and the other day there was an incident that shows how much we need to modernize the army and actually to get better prepared because they are kille told by the pro- russian team in so that was our biggest loss in the practice and so it is now for the new president to be -- to do something about the army to deny and exhibit it properly and to

manage this crisis. also i would like to finish by saying there will be not only presidential elections in ukraine but also [inaudible] in the european parliament. they are important because as you know where this process took place it is considered how people vote in a similar way. so who comes to power than they are likely to come to power in ukraine and in the european elections we will see who wins

and there are speculations that putin now supports the far right parties that are connected with them and if so this could lead to the european parliament and changed the policy into less support for the european union to ukraine. thank you. [applause] >> if i could ask the first question what do you hear from home from your family and friends? how do people feel about the importance of this after all

that has happened since last november in the protests? how do people feel about that? [inaudible] we expect them sooner than next june but it is expected to be the highest in probably the previous ten years because they've decided to take part usually the younger people are not connected that with the students being one of the main groups of the ngos and young people that do this anticorruption initiative, they are joined with candidates and

demanding from the candidates to publish their accommodations and to make their problems transparent and public as possible so yes people are quite determined to elect a new president and hope this new person will be declared into the future. >> that sounds like a good sign. let's open up to questions from the audience. if you could please identify your name and affiliation so we can get it on our website. we have one in the back. >> i would like to ask a

question about sanctions. i know that we have been looking at some of the sanctions against individuals have certain companies within russia but there is a lot of talk about how the next phase may cover the industries so what conditions would have to be there in order to move into this new phase to cover the industries. >> maybe i can take off the area. i've always been a bit weary about not so much the sanctions but the objectives of trying to achieve with the european governments about the de-escalation. what does that automatically

mean? does that mean that russia can keep crimea and not attack eastern ukraine? does that mean it can continue to disrupt through the proxies of the state as long as it doesn't do it directly? i'm not clear about the objectives and don't think they've been specified. the sanctions that have been implemented this far are limited. i wouldn't say they have had an impact. in some places they have had an impact in terms of targeting some individuals that are involved in the south stream business. russia is probably trying to avoid these. it's one of the calculations that is going into the declarations of the troops in the ukraine border. in other words the secretarial sanctions that would hit presumably the russian business

much harder and as you cited the banking and financial services, the metallurgy and other exports. the question is will we be able to get our europeans along? as you know what russia has done over the last 20 years doesn't so much go global but has tied us into its economic transactions come into its economic networks and into its economic web. western companies, western bang is, we thought that we were getting for ten years by the time russia entered these networks we would've certainly civilized and make it more democratic and less imperial but you have the opposite effect in this restricted sanction on russia when it behaves badly towards its neighbors because it would hurt our economy. so i'm not sure how far we are willing to go.

i personally think that he is trying to avoid but i wouldn't take it off the table. one of the options i specified is that they could create chaos through terrorism and sabotage political disruption infrastructure breakdown and then claim they are coming in on the humanitarian peacekeeping mission to restore the law and order. so at that point, we have to consider what would be the reaction to the sanctions. i think that we should move beyond the sanctions over to the others. >> v. extent to which the business does not warrant or the actions have been demonstrated today. mrs. angela merkel after all of the criticism showed up in

dissenters in the economics and i'm told was the guest on the big german company that is a major partner. that tells me a lot to that of the leader of the most powerful country in europe went to moscow and gave a speech about how the business relations with russia need to be extended. so that is an important signal that for now the compromise looks like this there will be no full-scale military invasion 20th century style with the columns probably because the russians came to the conclusion

correctly that to be of the most powerful tools to influence the ukrainian policies. more powerful than the west and more powerful than europe, and it is assessed correctly that mr. obama and mrs. merkel, the two principal leaders of europe will not pursue a confrontation and will not incur a price from russia that russia isn't willing to take. yes there may be no military invasion but at the same time i wouldn't put it past the germans to repeat their position back in 2008.

i wouldn't be surprised if the signals are going to moscow that the last wouldn't recognize but with ackley s. to the crimea. i just gave two days ago a presentation to a bunch of military officers in the majority in the room said clearly they are going to keep a crimea. that isn't a bad deal. he didn't lose a lot of people there. he took it, he'd have some troops on the border, grabbed crimea and as i pointed out before it is a process on an event, and if we don't do the sanctions come and the sanctions by the u.s. alone without europe, but alone without china, japan, other principled russian trading partners are meaningle

meaningless. the u.s. doesn't abide russian oil. it is traded in global markets. the gas goes to europe and will increasingly be lng sold into china. so if we could disrupt the banking payments and mess up the finances within iran, they would hurt don't forget that this is a country that survived the civil war in which they lost 5 million people. they probably lost 20 million people. world war ii, 74 years of horrible communist regime sanctions. i don't think this is really serious. >> okay. thank you. yes, questions in the front row.

>> my name is michael krauss. i had a consultant for security. my question is a very specific one and it goes like this. there is a pending sale of the two amphibious ships on france, and it's likely that france will sell. but my model is july 1914, on his own he decided not to give the already paid for dreadnoughts to the on-demand fir-- ottomanempire. what is your example particularly for ariel to say from the u.s. ending point, what could we do, should we do to prevent that kind of a sale?

>> this administration probably will not do much. i think the concept of leadership from behind assumes countries make their own decisions. they assume that the nuclear power in france is an adult and can decide things on its own. i personally wrote on the record before ukraine, before, i would record it not once not twice a posing the sale because the helicopter carrying is a tool for the power projection. ..

>> we probably would express our regret or concern, not beyond, anything beyond that. >> we did that once before. [laughter] >> if i could just add, this we're talking about, i think, is the 21st century version of what -- [inaudible] will sell the rope, we'll sell the rope to the capitalists to hang themselves. so it's sort of 21st century

version. and i think it's indicative of not only a lack of a short-term response to what russia is doing, but a long-term strategy in terms of how to counter russia's new 'em peer y'all project throughout the -- imperial project throughout the whole of europe. we had a strategy in the cold war, we had a strategy to bring these countries into nato, to strengthen the european union. and i think we lost sight of the target. we declared too quickly that the mission was accomplished. we didn't complete the picture of bringing the greater europe, the whole europe, the wider europe into these transatlantic structures. we were distracted by other events. we withdrew in many respects from europe. and, of course, europe itself is partly to blame because of the fact that it's been so focused on its own internal questions, it hasn't sufficiently paid

attention -- other than the few exceptions, as was mentioned, sweden and the baltic states, hadn't really paid attention to those neighbors. and those neighbors can be extremely destabilizing to the nato project, so the central european project. so following up what ariel was saying, i'm just wondering at what point we will draw a red line and stick to it. in other words, is it an attack on latvia? how will german business react to a subversion of latvia where there is a sizable russian and russian-speaking population or estonia? both nato, of course, countries and european union countries. and i wouldn't discount the possibility that putin will become involved by the fact that he hadn't been sufficiently punished and through his actions vis-a-vis crimea and will act more boldly elsewhere. one other thing i'd like to add on crimea, this is only the

beginning. in other words, russia may have swallowed crimea, but the mood amongst the -- [inaudible] in particular is going to become increasingly anti-russian. there's already several announcements of a new emirates being created, in other words, a jihadist emirate in crimea, and the possibility that russian will have expanded into north caw cats, the difference is not very large. a lot of youth, i think, are going to become militant. some of them have been fighting in syria. i'm sure the links with the jihadists and the salafists in north caw cases will increase. and if you have a combination of radical islam and national independence -- because this is not traditional russian land. if you look far back in history, it's traditional crimean land.

so russia has bitten off something that will increasingly poison its system. >> i think ariel had one more comment. >> yeah. just besides the middle eastern-funded salafis, wahhabi sects, militants, the russians may actually gain themselves something they didn't think about, and that is a relationship between tatars, crimean tatars and the orders, religious orders in turkey known as -- [speaking in native tongue] when push comes to shove, they fought for 200-plus years. so there are currents and movements in the muslim world including nearby in turkey. and because the crimea had been

turkish territory only 250 years ago, so there are people in turkey who are seriously thinking about that. and i think because it's a very small population, maybe it's not such a big deal like north caucases. but they may get on their hands some kind of resistance. i'm not sure which. i'm not sure if it's going to be very militant or not. but the cry mean ya tatars -- crimean tatars resenting the -- [inaudible] of 1924. 30-40% of them died enroute to asia. they do not harbor kind thoughts about their relationship with the russians. >> okay. let's go to the question over here on the side. >> michael -- [inaudible] from the congress committee. excellent presentation by all three panelists, and i appreciate it. i have a question in terms of

semantics in all of this and the optics of all of this. ukraine in a sense in the past two months since crimea has been losing what is called the propaganda war. russia and its disinformation whether it's from rt, russia today, whether it's through any of its correspondents throughout the world is just disinforming the truth about the situation of what is happening in ukraine, and rightly so, as janusz pointed out, only two have any separatist type movements occurring in it. how does the united states embrace in terms of optics, embrace the new ukrainian president and the new ukrainian government after these particular actions? not so much so just for propping up the ukrainians themselves, but also, obviously, as a little, as a little hit to putin and to moscow? and as a follow-up question to

something that was asked earlier, in terms of sanctions. if they're not enough, what is enough? what should we be doing against putin and against the russian government? thank you. >> shall i start? >> yeah, go ahead. >> lot of territory there. i don't know if i can answer it. you're absolutely right about disinformation, but also language use. this term has now crept in that everybody uses, pro-russian forces. what does that mean? there's a lot of russians in ukraine and a lot of russian speakers in ukraine that want to be part of a united ukrainian state. russian, not all russians in ukraine support putin. not all russians in russia support putin. so to say pro-russian is very misleading. i personally call them pro-kremlin separatists. in other words, they've been aided and is abetted in this kind of deniability aspect now,

in other words, i'm not responsible, they did it. which reminds me what milosevic used to do with his war criminals. so, yes, we have to be extremely careful to clean it up. not to mention this whole barrage about ukrainian and fascism, anti-semitism. there's been some good articles. this has been imported from russia. you look at what's happening in russia in terms of attacks on minorities, attacks on muslims, anti-semitic propaganda, the use of nationalism by russia. this is much more prominent in ukraine. it's a factor in ukraine, but it's relatively marginal on a par, i'd say, with much of europe. probably less, actually, given what you were saying about the elections coming up for the european parliament, much less than in other countries. the other part, maybe i'll leave to ariel what we should do to welcome the new ukraine president. my point about sanctions is they are insufficient, and i have a paper which i published just now

in hungarian review in which i look at three areas. if we are serious in dealing with the putin project, then not only sanctions, but we have to make what i call imperial indigestion. in other words, ukraine, other countries that are threatened to be partially swallowed by russia, russia has to be made as uncomfortable as possible in trying to digest them. ukraine needs to be properly armed, it needs a proper defense force, proper police force, proper intelligence. russian agents need to be cleaned out. there's a whole range of questions and reforms that need to be conducted. we should be offering to the ukrainian government. secondly, and i think even more importantly -- well, actually, to follow this up also the program of, let's say, properly defending all the nato members along russia's borders.

baltic states, poland, romania, so on. we've started this, but i don't think it's enough. our bases need to be there. troops need to be on the ground there. they do not still believe that if the russians come in, they certainly don't believe that the germans are going to get involved, but they don't even believe the americans become involved. lastly, my last point, i think it's essential if we are serious about what russia's up to and if we don't want to see a continuous repeat of what i call this shadow war that russia's engaging in against its neighbors, ultimately, we need to weaken the putin regime. this putin regime needs to be replaced by a democratic alternative. we have to weaken the putin structure, we have to help democratic the alternative russia, but we also have to help independence movements, democratic sovereignty movements, regions of russia that do not look to moscow as

their savior. far from it, they've seen the annexation of crimea as weakening federal funding for their regions. there's a lot of dissatisfaction around russia, and i personally believe that one of the reasons putin hits out externally is that he's concerned about the internal situation. as part of our democratic program, democracy building, democracy building is also building of strong democratic regions that can have, that can create a real federation in russia. russia keeps talking about creating a federation in ukraine. russian federation is not a federation. it's a centralized authoritarian structure. let's have a real federation in russia. let's support the regions. i think this should be part of our policy, our western policy. >> that's quite an answer there. i thought the statement kicked out for democracy -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

>> kick you out the door. go through the windows. [laughter] >> ariel, and maybe iryna afterwards can talk about what ukrainians would like to see when they have a new president. what would be a meaningful signal from us. ariel, why don't you have a -- >> yeah. in terms of our support, i would be encouraging, i would embrace a democratically-elected leader. i would support, with conditionality, the imf bailout package for ukraine, otherwise ukraine will collapse economically. but we have seen that movie before. we've seen it in 2004, we've seen it after that. the modernization of a state including ukraine for comprehensive political and economic reform is not an easy task.

and so far from maybe these people are hiding somewhere, but the regular actors, the regular players in the political, ukrainian political world do not strike me necessarily as great leaders of economic reform a la estonian -- [inaudible] or people who can rearrange massive bureaucracies and make them transparent and noncorrupt. this is a tall task, and i think ukraine would need to have a consensus that it is absolutely needed to be done as a matter of national survival. if we had leaders here who understand that, they could have communicated that to their ukrainian counterparts.

but you really are at the point where if ukrainians will not do this work, any amount of western aid will be wasted, stolen and misallocated. the ukrainian diaspora of ramada needs to modellize, and i have not seen that before the recent events. the recent events there's a little bit more of it but, again, in order to implement the reforms that are necessary in the security apparatus, in the military, in the economic realm, this is something central europe and the baltic states went through 20 years ago. ukraine wasted 20 years. not doing that. yes, there's a yearning to be part of europe, but there's no hard work that had been done to impresent necessary steps in -- implement necessary steps in a

variety of government branches that are necessary and, also, ukraine has to push back on propaganda and redefine, push that under definitions of ukraine as near fascist or vendetta or whatever. this.v&(çvu#2-jb[ ukraine in europe. this is not helping the image of ukraine here. gkn6ç]oóççm[çmkp'ó8mrñ absolutely -- [inaudible] and ukrainians are not really modellized in that realm. >> [inaudible] so, yeah, so the work of the new president, the new government in ukraine is going to be a bit tricky. a little bit similar to the post-revolution time because now after -- [inaudible] so the parliament changed the constitution in order to make the president less powerful, not

to him or her become as much dictator or authoritarian leader as yanukovych was. so now the president has limited control over government, and it means that, for example, if -- [inaudible] comes to power which will probably be, he becomes the president, but he will control only the defense, internal and,$ like, ministry in the government. and the economic -- [inaudible] or other social policy will be still controlled by theç curret government. and they will be, they need to be approved by the parliament. so the same thing we did have back in 2005 when the new president was elected with limited powers, and it led actually to the conflicts between the president and the prime minister. and then, and probably this was one of the reasons we didn't see all this much-expected reforms

implemented because much energy, much effort was wasted into this almost personal political conflict that didn't even have nothing to do with political issues, or maybe it's the balance of power, who is more powerful, who can have more control. and now in ukraine we can have -- [inaudible] but on the other hand, our people, civil society used to be more aware of this condition, and new we have ngos that have set as their goal to control politicians and to make them more accountable, to make them actually implement this reform that people are pushing for. and so maybe this time it will depend much from the civil society from the people who supported this protest back in winter now to make these

politicians who they elect actually to implement this idea, this goal for which people are protesting and standing for. yes, that is all basically. >> okay. any more questions? yes. one over here. >> thank you. my name is -- [inaudible] with the news of japan. i would like to ask about the upcoming g7 summit coming up next week, and we presume the leaders may be releasing a statement which would be critical of the putin's movement, policies in any way. and do you think such a movement by the g7 leaders would affect president putin's policies against ukraine in the near future? and if it does, i was wondering if you could explain how. thank you.

>> [inaudible] >> well, i'm not sure i understand, i understood what exactly you're trying to clarify in the terms of behavior of the leaders. can you sort of focus that? >> how the pressure of the g7 leaders -- >> pressure. >> uh-huh. would or could affect president putin's policies toward ukraine in the near future. >> i am not sure there is currently pressure displayed that could affect the change of behavior. i think one of the things we talked about here is that probably mr. putin's advisers made a financial calculation how much it was going to cost for russia to pay for parts of

ukraine if they occupied them, and the estimates are in the tens of billions of dollars. they decided that it's better not to occupy because russia would not be able to pay for it. but in terms of pressure short of a major disruption of financial system such as interbank transfers and wires, sanctions against russian banks essential hi, against -- essentially, against the russian banking system, i do not see the level of pressure that can change russian behavior in the areas that mr. putin and his entourage, his inner circle decided that this is of vital importance to russia. the problem is, and i've been in russia many times.

i've listened to the narrative. the problem i see is that many top levels of russian foreign policy come from the soviet system. there was no massive rejuvenation of the system, there was no -- [inaudible] change, and they believe that nato is a strong organization, and it crawls towards russian borders. they want to get ukraine into nato somehow to, you know, engage russia in a military confrontation. they believe that the arab spring type of civil unrest is instigated by the west through facebook and twitter and true -- and through the internet. mr. putin is on record saying that cia is invented or runs internet. which i don't think is the case.

there is a lot of electronic monitoring going on in all parts of the world, but not necessarily by that agency. in any event, what i'm saying is that you need to have a clear idea where the pressure points are and then apply decisive pressure if you want to try to change somebody's international behavior. and even then there are no guarantees. the countries that were under sanctions for a long, long time -- and i'm not even convinced in a country that is much weak or than russia, like iran -- is going to change its strategic commitment to acquire nuclear weapons. i'm not convinced. or become a threshold state. i'm not convinced you can do it with sanctions, and certainly not on the level of rather weak pro forma sanctions that we're witnessing now. thank you. >> if i could just add about the

g7, i hope the japanese prime minister raises the occupation and annexation of the northern territories by russia, because it seems to me that there are many disputes between russia and its neighbors that haven't been resolved, this being one of them. and i know it's heated up, it heats up at various occasions. i agree with ariel in terms of sanctions or any other policy. we need clear objectives. and at least with iran there are clear objectives, no nuclear weapons. when we had south african sanctions, we had clear objectives, end of apartheid. i'm not sure what our objectives are vis-a-vis putin. we want to punish minute that we want to then work with. that doesn't make sense to me. i think the only alternative is to weaken this regime, this system, and eventually to get -- to help the russian people to replace it with a democratic alternative. otherwise we're going to face problems for many years. but i don't think our leaders

either here in the states or in europe or in japan are thinking for the long term. unfortunately, we do not have statesmen now in the western capitals and as well as japan. we used to have them during the cold war, but they're a dying breed. and this is exactly what people like putin exploit. >> okay. well, i think we will wrap up at this point and say thank you to our three wonderful panelists for a terrific discussion. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and we've got more live events coming your way today across the c-span networks. join us a bit later this afternoon for a look at the koreas and u.s. national security issues. that's hosted by the institute for korean-american studies. getting under way at 1:15 p.m. eastern, we have it live right here on c-span2. on c-span today it's the council on foreign relations. their program looks at technology and policy making. that's live at 12:30 p.m. eastern. president obama expected to make some personnel announcements later this afternoon. news reports indicating he'll tap san antonio mayor julio castro, i'm sorry, to become the next housing secretary. the current hud secretary, shaun

donovan, will become the next white house budget director. that announcement takes place this afternoon at 3:35 p.m. eastern, and we can have it for you live on c-span. tonight we start our annual coverage of commencement speeches at 8 p.m. eastern with remarks from louisiana republican governor bobby jindal. other speakers featured tonight include georgia democratic congressman and civil rights icon john lewis. here's a look at our other weekend programming. >> but if we don't step up the enforcement side, i mean, the enforcement side brings the media attention. i mean, so if we're going to say we're going to -- the only thing we can rely on to make these universities and colleges do what they should be doing is for them to get a bad story -- >> sure. >> first of all, that's a lot of victims. >> yeah. that's -- >> and, you know, that to me would be a depressing conclusion. so we've got to figure out some way to up the ante that is short

of waiting for another tragedy to hit the front pages. >> i would almost say less the dollar amount, more folks with the department of ed to do the work, a 13-team person can't do it. so, again, i think it's the changes i've seen institutions start to make are when they're immediately under information, so no fine yet. we don't know if the fine is $35,000 or upwards of a million. so i would almost rather see investment in a bigger team. >> but in all fairness, the fines will be paying for this. i mean, we have an issue with budget in our government. where does that money come from? we can't just endlessly hand it out. institutions that have done wrong, they can fund their own enforcement. i think that's justice, and i think every survivor would back that up. >> this weekend, senator claire mccaskill in the first of several discussions on combating rape and sexual assault on college campuses, saturday northerning at 10 eastern. and -- morning at 10 eastern. and on booktv, lynn cheney

examines the political philosophy and presidential tenure of james madison, sunday morning at 11 on c-span2. and on american history tv, saturday morning at 10 the life and work of american red cross founder clara barton. we'll visit her missing soldiers' office in washington followed by your questions and comments live for george wonderlich on c-span3. >> next, the senate transportation subcommittee looks at the u.s. transit system and the lack of funding for repairs nationally. the head of the federal transit administration told senators that right now there's a, an $86 billion backlog in repairs. senators also heard local perspectives from pennsylvania, massachusetts and dallas. unless congress acts, the highway trust fund which finances highway, bridge and transit projects will run out of money this summer. from thursday, this event runs an hour and 15 minutes.

>> good morning. this hearing of the subcommittee on housing, transportation and community development called to order. let me thank our witnesses more being here today to discuss what i believe is one of the most important challenges in our federal transportation program. investing in our transportation infrastructure and supporting ten billion passenger trips every year is essential to our mobility be, our economic development, our air quality, our overall quality of life, our ability to create jobs and our global competitiveness. the benefits of investing are clear. the fact is, we're not investing enough. in 2009 a federal transit administration report found that of the seven largest rail systems, including new jersey transit, and the systems represented by two of our witnesses today, scepter and nbta, they had a $50 billion backlog in projects.

$50 billion just to make sure that the systems were in reasonably good condition. not state of the art, but adequate. and, frankly, to me, that's simply unacceptable. investing in our transit systems is not a luxury, it's a necessary3hh&h,b7÷ -- necessity. it's a win/win/win. it creates jobs, makes our infrastructure safer, more efficient, more reliable, and it keeps us competitive. just recently, my home state of new jersey received an alarming wake-up call. the president of amtrak announces that within 20 years one or both of the tunnels under the hudson river between new jersey and new york will need to be shut down. shutting down the hudson tunnels is unthinkable and not investing in keeping them open is unconscionable. these tunnels are over 100 years old, and to make matters worse, they were flooded with corrosive

saltwater during hurricane sandy. within 20 years these tunnels will be closed unless we commit ourselves to investing in keeping them open. according to amtrak, if one of these tunnels were to close, they would have to reduce train traffic from 24 trains an hour to 6 trains per hour. that's four amtrak trains, two new jersey transit rains per -- trains per hour. for those of you not familiar, let me tell you that two transit trains an hour is simply not going to cut it. so we go from having the arc project needlessly canceled which would have allowed for 48 trains per hour to a future of closed tunnels and six trains an hour in the heart of the northeast corridor. that's simply up thinkable. unthinkable. losing the hudson tunnels is not something our region can work around. there's no detour, there's no extra roadway capacity for the

transit and rail commuters to fall back on. we saw during sandy when our transit system was inundated. we saw it after 9/11 when people relied on ferry boats to travel from new jersey to manhattan. without a fully function l, multimodal transportation system, the nation and new jersey is simply stuck in gridlock. but losing one or both of the hudson tunnels would mean nothing less than the complete crippling of the region and would send a terrible signal around the world about american competitiveness in the global economy. simply because we are unwilling to make the necessary investments this our transit system. -- in our transit system. the hudson river tunnels are the starkest example, but every city and town across the country has its own examples. whether large rail or small bus systems, our transit repair needs totaling about $86 billion projected to grow to $142 billion by 2030 if we don't begin to invest today.

at the end of the day, we all understand that investing in our infrastructure is not a cheap proposition or politically easy in the current atmosphere. but the cost of inaction is much, much higher. so i look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses today and working with my colleagues both on this committee and as a member of the finance committee to find the funding mechanisms to address these challenges. let me introduce the first witness of our first panel, mr. dorval carter is the chief counsel for the federal transit administration. in addition to his work at fta, mr. carter previously served in a senior position at the chicago transit authority, a system with significant state of good repair needs. i'll look forward to hearing his testimony which comes with a great depth and breadth of knowledge and perspective of the issue. let me say, mr. carter, your full statement will be included in the record without objection. i'd ask you the try to summarize

in five minutes or so, so we can get into a dialogue. and with that, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chairman menendez. and thank you for inviting me here today to discuss our nation's serious deficit in public transportation infrastructure. as well as to highlight the obama administration's plan to bring our aging rail and bus systems and the facilities that support them into a state of good repair as part of the grow america act. as you stated in your opening remarks, this is a critical time for transit. transit ridership is at its highest level in generations, and that trend is likely to continue as the u.s. population is expected to increase to approximately 400 million by 2050 while growing proportionately older and more urban. the caution i bring today is that the foundation we build on to meet that demand is already fracturing. let's be clear: transit remains one of the safest ways to travel, but our aging infrastructure carries hidden costs that we cannot and should

not ignore. our 201 conditions and performance -- 2013 conditions and performance report finds that the backlog maintenance stands at 86 billion. a 10% increase since 2010. we will need $2.5 billion more every year from all sources just to maintain the status quo. today it's state and local governments that are bearing the burden, taking on more than half the cost of annual spending to preserve and grow the nation's transit systems. the biggest challenge is our rail system which accounts for about 63% of the state of good repair backlog with most of that due to assets like rail stations, tressels, substations and more. these deficiencies have a direct impact on riders. they undermine the resiliency of our transit systems and drain resources that could be better spent on timely replacement and expansion. that's why state of good repair is fundamental to everything that we do at fta. by providing my testimony here

today, you're going to be getting a two for one opportunity because not only do i speak for the administration, but i also speak from the perspective of someone who has worked on the ground with a transit agency to keep transit systems in a state of good repair. as you indicated, mr. chairman, i spent half my career at the chicago transit north which operate -- authority which operates one of the oldest transit systems in the country. part of my responsibility was managing the procurement operations and the warehousing activities of that agency. from that experience i can tell you that the older a system gets, the more challenging the simplest of tasks become. for instance, where do you find parts for 100-year-old equipment? no one makes them anymore, you can't get them off the shelf. your options are to either cannibalize existing assets or to make the parts yourself. cta, during my tenure, had done both. when hurricane sandy damaged the equally-aged commuter rail system that operates between new

jersey and new york, chicago was one of the few places they could turn to for replacement parts. let me suggest that we cannot keep transit systems safe and reliable with a craig's list approach. instead, we need to make the right investments to get ahead of the problem and keep us there so that we're not always a step behind. that means striking a responsible balance between investing in new capital construction and preserving a modernized and existing infrastructure. one of the best tools that we have to prioritize these investments is the transit asset management planning tool. we're grateful to this committee for making it a requirement as part of map 21. with better metrics and performance-based planning, we can get an accurate picture enabling local decision makers to allocate resources more effectively system wide. we use asset management at the cta, and it helped us prioritize unmet needs.

moreover, it provided a road map so that federal, state and local funding partners knew that we had a concrete plan to use our resources efficiently and wisely. with your help, we're working to bring those benefit toss the transit agency nationwide. the latest performance reports makes the case for sustained investment in the grow america act answers. the administration has put forth a plan that builds on the investments made through map 21, d.o.t. programs and the american recovery and reinvestment act to address our infrastructure backlog. the grow america act is the right plan to keep transit safe and reliable now and for future generations. with that, mr. chairman, i conclude my testimony. i'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> well, just to show the efficiency of transit, you didn't even use your five minutes. [laughter] let me start off with one of the critical questions before the congress is the funding level. of the transportation reauthorization. and so if federal funding remains flat in the coming

years, do you believe that we can make any progress towards eliminating the $86 billion backlog? >> no, sir be, i do not. our condition and performance report indicated that we need at least an additional $2.5 billion a year from all sources just to maintain the existing backlog. in order to make any sort of a dent in that backlog, you're going to need somewhere around the neighborhood of $18.5 billion over a four-year period to make that happen. so in order to basically address this problem, we have to make significant additional investments in our transit infrastructure, and the president's proposal is one of the ways in which we believe we can do that. >> so flat funding doesn't only not meet the backlog program, i would assume it will accumulate. >> that's correct. >> now, in your testimony you speak to the excellent work that fta has done for years trying to

bring attention to the state of good repair backlog and discuss the creation of a formula-based state of good repair program under map 21. and i agree with your assessment of the importance of this program, but i know some have concerns about the funding increase given in map 21 to the state of good repair. can you speak to the need for having a strong federal state of good repair system? >> absolutely. if you look at the overall percentages for the contributions that the federal government makes to the issue of state of good repair, we actually only provide about 40% of the total contribution. the remaining 60 comes from our state and local governmental partners. it is critical for all of us, both federal, state and local, to provide a level of funding that is both reliable and sustainable over an extended period of time in order to address this backlog. the stopping and starting of these types of funds makes it very difficult for transit

agencies both big and small to properly plan for and to address their capital backlog needs. >> there certain types of modes or transit systems that are driving the current backlog? >> the rail systems make up approximately 60% of the backlog. that's primarily due to the heavy cost of their infrastructure. as you can imagine, replacing power substations and rebuilding train stations and things of that nature is a significant cost. but i wouldn't want to diminish the impact that this issue has on the smaller systems as well. as you can imagine, to a small operator in a rural part of the country who may only have two or three buses, if one of those buses is 20 years old and the ability to properly maintain that bus is difficult resulting in unreliable service, and the impact to that operator is just as significant as the impact of a crumbling infrastructure would be to a boston and nbta, new york or cta.

>> now, you in your testimony gave be an unsettling anecdote which i know firsthand from my vicinities with port authority -- visits with port authority officials when the path from new jersey was inundated, and they were showing me the circuit breakers that are so old that they no longer are manufactured. and you mentioned that they had to resort to shipping in parts from chicago. how -- is that an exception? how pervasive is that type of challenge throughout the system? >> well, i'm sure that the other gms who will speak after me can probably speak to this in more detail than i can, but i can tell you from my experience at cta, the older transit systems like chicago, philadelphia, boston and others are dealing with the harsh reality that their infrastructure is extremely old, that replacement parts are difficult to find, and it's only by luck that we're able to identify scenarios like the one that occurred with path where there was another system, thankfully, that was able to

provide those parts on a temporary basis while path end with through the process of really having to remanufacture the parts they needed themselves. >> your testimony notes that many people are choosing to live in urban areas where cars are less necessary. younger people less reliant on cars than previous generations. it seems to me those lead to more transit ridership among other elements. could these increasing demands on transit systems result in the sgr backlog growing at a faster rate than the $2.5 billion increase that you currently project? is there any modeling that thats going on for these changes in calculating the backlog? >> our condition and performance report is based on some modeling that we utilize to forecast what we believe the reasonable growth this transit will be over a period of time. but i think it is safe to say that as demand increases, the backlog is going to become more and more of a problem. our models suggest that. i think that as we continue to

address this problem, we're going to have to deal with the reality of both the challenge of providing adequate level funding to maintain the existing systems while dealing with the expansion needs that are required the grow those systems even more. >> now finally, asset management. and i think we'll hear a little pit more about this from some of -- a little bit more about this from some of our next panel. it's one of the key changes authorized by this committee in map 21, was the creation of the transit asset management requirement. what work is being done with transit agencies representing different sizes and models to determine best practices and create a standard that works for different types of systems? >> we are currently in a rulemaking process that basically is intended to get significant input from the industry as to how we should approach our transit asset management program. we also are in the process of

developing technical assistance for agencies to allow them to be in a better position to implement these types of requirements as well as developing additional tools that they will be able to utilize, that the federal government will provide that'll allow them to do the analysis necessary to develop a transit management plan. we believe it's critical that we into this process and that we adopt a process and a program -- we develop a process and a program that will address the technical capacities of the various size agencies that will have to implement it. >> senator warren? >> mr. chairman, thank you. and thank you for calling this hearing. i have questions for the next two witnesses -- >> okay. >> so i'll just hold until then. >> okay. >> thank you. >> one last, final question. workers' rights. you know, we think about the challenges of transit systems operating systems and facing fiscal challenges in a state of good repair status.

i also think about your testimony says that nationwide almost a third of the facilities used by local transit agencies to house their operations staff and service their vehicles are in a marginal or poor state of repair. are these facilities a threat to the health and welfare of our transit workers? >> well, first, i think i should be clear that we believe the systems are safe. transit is one of the safest modes of travel that we have available to us in this day and age. we also believe very strongly that there are steps that need to be taken in order to address the safety not just of the general public, but of the employees who work for these agencies as well. there's no question that when you're dealing with an aging infrastructure and the needs that are required to maintain that infrastructure, employees are going to be working in hazardous conditions with moving vehicles and things of that nature that can make for an unsafe situation. but there are steps that transit

agencies take and do take, and i know from my own experience we focused very closely at cta at making sure that our operators had appropriate training, the appropriate tools, the appropriate protocols were in place to maximize the safety of those employees when they would engage in these types of activities. but the reality is for as long as it's going to take to fix this problem, that will require more workers to work in environments where that could be a more dangerous system than if it were in a state of good repair. >> all right. well, thank you for your testimony. we look forward to continuing to be engaged with you as we develop the legislation that the committee is considering on the transit side of map 21 authorization. and we appreciate your testimony, you're -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> let's now hear from our three transit agencies about their work trying to maintain their systems to a state of good repair. and as i call them up, i want to remind all of our witnesses that their full statements will be

included in the record, and we'd ask you to summarize your statement within five minutes or so, so that we could enter into a dialogue with you. our first witness is mr. joseph casey, he is the general manager for the southeastern pennsylvania transportation authority. septa is important to a number of my constituents as well, so i appreciate your willingness to appear before the subcommittee today. i know that senator warren would like to introduce dr. beverly scott, and i think this would be a great moment. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. it's my great pleasure to introduce dr. beverly smith who is the general manager of the mdta, and the administrator for mass dot rail and transit. dr. scott is responsible for managing the mbta, overseeing the commonwealth's 15 regional transit authorities and mass dot's freight and passenger rail program. dr. scott has tremendous

expertise in these issues not only in massachusetts, but also nationally. her career in the public transportation industry spans more than three decades and includes executive and senior leadership positions with some of the nation's largest public transit systems. prior to coming to the mbta, dr. scott served as chief executive officer and general manager of the metropolitan atlanta rapid transit authority, marta, where she was the first woman to hold that position. additionally, she served as general manager and chief executive officer of the sacramento regional transit district, srtd, and she also served as the general manager of the rhode island public transit authority, ripta. dr. scott is nationally recognized for her extraordinary leadership and thoughtful advocacy in advancing increased investment for effective and efficient transit infrastructure. she is a leader in her field and

was named transportation innovator of change by president obama and the u.s. department of transportation for her long record of strong leadership and innovation in the transportation industry. we are very pleased to have you in massachusetts and very pleased to have you here today in washington. thank you. >> senator, thank you so much. >> thank you, senator warren. sounds like our system could use a doctor. [laughter] and finally, our third witness today is mr. gary thomas who serves as the president and executive director of the dallas area rapid transit. and so we thank you for joining us. mr. casey, we'll start off with you and move down the aisle. as i said, your full statements will be included in the record. please try and summarize in about five minutes, and then we can get into some back and forth. >> good morning. chairman menendez, senator warren, i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify in the federal role in bringing this nation's public transportation infrastructure to a state of good repair.

i am joseph casey, general manager of the is southeastern pennsylvania traction sit authority -- transit authority. we're the sixth largest transit operator in the country and the largest in pennsylvania. spta provides 1.2 million daily passenger trips which are essential in supporting the economy of the southeastern pennsylvania region. last year americans took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation, yet at a time when transit ridership reached its highest levels in 57 years, the industry continues to fall behind in the investment requires to prescription our transit systems to a state of good repair. according to the 2013 conditions and performance report released but the u.s. department of transportation in february, the state of good repair backlog for transit systems nationwide has are hissen to $86 billion -- has risen to $86 billion. this number is projected to grow by $2.5 billion per year, and the report states that the total

spending on state of good repair from all sources must increase $8.2 billion per year to address this backlog. the funding and operational pressures related to state of good repair are particularly acute in the large, urban transit systems with aging rail infrastructure. infrastructure related to rail transportation accounts for a significant majority of the national transit state of good repair backlog. spta's experience demonstrates the cost of not investing. our backlog is now $5 billion, nearly three-quarters of which is concentrated in the ailing rail infrastructure. our challenges are not unique among large, old rail systems. in northeast illinois the investment that would be required to bring chicago's regional rail transit systems to a state of good repair would be roughly $20 billion. in georgia the metropolitan atlanta rapid transit authority

will see their state of good repair backlog grow to $7 billion in 2024 without an additional state of good repair investment. in map 21, congress responded to the state of good repair crisis by creating a new state of good repair formula grants program and increasing funding for the nation's rail transit systems to invest in the critical state of good repair needs. on behalf of the transit riders in our region, i want to thank the committee for this role in making that program a reality. since 2010, i have served this chair of an informal group of the nation's largest, oldest rail transit systems that together carry approximately 80% of the nation's public transportation passengers. we continue to maintain, as we have since our formation in 2007, that the long-term, predictable and growing transit program that emphasize good investment in the rail transit systems that enable this

nation's world class economies is not just good transit policy, but sound economic policy as well. to understand the entire cost of noninvestment -- investing, we need to look beyond ridership impact and the broader economic benefits of public transit in our major metropolitan areas. these areas rely on public transportation to fuel economic growth and competitiveness by connecting employees to their jobs, allowing freight and vehicle commuters to move on less congested highways and providing important mobility options for all members of the community. the nation's economy is damaged when our major metropolitan areas cease to function efficiently as gateways for the movement of goods and people between u.s. and international destinations. maintaining the infrastructure that supports metropolitan rail transit systems is an established national priority, and congress must preserve the federal government's 50-year-plus commitment to public transportation and preserve the strength of mass

transit account in the highway trust fund. we spend too much time focusing on the cost of government infrastructure program and too little time focusing on the crippling costs of not investing in infrastructure. a short-term patch on the highway trust fund, highway and transit accounts will not address the crucial shortfall in investment. if congress takes that approach either for six months, a year or two years, transit systems will again be left without the appropriate funding or budget certainty needed to plan and execute major infrastructure rehabilitation projects. it's been more than four and a half years since the expiration of the last transportation bill that provided any long-term investment and planning ability. the intervening period has been marked with uncertainty and insufficient funding growth. i urge this subcommittee and the full committee to develop a plan for a multi-year public transportation investment program with funding levels that

increase from year to year to meet the growing needs across the country. robust and growing rail transit, state of good repair and a fully-funded core capacity program that allows aging systems to sensibly accommodate ridership growth while continuing to address state of good repair needs should be the center piece of the national transit program. i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you. dr. scott? >> chairman menendez, senator -- >> [inaudible] >> thank you. it's showing on. okay. chairman menendez, senator warren, a pleasure to have the opportunity to testify this morning. for overall context, the massachusetts bay transportation authority, affectionately called the t, is the fifth largest public transit provider in the unite with more than 1.3 million passenger trips more day and close to 400 million trips per year. and that's across an extensive,

heavy, light rail, bus, commuter rail, water ferry and paratransit network. we are also the oldest major public transit system in the united states with the subway system that opened in 1897, the oldest in the country, which still operates today at crush loads every average weekday peak period and a commuter rail network that was originally laid out in the 1830s among some of the first railroads in the country. our network, which remains a vital link today for our commonwealth, our partner states throughout new england and in the northeast region and the national passenger rail network along the northeast corridor. on our bus side, a critical element of our overall transit network, system of our bus facilities date back to the early 20th century, having been initially designed to serve horse-drawn omnibuses. as you would expect, achieving a state of good repair is a significant challenge for the t.

today we estimate our backlog of state of good repair at close to $5 billion. it is a challenge that we live every day. our customers experience with us every day and our employees work to overcome every day. speaking of our transit work force, the people infrastructure -- those who plan, design, operate and maintain our systems, particularly our front line employees -- it is also extremely important that work force development at all levels is not an afterthought as we grapple with our need to achieve a state of good repair. all of this said, while we still have a long way to go and definitely need a continued, strong federal partner including significantly increased federal investment this our critical transportation -- in our critical transportation infrastructure both in our existing and well-supported new,

targets transit investments, under the leadership of governor patrick we are making strides through implementation of a serious transportation reform agenda including actions to bring transit employee health care and retirement benefits in line with other state agencies. the implementation of sustainable internal productivity and cost containment measures and the deployment of new technologies to improve our overall customer experience. on top of this transportation reform agenda, our governor proposed the way forward transportation program this past year to provide much-needed, increased local funding for our statewide transportation, a self-help plan, if you will, including the mbta and statewide rail and transit including our 15 regional transit authorities. ..