one-third of the facilities used by local transit agencies to house the operation, staff, and service their vehicles are a margin of the pair. are these facilities a threat to their health and welfare of our transit groups?

>> first, i think-should be clear that we believe the systems are safe. one of the safest mode of travel we have available to us in this day and age. real also believe very strongly there are steps that need to be taken in order to address the safety, not just of the general public, but the employees who work for these diseases. there is no question that when you're dealing with an aging infrastructure and the needs that are required to maintain that infrastructure, employees will be working in hazardous conditions that can make for an unsafe situation, but there are steps that the transit agency has taken. i know from my own experience we focus closely on making sure that our operators have appropriate training, tools, protocols and place to map the safety of these employees. but the reality is, as long as it will take to fix this problem

will require more workers to work environments where it could be a more dangerous situation that if it were invested in good repair. >> well, thank you for your testimony. wheat develop the legislation that the committee is considering. we appreciate your testimony. >> thank you call mr. chairman. let's now hear from our three transit agencies for about their work. as i call them up, want to remind our witnesses that they're false statements will be included in the record, and we would ask you to summarize your statement within five men's versos so that we can enter into a dialogue. our first witness, general manager for the southeastern pennsylvania transportation authority. the sector of services as

important to a number of my constituency is. i appreciate your willingness to appear before the subcommittee today. i know that senator warren would like to introduce dr. bentley scott, and this moment would be a good time. >> it is my great pleasure to introduce dr. beverly stock. the administrator. responsible for managing, overseeing and a blur great passenger rail program. tremendous expertise in these issues criminally in massachusetts, but nationally. her career in public transportation spans more than three decades that includes executive and senior leaders with some of the nation's largest public transit systems. proprietor who doctors got served as chief executive

officer and general manager of the metropolitan atlanta rapid transit authority where she was the first person to hold that position. additionally, she served as general manager and chief executive officer of the sacramento regional transit district : and she also served as the general manager of the ryland public transit authority. nationally recognized for her extraordinary lead and thoughtful advocacy in advancing increased investment for effective and efficient transit infrastructure. she is a leader in her field and was named transportation and a greater change by president obama and the u.s. department of transportation for her long record of strong innovation and the transportation industry. we are pleased to have you in massachusetts and very pleased to have you here today in washington.

thank you. >> the ledger, thank you so much >> it sounds like every system could use a doctor. finally, mr. gary thomas. we thank you for joining s. we will start off with you. your full statement will be jim pleaded. >> good morning. chairman, senator, i want to thank you for the ups and testify in a federal and bringing this nation's public transportation infrastructure to a state of good repair. i and general manager of the southeastern pennsylvania transportation authority located in philadelphia, pennsylvania. the sixth largest public transit operator in the country and the largest of pennsylvania. providing over 1 million daily passenger chips which are essentials and supporting the economy of the southeastern

pennsylvania region. last year americans took over china have billion trips and public transportation, it at that time when transit riders should be set size level industry continues to fall behind in invest a required to bring our systems to a state of good repair. according to the chin a dozen 13 conditions and performance report the state of good repair backlog for transit systems nationwide has risen to $86 billion. this number is projected to grow by over two and a half billion per year, and the report states that total spending on state of good repair from all sources must increase over $8 billion per year to address the backlog. with funding and operational brushes are particularly acute. aging rail infrastructure related accounting for a significant majority of the

national trends a state of good repair backlog. experience demonstrates the need for investment and on investments. our current 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. the investment that would be required to bring chicagos regional rail transit systems to a state of repair would be roughly $20 billion. in georgia the metropolitan atlanta transit authority will see their state of good repair backlog rhoda's 7 billion by 2020 for without an additional state of good repair investment. congress responded to the art real state of repair prices by creating a new state of good repair formula grant program and increasing funding for the nation's rail transit system to

invest in a critical state of good repair needs. i want to thank the committee for this role in making that programmer reality. since 2010i have served as chair of an informal group of the nation's largest all those rail transit system, the metropolitan rail discussion group that together carries approximately 80 percent of the nation's public transportation passengers. we continue to maintain common sense of formation in 2007, that the long term predictable and growing transit program that enables this nation's or bless economies is not just good transit policy by a sound economic policy as well. to understand the entire cost of non investment 20 to look beyond rider ship. these areas rely on public transportation to fuel the economic growth and

competitiveness by connecting employees to their jobs, allowing free and vehicle commuters to move less congested highways and providing import mobility options from members of a community. the nation's economy is damage to major metropolitan areas ceased to function efficiently, as gateways for the movement of goods and people between the u.s. and international destinations. maintaining the infrastructure is an established national priority, and congress must preserve the better or government 50-year krauss commitment to our commitment to public transportation and preserve the strength of mass transit. we spend too much time focusing on the cost of government infrastructure programs and too little time focusing on the crippling cost of not investing. a short-term patch on the highway trust fund will not address the crucial shortfall.

if congress takes that approach for six months, a year, two years, transit systems will, again, be left without the appropriate funding or but is certain to needed to plan and execute major infrastructure rehabilitation projects. has been more than four and a half years. the intervening time 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 of funding levels the increase from year to year to meet the growing needs across the country. a fully funded core capacity program that allows paging systems to sensibly to accommodate growth while continuing to address state of good repair needs should be the centerpiece is. thank you for the upper genital

to testify, and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> ish chairman, it is showing on. it is a pleasure to have the upper genital to testify this morning. for overall context from the massachusetts bay of transportation authority is the fifth largest in the united states with more than over 1 million passenger trips per day command close to 400 billion per year, and that is across extensive, heavy, like relman and transit network. the subway system that opened in 1897, the oldest in the country, which still operates today on a

commuter rail network that was originally laid that in the 1830's among some of the first roads in the country. a network which remains today vital link for our commonwealth, a partner states throughout newfoundland and the northeast region and the national passenger rail network along the northeast corridor. a critical element of our overall transit network, some of the art of facilities date back to the early 20th-century having been initially designed as omnibuses and. achieving a state of good repair is a significant challenge. we estimate our backlog of state of good repair at close to a 5 billion. it is the challenge we live every day. our customers experience with those everyday and are employees worked to overcome every day. speaking of our transit work

force, the people infrastructure , those who plan, design, operate command maintain , particularly our front-line employees, it is also extremely important that workforce development all levels is not an afterthought as we grapple with our needs to achieve a state of good repair. o this said willis of a long way to go and definitely need a continued strong federal partner including significantly increased federal investment and our critical transportation infrastructure. both in our existing and well supported new charter transit investment we are making strides , including actions to bring transition employee health care and retirement benefits and line with other state agencies, the implementation of sustainable internal productivity and the department

of new technology to improve our overall customer experience. on top of this hour ago and proposed a way for a transportation program to provide much needed funding corp's for statewide transportation guy, a self-help plan including the end cba and statewide transit. this past year, that was successful with the help of our legislature, the business and communities across the commonwealth resulting this past year and the passage of the largest bond package for transportation as well as significant new investment sustainably for transportation and the commonwealth history, including state revenues dedicated to finding transportation, the first increase in over 20 years of the

state gasoline tax, and this increases aligned with inflation to ensure the level of funding will keep pace overtime. the reason i say these things is as we stress this morning the absolute criticality of a strong federal partnership, predictability of bonding and significantly increased federal funding to help to turn the tide on this, want to make it clear that we appreciate and respect the local level that we need to step up and do our part. that is what you see on the part of our commonwealth. what i will say is that we are -- that things have certainly gotten much better, but we are continuing and definitely in great need of continued support by the federal government. on the side -- want to take a little bit now. the state of good repair fixes first common sense, but the same

time, we cannot windup only looking at global and not the dow not which means that we have to make new, targeted investments for growth. and for us the most notable of those projects of the federal level is our green line expansion project which we are moving through the new start program at this point in time, and this project well, and pat, wind up for us filling what has been a chip missing transit link serving some of the most densely populated communities in the united states. right now those communities are sorrow, medford, and cambridge, 20% of those communities are within distance today of our rail station. when this project and we will, in fact, of police received an f fga for this project. after that we will then be able

to provide access for what is over 50 percent in our mental communities within 75 percent of those communities will be within walking distance to rail which will significantly windup decrease in travel time by 65 to 75% and opening up a tremendous vista, if you will, of new job and economic development of the charities from much-needed committee. at this point we have done everything asked of management. thank-you for all of your support. we believe that we are struggling, like everyone else, but cutting edge in terms of asset management in moving in that direction. performance metrics, this is how we do our work. we are transparent in terms of what we consider the metrics to be command we have also a line bill we are doing of the transportation side with google public policies having to do

with housing affordability, resilience. it is not just transit for transit state. spin in conclusion as we experience record high a and growing transit rider ship on increasingly aging systems, reaffirming the federal commitment and partnership with a program that has above predictability and growth is essential to making real progress to turn the tide on the state of good repair backlog. this is one that states and localities cannot successfully tackle on our own. federal partnership and investment is key. so thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. thomas. >> thank you, chairman, committee members. i appreciate the average into the to be here today. we have a little trip different

story to tell. when the voters of north texas' voted to dedicate a 1% sales tax to create a transportation agency, and today we operate in the north texas region covering 700 square miles providing roughly 107 million trips annually, click to add we operate the longest flight rail system in north america. we have had rapid growth. now operating 85 miles. we will add an additional. we will open that early in under budget. while our oldest segments are

now only 18 years old our growth and subsequent state of good repair is closely controlled by a 20-year financial plan that we circle the adhered to. this, by policy, insurers rebalance anticipated revenues. even though we are relatively young, we have over 15 years of asset management experience. while the biggest key components is a regularly scheduled asset condition assessment. once every five years we have an outside counsel to men. the good news is a more unified approach industrywide.

the good news and perhaps the bad news is that we created a large appetite of transportation choices in north texas. this obviously relates to where people live, where their work, and we see that happening surprisingly as some people might find in north texas everything. this avatar requires final in maintaining our existing system, but growth to address the fourth largest and one of the fastest-growing metropolitan regions in the country. over 73 percent of our capital expenditures is for s t r, leaving little for growth even though the demand is great. one of our key areas of need is so is happening in our core area right now we have a hub and spoke system.

the track conditions are deteriorating faster than initially anticipated which means that it will start a $459 capital program later this summer replacing over the next couple of years the rail through this core area. additionally we're planning a core capacity set or group of projects to relieve the pressure on this existing core. therefore, we are strong advocates for the program initiated to be preserved in the next surface transportation bill. our core capacity project provides capacity and flexibility while reducing maintenance needs in the future allowing the new start and projects to go hand in hand were the core capacity as well as state of good repair project. mr. chairman, in conclusion in

order to continue to provide transportation choices for north texas we desperately need a long-term fully funded transportation bill providing stability and predictability for our agency and more importantly our customers. we applaud this six year term and funding levels in the girl america legislation. transit of 100 cut 4 billion. of course where public transit grows community grows,. thank you for this up the charity, and alex toward answering questions. >> that you for your testimony.

the dot conditions and rick -- performance report tells us that if greece and investment levels are maintained by the year 23 the nation's transit system will be facing $142 billion in deferred system preservation. given that federal funding, is seen as a we have work to do. does anyone of panel believe the current funding levels are now to help you achieve a state of good repair? >> no. >> put your microphone on while we are doing this. >> they are insufficient. >> dr. scott. >> woefully insufficient. >> no, sir. >> okay. and if federal funding, does anyone believe or is it a possibility believe that if we just remain flat additional

state and local funding alone could cover the costs of starting to pay down a backlog? >> i will say that last year the pennsylvania commonwealth passed a transportation bill. so, no, the state actually did there share. i think the federal government needs to step up. >> doctors got. >> not possible. >> we have a large local map. 1 percent sales tax. not nearly enough to do what we need to do as we move forward. >> mr. casey, your testimony facing this state of repair challenges in keeping with the larger urban rail systems. and you noted that the average age of rail bridges more than 80 years old. more than 100 years old.

what practical impacts to these needs have on the day-to-day basis? >> we were faced with shutting down all lot of our rail system prior to the transportation bill from a practical standpoint you issue orders, slow down the track, have weight restrictions and eventually shut down the structure. we have with the funding that we received from the state, prior to the funding from the state we have no bridge repairs on our capital program. now that we did get state funding of 18 bridges that i am addressing in the next five years. just to give you the age of some of these bridges, i will go through. there are 18 of them. construction was 1891, 1896, 1916.

1895. significant because it expands 922 feet, 150 feet in the air of a grand. i can go on and on. 1874, 1834, 1906. we have a very old system. a lot of this was billed, you know, penn central, the railroad , and sentra all went bankrupt and little has been done to repair these, replace the structures. we were in dire straits. the state funding the u.s. the bill is up to get out of this whole, but as i said, with over 103 bridges over 100 years old, you know, we can only address 18 of them in the next five years. >> you said that previously would this case you talked about how your passengers also face these challenges. what are some of those challenges?

>> the same types of things. slow orders. >> for those of us to do not know what a slow worker is. >> it means that there will be a stretch of track were simply because of the condition, a bridge or tunnel section, have trillions of being allowed to take it at the speed that it could go through, we have to slow it down. sometimes you're talking another call of five to ten miles-per-hour. you can imagine what that means in terms of the commute time. and so ultimately you get to the point where you just have to literally close down the segment. >> let me ask you, mr. thomas, your testimony notes that they consider the new capacity program. think there is often a perception that the program is used primarily by much older,

heavier rail systems. can you talk about the importance of a federal court capacity program and helping a new or light rail system maintain the state of good repair? >> the core capacity program our particular case would be incredibly vital as important. we are at a point now where we've been free add to our system we cannot give more trains through the cigna corporation were vigorous drive downtown area. really as i tell a lot of folks locally if something happens, they put their hoses across the corridor and did not appreciate the idea of less of who rolling trains across that corridor. we had to stop transit during that.

gives us flexibility and capacity. what we're looking at is a combination of projects, understanding that on one hand we have got to provide our local mansion on the other hand the core capacity program is limited in size right now. ..

thank you to all of you. i want to ask just a limited question that has come from several of my district, so given your experience on the ground i thought you might have some insight on this, and this is essentially the situation where the discretionary grant has been changed to a funding formula under math number 21. in the way that they did before which means that they are buying fewer, therefore they are not getting the group discounts and they are keeping inefficient buses that need maintenance for longer to the detriment of the

agency. have you experienced in your own respective realms any challenges like this? i would just invite any of you to answer. >> i haven't, though. >> we have 15 regional transit authorities, and while we keep a good overview from the broad commonwealth level, i can tell you that it is more challenging for them. >> from my perspective, and i think that it relates to the size of the agency and the wherewithal and the planning of the larger agencies in many cases they can accommodate that in the agencies quite frankly they can't, and the trickle of money doesn't buy a bus and you can't save up that quickly. >> thank you for sharing that directly from the front line.

i would like to ask a question from a different direction. in the state of the transportation infrastructure as i see it, the economy turns on the tenth edition of the structure and this is how people get to work, this is how the businesses get their goods to the market and without transportation infrastructure or the dk transportation infrastructure the whole economy is in trouble. so, you mentioned the green line extension. this is the extension that would go to one of the densely populated areas in the country. the principally to somerville. massachusetts. i was very pleased to see that the president had included $100 million in his fy 15 budget

in order to get this expansion. but what i would like to do is start with this question. can you talk about with the basic infrastructure has done to the economy of somerville and then we will talk about the other stuff. >> i would tell you that what it's done is at its spine needed. let me just talk about the job portion of it. it's made it much more difficult for people in the somerville area. it's both outside as well as the development within the somerville that made it difficult for somerville to be about to attract employment in the business opportunities. now, but i can say to you is i always look at things are what they are so just with the

knowledge this project is coming and we are committed to this process, just look at the development that started to take place already. you go in and in fact we were delighted that the secretary took a little bit of time to come through. another square foot of development of business development at absolutely would not be taking place. they are both absolutely right there where the transit is literally at the union square where the development is and then you look at what is taking place so that prohibit the development that is being catalyzed if you will buy that green line expansion project is

just absolutely unbelievable. >> it really is traffic. i was going to ask you the other half and that is its expensive upfront to make these investments and yet study after study shows when we do get enormous economic impact we get job growth, economic development, so i want to thank you for your advocacy on behalf of the green line and also your advocacy on behalf of the whole transit system is enormously valuable. for every 1 dollar that winds up going into the transit multiplier effect in terms of the for at least $4 that wind up coming into what we call the broad impact, and then not just in terms of the property values and that residential development and all that looking at it as well in terms of the job creation i have seen numbers we

are looking at something like 32,000 to 40,000 jobs that wind up being created. it's not the infrastructure but it's the outcomes and the benefits that we have for people and communities. >> we have been looking at the studies they are as well. you have had amazing growth. you have gone from the zero hard rail to the miles and miles of a system in 30 years and i saw two recent studies by the university of north texas that's estimated that the $4.7 billion spent between 2002 to 2013 to expand the light rail in the dallas system has already generated over $7.4 billion in the regional economic activity

including tens of thousands of jobs that paid in excess of $3.3 billion in salaries, wages and benefits and made the pointt also in one of these studies that more than 5.3 billion a privattheprivate capital transid development projects have been built or are under construction or are planned near the dark stations. we are overtime but if the chairman would indulge me for just a moment i want to give you a chance mr. thomas to talk about based on your experience how the capital investment in the transit can stimulate economic growth and whether or not your experience in dallas can be replicated in other places around the country. >> it's been fascinating to watch what happened because when we first started, we were

focused on getting the rail on the line obviously to move people safely, efficiently and effectively and there were other people that understood the value of the infrastructure that they could take advantage of quite frankly and take advantage of any good way for the community. and once that started, once people started realizing now as we look to the other areas and the expansion, it certainly to move people. but it's also the air quality opportunities and economic development opportunities. there was a point in time when the economy got a little soft and we had to start talking about the delay. we have the buses of people showing up at the board meetings to explain to us why it wasn't a good idea to delay the projects and in large part come it was due to the economic development opportunities that have already been thought about and planned. as you mentioned the study that was completed by the university

of north texas was an update of the study that had been included and that was a very, very narrowly tailored study because it only looked at projects that were on the tax rolls. so it is pretty incredible to see not only the projects of the economic development and also the rental rates as a part of the study and it shows the increase in the rental rate andd a quarter of a mile of the station coming and so we are seeing it over and over. we haven't done a lot of expansion. we want to see investors in the facilities whether it is homes.

it's one of the heaviest lines to the former navy are it which is attracting the companies from all over the place. we were hoping to people in philadelphipeople inphiladelphir wanting to take the transit in the last 15 years. we have a 50% growth on the system. 50%. it has an increase, actually has increased a little bit of that is minor and has already filled

up that it's why i was able to invest. there is no question in my mind that you could see a double-digit growth in the utilization of the services. >> i want to thank you all very much for your indulgence mr. chairman and i just want to say i think that you have exactly the right point. the transportation infrastructure is important but not as an end of itself. sitting here being able to write the new transit provisions of the map 21. is there anything that you would change or add that doesn't exist in the law today?

>> as far as i am concerned i just think that we need to invest more money into the transit and whether we have issues from the older properti properties. it has been insufficient for us to maintain our current system. >> what i would stress is that when we begin to see the threat of it, the focus in terms of performance. with good things like going for the full funding grant agreement and the more that we do those kind of things they are self reinforcing. im a person that when people ask me what are the things that keep you up at night i'm going to come back to the workforce. making sure that there is intentional funding in terms of

the workforce development we put a spin probably .5% in terms of training and development of our people. the kind of things that keep me up at night. and i can assure you that every one of the operators that's here are the issues. i don't want to overdo this, but we have 6200 employees. i can tell you today that there are 800 folks that have the time and the years to retire. over 30% of those ar those horrs specialized maintenance areas. when i take that another five years from now it becomes a teen hundred people that will have the time in the years to be able to retire. you can replace the general manager faster than we are going to be able to do that, so to speak the synergy between this bill and education workforce and labor would be absolutely unbelievable.

>> i think it's flexibility. as we've seen this morning each one is different. each city across the country is different. we all have different needs and are in different places. so, making sure that the bill going forward offers a flexibility to each of us to do what we need to do in our respective cities to grow the economy and to provide opportunities to people i think that it's critical moving forward. >> the metropolitan discussion group one of the principles is that the funding should be prioritized according to the international reports. to what extent do the current federal programs adhere to the principle and what changes would you make to the line if any? >> it's the recognition of the

older system so when you look at the older system and the needs in philadelphia the bridges are shocked to learn that we are held responsible for 350 bridges and the infrastructures are different they might not have that infrastructure need, so those issues and needed to be part of the discussions. one thing i didn't discuss. in the 1920s technology that's out there they've been in operation since in some cases the 1920s and 1930s. those critical issues really need to be addressed as we go forward.

and it's not just one or two of them. >> doctor scott, my understanding is they have been working to develop an asset management plan for a number of years well before the federal requirements were created in map 21. can you give the committee some details on how the asset management system works and has it helped your agency better target investments and by any chance have they asked you or talked about some best practices that it can be considered? >> they have been right there at the table with us from the very beginning and we were some of the first pilot programs that

they helped fund in terms of being able to develop the database and things of that nature. what i will tell you is that it is radically reshaped i will be candid in how we do our capital plan. our capital planning. it's no longer -- this is a robust involvement on the part of all of the departments you have to be very clear in terms of exactly what is it going to wind up being the benefit of wind coming from it. we are beginning now to particularly as we bring our maintenance management systems we are beginning to actually move into being able to look at life cycles so that we can change the method in terms of how we do procurement. you have to have the data to be able to support being able to do much more in terms of their lifecycle procurement. so it's no capital project comes to the table without there being a full look in terms of not only the aspect of safety but

innovation, resilience, accessibility, and also the people implications in the long-term operating implications of those investments. none of that would have happened if we hadn't been more thoughtfully and intentionally looking at the data as well as just changing our decision if you will in terms of how we do the resource allocation. it's a work in progress, but very different than what we have done in the prior year years. >> you stated that the capital program has mechanisms built to deal with funding and volatility. giving the years of trust fund and stability. even in the past and the government shut down how has the volatility impacted the ability to provide literature than it did make a -- legitimate transit

sources and as it relates to the highway trust fund. >> certainly as i said, we have a 20 year financial plan and that plan anticipates all of the revenue and expenses over the next 20 years. we are just that annually and obviously we don't know exactly what's going to happen for the next 20 years but we have several economists that work with us to help us identify what's going to happen in the local funding perspective and then we take a very conservative approach from the federal participation. however, if the trust fund is not funded after the end of this calendar year, then it would require us to make significant cuts as we move forward. we are already in the process of looking at what that would be. what those service impacts would be answering to determine where the list is into communicate with that list might look like

the constituents in the area. >> let me ask you all a final question. i don't know if senator warner has any others. but i assume that in some shape or form to deal with your ridership and are trying to understand the views of the operations in the present systems and the views of what they may have about any potential expansion or curtailment. so, if i were to ask you, switching my role from the list position to sitting on the senate finance committee to find a way to fund this, what's your ridership support an increase in a rather useless if it is dedicated to the transit system what do you think they would say? >> i would say yes. i think the bottom line is that

they would improve service. they once more in frequent service and better facilities. and the region as it has happened in the state of pennsylvania it was almost unanimous in supporting the transportation bill. and i really think that citizens would support the same. >> i absolutely the leave the tt the public would. i think that there are two pieces to that. however, i think they will support that they have to be very clear about what the outcomes are that are intended and it's about much more than ridership and the other is i think people want accountability so in the terms of performance and transparency, but absolutely can't tie it into the outcomes

they can be clear about what they want and with a really good transparency and accountability i belief that. and i have another one that i just forgot to say. every dollar that we do and you can force this to make the smart investments, let's make it be a smart dollar for every dollar that we can do in terms of technology we need to be looking at, and also what we can do in terms of recently and. along the corridor or anything that we do and i told this in the capital program but tables are changing. we have to be looking for the future and so those are once again themes in terms of outcomes.

we are woefully behind in this country and making investments because there have been/is in the research development fundi funding. >> the voters in the service area certainly have proven over the years they are supportive of the dedicated funding. when they initially voted to approve the 1% sales tax in 1983 to create an organization that at the time they had no idea what it would do when it became capable of doing had large margins to allow the long-term debt and opportunities so yes, sir i believe so. we had a vote in the committee as it relates to the gas tax

dollars which the advocates for the highway of course we are always going to have highways as the overall system. but they say the dollars shouldn't bshouldbe used for the because it's the drivers that pay the gas tax that ultimately are funding the transit systems. however we have been seeing the general funding dollars in this respect for funding the overall transportation bill. they are dissipated at the end of the day because they are paid by everybody. so, any perspectives on that quick >> i have two comments. the vast majority july of the automobiles and pay the tax al

also. they go to work and then they have their car. car. >> or they drive to the parking lot and take the train coming into. but the vast majority of the people that still use the benefit from the transit from the congestion standpoint in getting that writers often rode works hand-in-hand and i can tell you there is not sufficient highways within philadelphia to handle the automobile traffic. the benefits transit everyone after the region. >> if you end up in a parking lot you are not getting your sales force to their sales. does anyone want to comment on this last question? >> i would've told them get out

of that old thinking. it is old thinking that we need to step it up and move it up and not disregard it but don't get stuck in it. >> some of our strongest partners and north texas understanding as mr. casey said it is a collaborative. >> i'm helpful in developing the record and some of the issues that will undoubtedly be debated among the members. i think the testimony make the powerful case in the need for

the strong investments in the transit system. into the state of good repair i look forward to working with all of you to develop the transit title to begin to meet some of these needs for the surface transportation bill. the record is going to remain open. it responded to them as expeditiously as possible. the hearing is adjourned

..

>> i became chairman of the banking committee. it is not a need. to help your friends get defeated, both up in the food chain. as that of the senate banking committee for 30 years and denpasar being decided to retire in january of us having it became chairman of the committee and began a series of hearings. the first is in the first week of february, 2007. hank paulson came and testified, that he wanted to testify only about china. he didn't want to talk about the sub prime issue. a setting of my colleagues would

not spend a lot of time in china and the subject matter the mortgage. we help 90 hearing in 2007 on the subject matter out of the next 12 months. i remember some of the first witnesses were people actually calculating what they thought the result was in terms of foreclosures in the country. the first talked about having a million foreclosures in this highly ridiculed the next day or two has been aging hyperbolic talking that they might that could possibly happen. so 4.5 to 5 million. despite all of that activity, it was just a refused to acknowledge the growing problem in the residential mortgage. st. patrick's day weekend, to fascinate, we have bear stearns. many thought this was a one-off album. it was a ludicrous proposition .

so people talk about it wasn't wonderful in september of 08 everyone rallied in a the country. there is a lot of information out there it goes next, as evan about what was occurring and yet people unwilling to acknowledge his face and offer ideas. i believe again had there been an intervention earlier on, we had a crisis here remember the magnitude we saw. ever the $12 trillion in lost wealth. never 26 million jobs lost. never the 4.525 million homes. not to mention what happened to some of the finest financial institutions in the country failing. consolidation occurred. commercial banks, and big. it was a disaster. in my view, it should never have to come to that had people been willing to acknowledge that the problem was clearly the evidence. your brokers that were unregulated being paid instantaneously for selling

homes that adjustable-rate mortgages on the banks are well those arms could never afford it. and yet they were selling the mortgage and eight to 10 weeks for the securitization. there is no liability whatsoever. the loss that was occurring and going to step up in my view, that could've been truncated earlier on had people been willing to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem. >> wednesday morning on "washington journal," we'll take a look at how climate change debate is impact in the upcoming midterm elections cycle.

>> if you go back and look at coolidge, he was a conservative hero and its tax rate was a gold standard tax rate that we saw on the video 25% with what he got the top rate down to. and he fought like crazy. it started remember with wilson in the 70s. that was an epic battle. when you look at what the socialite said about coolidge in washington, how he wasn't going to meet with him, you want to remember they were from families in yours different post these. especially alex roosevelt longworth's father had a different title. let's get them, collective bully pulpit presidency. he was coolidge christiaan: and not giving a favorite species

that is the look like he'd been weaned on a pickle. he was from new england. farmers don't talk a lot or wave their arms about because a cow might take them. and it was temperamental of temperament. he was a shy person. but it also had a political purpose. he knew if he didn't talk a lot, people would stop talking and of course the president or political leader is constantly bombarded with requests and his silence was his way of not giving in to special interests. >> next, massachusetts senator

elizabeth warren talks about wall street coming financial crisis in her fight to help create the consumer financial protection before running for the senate. posted by the campaign for america's future, and this is 30 minutes. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> so, thank you so much for having me here today. i am delighted to be here. thank you for your invitation on robber. thank you committeeman for the introduction. i'm glad rosie laughed in parts of the book. you know kind game and actually does make a good point. this is my 10th book. books are part of how eyesight and this is a book that i tried

to write to dry my people because our fight can't just be are talking to each other. we've got to draw more people into it. so that is what it's about. is the book written of gratitude. gratitude to my parents who never had lunch, but who always believed that kids were going to do better than they did. gratitude to an america that in kids like me. that is the kind of the america i want to csp again. i believe it's not. [applause] now, i understand he spent much of the day talking about populism, which i think is the power of people to change the country. this is something i believe in deeply. in 2009, i was fighting hard for you to never financial agency that would help level the playing field for families. basically by preventing big

banks from pushing people around from tricky mamma credit cards and mortgages in payday loan. damon is actually one of those. in fact, many people in this room were involved in that fight. you may remember that the biggest financial institutions were i was going to say on louisiana state about this consumer agency. how about headset opposed. we are spending more than a million dollars a day for more than a year in order to block financial reforms generally in the consumer agency in particular. that was a targeted one. but we were able to fight back. we were able to fight back because of people like you. people across this country who said imm ms. fight, too. and because enough people got involved in this fight, we want.

we got a good strong consumer financial protection hero. the data passed through congress thomas signed into law. [applause] and you know, for any of you in the rim at that i never thought i would eat turkey not to apply the creation of a government agency, let me just tell you one fact about the consumer financial protection bureau. it has been not been operational for a little over two years. it has already forced the largest financial institution in this country to return $3.5 billion directly to american sooners that they cheated. that is an agency that works. that is government that works. [applause] now and our catholic in the odds can't wait battles for the consumer financial protection euro wasn't unique.

in every fight to build opportunity in this country, in every fight to level the playing field, and every fight for working families, the path has been steep. throughout our history, powerful interests have tried to capture washing 10 and rate the system in their favor. from tax policy to retirement security, the voices of hard-working people get drowned out by powerful industries and well-financed front groups. those with the power to fight make sure that every rule to their favor and everyone else just get left behind. just look at the big banks. they cheated american families, crashed the economy, got yelled out another sixth-largest bangs are 30 acres at baker than they

were in 2008 when they were too big to fail. they still swaggered through washington, blocking reforms in pushing around agencies. a kid gets caught with a few ounces of pot in goes to jail. but a big bank breaks the law on laundry drug money or manipulating current via no one even arrested. the game is rigged and it's not right. [applause] and it is not just the big banks. look at the choices. the federal government makes today. our college kids are getting crushed by student loan debt. we need to rebuild roads and bridges and upgrade our power grid. we need more investment in medical research and scientific research. but instead of building a feature, this country is leading

billions of dollars in tax loopholes and subsidies that go to rich and powerful corporations. many fortune 500 companies, profitable companies paid zero taxes. billionaires get so many tax loopholes that they pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. but they have lobbyists. lobbyists, lawyers and republican friend to protect every loophole and never privilege they had. the game is great and isn't right. the game is rigged. [applause] take a look at what happiness was trade deals. big corporations -- for big corporations, trade agreement time must feel like christmas morning. well, think about it. they get special gifts they could not for passed through

congress out in public because it is a trade deal, the negotiation are secret and the big corporations can work behind closed doors. and we have seen what happens here at home when our trading part earns around the world are allowed to ignore workers right and environmental rules. from what i hear, wall street pharmaceuticals, telecom, the polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to wreak the upcoming trade deals in their favor. and why are trade deals the great? i have her supporters that these deals actually explained that they have to be secret because it is the american people knew what was in them, they would be opposed. think about that. if real people, people whose jobs are, small business owners who don't want to keep its overseas come needs that don't

waste in the river and hire workers for a dollar a day, and those people people without armies of lobbyists would be opposed. well, i believe if people across this country be opposed to a trade deal, then that trade deal should not become law. [applause] that tilts in the playing field is obvious everywhere. when conservatives talk about opportunity, damien opportunities for the rich

that we are guided by principle, too. it is a simple idea. we all do better when we worked together and invest in the future. we know that the economy grows

when hard-working families had the opportunity to an earth day lives. we know that the country gets stronger when we invest in helping people succeed. we know he lives improve what we care for her neighbors and help build a future not just for some of our kids, but for all of her kids. these are progressive values. these are america's values. these values play out every day. these values are what we are willing to fight for. so, let's go over the list one more time and i want to you a good strong a man out there. we believe that wall street needs a stronger roles in tougher enforcement and we are willing to fight for it. are we willing to do that? [cheers and applause] we believe no one should work full time and still live in poverty and that means raising

the minimum wage. [cheers and applause] we believe people should retire with dignity and that means strength in its social security and we are willing to fight for it. we believe that a kid should have a chance to go to college without getting crushed by debt and we are willing to fight for. [applause] we believe that workers have the right to come together, to bargain together and rebuild america's middle class and we are willing to fight for it. [applause] we believe, and i can't believe i have to be saying this in 2014. we believe in equal pay for equal work and we are willing to fight for it. [cheers and applause] and we believe that equal means equal and that is true in the work place and the marriage.

it is true for all of our families and we are willing to fight for it. [applause] this is how i see it. we -- we the people decide the future of this country. these are our shared values and these are the values we are willing to fight for. this is our moment in history. we are called on to determine the future of this country. and if we stand by and let it fade away, then shame on us. but if we get up and fight for what we believe in, we will have this country in the right direction for ourselves, for her children and four grandchildren. i hope you are ready to fight. thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause]

[cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> a couple questions. >> in the beginning of your book -- >> we are continuing microphone. here it comes. >> in the beginning of your book, and you said you were urged to run for the senate. the ideas he wanted to talk about more important to the american people.

i think that your idea is in the ideas of ernie sanders continued to be brought to the american people and you should join together to run the democratic primary. [cheers and applause] >> i appreciate the thought. i am not running for president. this is really important. we have to keep talking about these issues and we have to find every platform we can. that is what i'm doing. right now in the 90s to panic and we've got more than 30 coups answers on a bill to cut the cost of student loans for college students. [applause] that's the favor need to have papers that a bill right in minimum wage. we're holding a hearing to bank accountability. you've got to say after the

spirit on minimum wage, unequal pay for equal work, i'm student loan debt, make them vote, make them vote, make them vote. those that voted against, let them explain to the people in their home states by the voted again. right now i'm going to be focused on these issues. it is critically. but believe me, i will be allowed if they can. [applause] >> from west virginia. >> my question is actually very specific. is there any possibility of getting congress to readdress the exceptions on withdraws from 41 k.'s? for instance in my case, and they can withdraws so i can pay for a bomb or care. jay, obamacare. but i'm going to hit with a penalty next year because that is going to change my taxable

income, even though it is clearly for unicef d. there are literally millions of people across the country that are tapping 401(k)s for things like your mortgage payment, that is those, obamacare. all of these things. and when it comes time to pay taxes, it goes back to the idea that we don't get any breaks. we get the shaft. >> so let me start this in the bigger frame. america is in the middle of the retirement crisis and getting worse by the day. this crisis has brought on a combination of guns. it is the defined benefits plan so that this has to be about people investing in taking the risks of the market in taking money out when they've got to use it further expand this. that is part 1. part 2 is this is not a consequence of an entire generation will squeeze on

middle-class families. just think about this. in the early 1970s, it wanted some family in america could put away, after they made all their expenses, about either% of their take-home pay savings. think about that. by the early 2000, the median income family in america had to have two incomes to be able to make the mortgage, the health care payments, pay for the kids education and were able to put away in effect, zero and we are head over heels with second mortgages and the like. what has happened in all of this is the consequence of the fact wages have gone up. a fully employed mail today adjusted for inflation makes less than his father did a generation ago. families have done everything they can did they put everybody into the workforce.

they've run as hard as they can get the quick meeting. they loaded up on that and they all got hit with a financial crisis in 2008. what you are talking about is fundamentally a problem. there's just not enough money to go around. you'd look to your 401(k) not unreasonably. the difficulty of course is we are counting on you to look to your 401(k) throughout your retirement years. so i want to push this in three directions very quickly. i don't want a summit for college professor, and these are things we have to think about. we got to address the retirement crisis directly. this is absolutely the last point in our history that we should he talking about cutting social security benefits. we need to increase social security benefits. that is part 1. absolutely. part 2 is we need -- and we are starting to. there are some of us in the senate to take on the whole question about how to deal with

the private savings prior to retirement. and they very much take your point and very much will take that back to my colleagues. that is the second one. the third part is the core. we have to build an economy here at home. we can't build a future if we are not making the investments together. educating our children, investing in infrastructure so businesses can get their goods and services here in america to mark his coworkers can get to their jobs. investing in basic research in scientific research, medical research. we know that these investments pay off. and yet, what we have been doing for 30 years is coming back, cutting back on the cutting back on this investments. why? so we can have a tax system that left more money for the rich and

powerful. and we fight to reverse that trend. we can't do this. so part of the answer on this and i know it is not the media didn't care, but it's got to be the long-term answer so not everyone is in the same circle stands as has got to be that we've got to be willing as a country to say everybody pays into the system fairly. a progressive tax. there's a reason it is called progressive. a progressive tax that gives us revenue we need to make the investments we need to build real opportunity here at home. [applause] >> attorney general eric holder has recently changed course on two big to jail, saying none of the biggest banks are too big to jail. >> i will believe it when i see one in jail. [applause] >> exactly coming thank you.

that effort has been direct aid for helping taxpayers shelter their assets. >> i'm sorry. i hate to the question. it's not due out taxpayers shelter access. it's to help people quit the law. that is why they are in trouble. we've got to call this out. you're doing a great job. >> thank you for the clarification. i guess my point as they see this largely as a public relations move on the part of the department of justice. do you think this is pr or do you think there is an appetite to go after american tanks for real malfeasance? >> this has been an enormous frustration for me. and that is the lack of accountability all the way through. damon and i worked together during the financial crisis and i would say if there is a single issue we pushed the hardest on,

it was in return for the tens of billions of dollars that was shoveled and to these big financial institutions. a little accountability. accountability on where the money went. accountability on the changes that the financial and solutions would make. accountability at how they would spend that money in ways to help the american economy. and what we can't, and i want to be clear, this is under both the restrictions was nothing coming out saying and nothing out of that. this is one more way in which the playing field is tilted at wall street has been rebuilt. has anyone looked at the dow jones? the rest of the economy not so much. the classical bill is a great example of that. so you all remember the classical bill coming out of the great depression that we put in

place a rule that had an effect banking should be boring. that's the part of financial services that should be really boring. checking account, savings account has to be walled off from the kind of risk taking and invest and that happens with hedge fund at wall street and other money management. with that in place and not surprisingly, the financial institutions, the big one didn't like it and they kept pecking at the wall, right click throughout the 80s and 90s, they get one hole in it and another whole in another and in the late 1990s, it was repealed. so the idea was in effect anything goes. the big financial institutions can be in any financial services they want to be. of course we all know what happened. it's happening simultaneous he put the moment the financial institutions have figured out they could make incredible profit by selling people

mortgages that people would ultimately not be able to pay off. it was like selling grenades with the pins already pulled out. it's going to be okay for a while, but then nothing is going to go off. and of course, that is what happened. they also packaged up those grenades and sent them into the marketplace generally. they were purchased a pension fund. they are purchased by ptacek and municipalities trying to finance themselves. both of these have gone the same times. big financial institutions have taken on enormous risk. glass-steagall is gone. they are making great profits right up until the grenades start exploding in huge numbers in the entire economy crashes. so what happens at that point? at that point the federal government says we are going to come in and we are not going to let this economy go back to the stone age. for we are going to put in lots of money to help support its economy. $700 billion chart.

at the treasury department under both administrations start shoveling me up in a no strings attached pieces. when you shuffle money out on a no strings attached basis, you have just created too big to fail. just so you understand and i say no strings attached basis, i come out of it that are teaching bankruptcy law for many years. chapter 11. the new money comes in, which it often does in failing businesses, it is always on terms that they behold that that is wiped out come the shareholders get wiped out in the old that takes a haircut. the management gets fired. that is usually the deal and it got to come up with a new business plan. [applause] that is how you keep discipline in the system and that is how you make sure the new money will be a candidate they really are going to do some going forward. this cannot happen with the financial institutions. so right now, what we've got is

i've got a bill pending in the united states senate. my cosponsors john came in maria cantwell from washington, angus king and ann appended from maine. we propose instituting a 21st century class to go bill. [applause] it would have two effects. one would simply one of size, breaking up the largest as those are the only ones who will be effect by this. it makes sense moller by breaking them apart in the second is that it makes certain that the depository part of thinking, your savings account, checking account, the person must protect at all costs are very though risk operations. sawyers invidious question why. why was there no accountability

for the largest financial institutions? why can we not the classical right now? why is that we have heard one after another of the largest financial is due to shifts in this country had made to breaking the law. and that is what we have to call it. difficulties in a regulatory apparatus. breaking the law. laundering drug money, violating sanctions against foreign countries like iran. the latest hoping people cheat on their taxes by hiding money in foreign countries. and jack, not only does one go to jail, and one even goes to trial. so this is about accountability. both of the large financial institutions, but accountability for government, for our regulators to remind them they

don't work for the big financial institutions. they work for us. they work for us. [applause] he's going to make me quit. but this really is the central point. who does this country work for? that is the question in front of us right now. does this country work for those who have already made a big? does this country work for the biggest financial institutions who can still hire armies of lobbyists and do? does this country work only for the billionaires and for the millionaires and for the fortune 500? or is this a country that works for everybody else, a country that makes the investment that they not only are we going to have basis in where we get a chance to build some them for

the future, the anarchy and her grand kids are going to grow up in a world where every key has a fighting chance. that is what i am working on. [applause] >> elizabeth warren. [applause] >> what the senate in recess this week, we are a new highlights from the tv in prime time. tonight, look at american authors beginning at 8:00 eastern with michael sends the adventures of henry thoreau.

>> we did something unpopular that staved off disaster. here is the disadvantage vis-à-vis economists. economists can write articles into analyses in which they took the counterfactual. they can talk about why this is a good thing because they can talk about the counterfactual, what would've happened. politicians are not allowed to use the counterfactual. any elected official gets up there and says look, i

understand. i saved you from getting a lot worse. it was so frustrating. i just logan printed up, which i was dissuaded from using in 2010. they said this was to work without me. [laughter] the problem once we got all of the negative political types from the t.a.r.p. and very little from the public.

>> when you write, you don't write way -- you can't write in a calculated way. another is, you can't sit down to write a bestseller. in fact, you shouldn't think about that issue at all. what you should do when you sit down to write is to write what you find interesting and to follow your own curiosity. so when i was writing tipping point, for instance, i can honestly say i never ramo may try to imagine how well that book would sell.

i just wanted to write in dean i was interested in. i wanted to write and then my friends would read, that my mother would like. >> read more with malcolm gladwell and other interviews from her took notes and q&a programs at c-span's public affairs books now available for a father's day gift at your favorite bookseller. >> next, conversation at the effects work and have them civilians. we would hear from journalist robert dreyfuss and sara shourd an american hiker in prison at the ukrainian government in 2009. the university of colorado world affairs council hosted this one hour and 20 minute event last month. >> good morning, everyone. this is panel 2467 collateral damage civilians in war.

the panel today april 8, 2014:12:30 to 1:50 is this panel. i want to thank you so much. i am absolutely honored to be here today. i work for the american red cross here in colorado and a former student volunteer come as a one to be back. without further ado, let's would harm everyone c-span is filming today. sorry panelists aren't able to stand up because they will be out of the frame. to thank you so much with the patience for that. let me introduce our esteemed panelists today. before i do that, if everyone could silence any devices or rather noisemakers you have on you, that would be appreciated. to my left speaking first today we have not traced us. i asked bob where is the most intriguing place but he's never been and bob shared vietnam and iran. he said that he was just kind of

output by both of those places. he is a contributing editor at the nation and we are honored to have him here. next to bob we have sir hull went deep. sir just came from the central african republic, dingy to boulder. so that is her most, most intriguing place she's been. sir's executive terry as the civilians in complex. we also had tammy schultz. tammy schultz, local coloradan is the right supervisor. the lead right supervisor. kind of a big deal locally. and the director of national security ensuring fair fair and professor of strategic studies at the u.s. marine corps war college. so welcome, tammy. lastly we have sir tran re-who is our second panelists today. there is the author and

contributing editor for the solitary watch website and she's the unit or city you see berkeley visiting scholar. well, and without further akio i will give it over to bob. to start them is panelists will have 10 minutes to speak and after that we will go right into audience participation and questions. as a reminder, students will come and ask questions first. bob, thanks so much. >> thank you you think, everybody for coming today. it is a great pleasure to be here. you're especially remarkable for coming to such a topic that is not exactly easy to swallow i think for most people. in fact, talk about euphemisms. the phrase collateral damage only six. what it really means innocent dead people were dead innocent people. so that's try not to use that. i'm certain they not win tuesday

night presentation. it is hard for me to talk about this because it immediately becomes very personal for me. i'm going to explain that. i've never been a more, but it seems to me the best way to avoid innocent dead people is to first of all not have wars. i think that has to be the starting point. we too easily in this country in particular, but also around the world slip into borders has sent a team that we to do because our national interests are on areas that take. for the most part, their other solution almost always. i find it hard to the object data and analytical about this because they said it has little to purse will. i'm going to speak in part personally when i talk about this. for me as i said, it's never

been in combat. i've never been in the armed forces. and you know, deliberately so i guess. i came of age in the 1960s at a time when everything i thought they knew about this country that i had learned earlier as a teenager ended middle-school was proved to me to be completely wrong entire country collectively was engaged in a vast criminal enterprise cold war and vietnam. in which we were killing a lot of people for no good reason at all. it wasn't explained to me in my civics classes in high school or fourth out by some in like this could happen and how could our government do something so criminally misguided. so i was in in college i went colombia.

this kind of the center of the entire orbit. they shut down the school a couple times which is good for me because i got past failed raids of semesters. once was in 1868 comments in it with the semi-french revolution of that spring and the second time was after the invasion, the intervention or what they call it, encouraging -- i forget a word they use into laos was revealed in may and the killings at kent state speaking of innocent civilians. again it was this revolt. i have no question about what was going to happen to me when i graduated. i was headed to canada. i wasn't going into the army no matter what. not because i didn't want to be killed, although he didn't, but this is a criminal war and i was going to be part of it. so it turns out it was the first year of the lottery. i still remember that night

incredibly well when my birth he was picked out of a hat or whatever they use. i was number 275 and produced widely known there'd only been a draft to 110. but vietnam was the turning point for me. the reason i bring it up. it's affected everything that's happened in for the rest of my life. as you know, i'm going to put it this way. we killed about 2 million people in vietnam for no good reason during those years. i have been to the mound. i have a daughter who is adopted from the. i have been there as was mentioned, that only the first time in the night manes agree with you adopt anna. the u.s. soldiers served there. many of them. many come in many them went to the same -- many of them wearing

the vb killers. your a lot of veteran say they called us baby killers when they came home. i don't know what percentage of them were, but quite a number where. those most famous quote from the war as you know is we had to destroy this village in order to save it. it has become kind of a cliché, but it was accurate then. a colleague of mine in a person i've written with named nick kearse has written a brilliant book. i recommend you write it down and read it. it will change forever the way you think about vietnam. it is called kill anything that moves. the real american war in vietnam. he went into the archives and drip this true story that means i was not one off, but in fact there were dozens, hundreds of massacres of civilians deliberate killing using civilians as target prior this, pushing them out of her's and executing them in the field for no good reason.

by the hundreds and that it has since come and this is. this is what our nation did. so now i am going to skip ahead. you know, you think all the baddies in the past and all of a sudden we elect an on texas. i had the bumper sticker on my car somewhere in texas there is a village missing it idiot. and he invades iraq. look, the war in iraq, in tired if it be in her caught a mistake state for a blunder or something like that. this is a deliberate war of aggression, an illegal one as many people including kofi anon has had, was another criminal enterprise by the united states. we went to war in an unconscionable manner against a country that did attack us. having come to the vietnam experience is like how could

this have been to me? how could this possibly be happening to me again? if it were me, i find it mind-boggling that people could have served in the army. the honorable thing to do was to quit, get out of the army, go to jail for what it takes to be an object here. if you are serving in the state department of pentagon or cia contacted people in office agencies at the time. the thing to do is to quit. you cannot be part of a criminal enterprise root ca is a site this from within. so what happened in iraq, hundreds of thousands of people died who would be alive today if it weren't for what the united states did. now there is a lot of dead innocent civilians all around the world in many, many conflicts. the united states is hardly responsible for all of them. not even most of them.

as an american citizen, this is what i look at, who we are responsible for. last year the person i roadways and i prepared a future for the nation magazine. there's a special cover package called americans asking the dems. we've looked at the course of his 13 year war in afghanistan and try to estimate or find out who could estimate how many billions died there. not just of course from the united states, but most of them from taliban atrocities and suicide on the, the quite a number from american action. we didn't get a lot of cooperation from the military looking into this. they didn't respond in a friendly manner to our freedom of information act request and they didn't ask us to calm him dead, as the term of art they are with the units to track

civilian armagh. the same way about strategy and house the. they said no you can't calm. so you did a piece. why were they so touchy about it. another former colleague, michael hastings who wrote for "rolling stone." i wrote for "rolling stone" many years to the peace they cut stanley mcchrystal, the general who was the commander of the armed forces fired because of his staff's kind of raucous anti-white house carousing and bad mouthing of the president and vice president and all of that and obama, as you know, flatly fired him for this and support nation -- subordination. michael died last year in a car crash. a horrible loss for journalist and as for people who care about

dead, innocent civilians in various parts of the world. so i can talk about the afghanistan work that we did in the conclusions we came to. suffice it to say the afghanistan government, which was by and large he joked to any counting at all. ngos didn't have the resources to even begin the process of the united nations trying to do their best and really didn't succeed because i guess they came the closest because of the limitations they faced and the u.s. military, which started out as tommy franks put it on afghanistan and we don't do body counts. eventually, moseyed around the idea of maybe we should track those against our counterinsurgent the efforts. we create a lot of terrorists and all that. so they tried. but again, that was a flawed process as well. we did create an electronic

database which you can access at the nation website, showing the number of incident. there were 458 of them in which american troops were involved in civilian deaths. not taliban deaths, but killing civilians with 6481 people dead after that many. it is the range actually as a result of the incidents. so we can talk and q&a about that. but i am going to conclude. my time is set. a noting that we are teeter tottering on the brink of another one of these things but syria. there is an article in "the wall street journal" today that says that there is another battle in the white house and in the administration and the secretary of state terry and samantha power, the ambassador to the united nations. those arguing for an escalation of the war by the united states,

involving training, support, our minbar, perhaps military strikes in so forth, where is guess who the military or general didn't eat, chairman of the joint chiefs and other people in the pentagon saying this is a really idea. as far as we know, obama thinks it's a idea. he has in recent in this since 2012 when hillary clinton was pushing him to get were deeply involved in area. so i guess my conclusion is we didn't learn from the time. we didn't learn from iraq in the could be bumbling into another one or two byte array or more. so i'm going to close air and pass it on and i hope there's some questions about this stuff. [applause] >> now we have sir: p. >> sign executive director --

[inaudible] executive director for civilians in conflict. i last eight years have been intensely focused on this issue of quote, i'm quote, collateral damage. and because of that, it actually makes it hard to talk to you because i have so much to tell you. i have so much that i want to relay. let me just start out with a quick overview of what collateral damage actually means. the u.s. military in vietnam quite disturbed to meet in safeco civilian harm. what does that mean? it basically means lawful civilian harm. i say that because there actually is a legal regime that cover the killing of, killing and injuring of civilians in conflict. after the horrors of world war ii, the international community based on some of the lost that

previously existed created the geneva conventions and the additional protocols. so these rules or framework that governor conflict say a number of things about detainees and prisoners of war. but it also says you have to distinguish between a civilian and a combat, someone who's a part of the military force in a civilian who is participating in the conflict. you have to be proportionate when you are targeting. so if bob is a weapons cache and i am a house filled with two or three children, a military can decide that weapons caches that were ported to the military objective that they can bomb it and kill the children of my house and in many circumstances that would be considered lawful. i did not create these rules. so that is what is meant by collateral damages. deaths, injuries and property

damage. it turned civilian does not meet in the same innocent. innocent is not a word that is a legal term for something that makes much sense in armed conflict because a civilian can be a ballet dancer or a cellular killer. as long as that person is not actually participated in the conflict, they are supposed to be good. even if they are horrible, awful, mean person. i should say that in the beginning. what i want to do is step outside of my role and hopefully you understand my entire career has been devoted to minimize it as much as possible civilian harm in conflict. they too want to use this opportunity to step outside of my role and step outside of my daily work to pose some really difficult ethical questions with you. so the first of three is where

does collateral damage actually stopped? so you have deaths, injuries, property damage. this is how the united states and many other nations categorize her to civilians. what about psychological trauma? what about kids in pakistan who hide under their bags, wet their beds, won't go to school because of the drugs. what about environmental damage in iraq because of white phosphorus or in other places. what about community displacement? i just got back from central african republic and people have lost their homes. as soon as they have elections those games will be cemented. what about those people? so it goes generation after generation after generation. all of that could be considered collateral damage. when you think about how to minimize that, where do you stop? what is the definition?

the second question. how much of it should be mitigated. i think everyone in this room was the all of it. and to bob's point, you shouldn't have order. but if you were to say, well, we are going to make collateral damage illegal, you wouldn't be able to have poor. if you can't have poor, what happens? what happened to states? how do they then engage in diplomacy? if you cannot legally have military action on the table, what does that do to your diplomacy? i'm not saying it makes it better or worse. and asking a legitimate question. how does that change your international structure? how to bring up wisteria conflict, how do we say well, we are certain we not going to harm you with weapons, i saw it, because we can't because we couldn't cause any civilian harm

because that's illegal. what is that due to negotiations? what does it do to peace processes? it is a really interesting question. .., because it stopped japan in their tracks, how does that make sense if you are not able to use military force and cause civilian harm? these are the real questions that policymakers grapple with. the international forces in afghanistan created, in 2011-2012, a zero tolerance policy for civilian harm. we will not cause one civilian casualty. they had been beaten down to not cause harm. i can appreciate that, from and as an old -- ethical