closely in. >> will you say this is one of the cheapest accommodations that you can make? >> on seatbelts? >> no, i would not spent it's more expensive than all the other accommodations? >> it is simply making seatbelts, and again deferential to mr. hart, but in limiting seatbelts on trains would require a change of every seat which would again come expense is not the priority but we would have to hoard all of the seats. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ..

and then coming you also have the positive train control recommendation québec? >> yes speeeight >> i want to talk about both of those. first of all, let's go back to the 3008 report. that wasn't the first time he recommended camera or audio devices. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> before 1997 after a 1996 crash of no operating crew members survived, that was an amtrak train near silver spring, maryland february 16, 1996. then you had another accident with no surviving crew members occurred in 1999 in ohio. and the recommendation which is

already 979 to the fra. the ntsb recommended to the fra that installed the devices. it says it all so recommended that the fra installed base. then your recommendation in 2005 there was a crash of the freight trains. ntsb made the fine recommendations. is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> what did the fra do ms. feinberg? >> previously the fra has not taken action -- >> did not take action in 2000 it was also recommendation. is that correct?

>> that is correct. >> it's been very difficult. since then many of the freight rails have installed those devices. are you aware of that? >> yes sir. >> that it has been difficult. they've had to go through lawsuits. i want this entered into the record. kansas city southern is attempting to put in cameras in the cab. they were sued by mr. comstock and his group. not only were both union to post, i'll be asking the court to join them going ahead with the plan. and we put that in the record please? that is the cameras and a little bit of history and nothing being

done. let's talk about financing and positive train control. you just recommended you will have fra financing available. >> the program has financing available. >> since 2012 how many phones have there been? >> i believe there have been three. >> two up until this year. a total of three. the joke is we've had more fra administrators. so you have the capability to loan money if you need adjustment you need to get to us. in fact, the private sector has the responsibility for installing positive train control. they've actually run into some problems with fcc. another government agency has delayed this. this is part of the problem was native americans and also

approval by sec of those requests for licenses. it's not the truth? i would like that submitted for the record to also show there have been problems. in fact do you know how many licenses ftc has done per year approved on average? they do 2008 year. do you know how many the freight company has been required to have approved and get a purge that they can get the stuff installed by the end of the year? it is 22,000. there's a little bit of a backlog. it is not right to penalize the freight rails for delays by an agency and things beyond their control. when you say you were going to take them to task, i don't think it is the right to do. >> just getting started here mr. chairman.

give me about 10 more. >> i thank the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the focus here has been a course on positive train control because i'm a little leery of silver bullet and i know that feinberg testified he would continue to be the leading cause. she says on page six of her testimony at the train accident, the train was going up 150 miles an hour. >> 102. >> 106. now mr. pearce on page six of his testimony says that although there is concern about sleep disorder and he focuses on

lineup information and far too many surprise calls for work. he said we have identified these for more than a decade, confirmed data also so there are work cycles where engineers move from shift to shift routinely contribute to fatigue. get very little has been done to address any of these issues. mr. boardman on november 25th i wrote you a letter concerning precisely the issues of fatigue and i must ask you today particularly considering that these very tracks carry volatile substances as well as passengers i must ask you about the amtrak proposal to preconfigure work

schedules for train and engineer service employees at union station and service elsewhere on the northeast corridor. i would like to know if you are continuing to reconfigure these work schedules even after this accident or whether you have stood down on those work schedules for the time being. >> the rue along the northeast corridor for change. the kind of difficulties that were testified to in terms of unprotect double work schedules doesn't really exist a passenger railroads. unless there is unpredictable weather or if we have a problem somewhere on the long-distance train there is a predictable schedule that occurs for

engineers. >> you are mandating 12 hour shifts for employees. >> they are not inundated in 12 hour shifts. they have a period of time that they have betrayed the work schedules that they have. >> let me ask mr. pearce. mr. pearce which you comment on what mr. boardman has said and on the notion of poor lineup in surprise calls to work whether that continues than what the effect has been on workers. >> my comments were a code of the freight and passengers and because they interact on the same tracks, we view that as a related issue. amtrak jobs are scheduled much more than the freight environment but there are cases where shift change is common people rotate from one ship to another to contribute to fatigue. our comments were intended to note the things that can contribute to an safe rail operations and fatigue is one of those identified by the ntsb for

a very long time and is something we continue to get our arms around. >> could we ask a witness from ntsb whether you are looking at fatigue along with the obvious absence if you are looking at issues of possible fatigue, i am can learn about his. i'm assuming we don't have people driving privileges ordinarily go 100 miles around the curb. asking if you are looking at what may have caused the engineer to be driving at excessive speed around this curve. >> we typically look at fatigue and no accident that we have been recommending for years to take management program designed to his principles to determine issues that shape changes. we know that it's difficult on

the circadian flow of a persons body. we've looked at that quite a few years. >> have elected 12 hour work shifts another those are consistent with safety and surprise calls? >> we have looked at a number of methods of shift changes and made recommendations to me to be based on science-based programs to look at the total picture and base them on science. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. boardman, i want to clear up a little confused on the ptc on this track there is a conscious decision. in your testimony said that the institute was in place. but in northbound a blessing because i think i read a report that it was a decision that probably couldn't get enough speed. the maximum speed of 80 miles per hour and the derailment paid

with 93 you said in your testimony. is that correct? >> it is not. it is not ptc. it is not acceleration. is the maximum allowed speed that's 80 miles an hour and the turnover speed on the corner is 98. >> i understand that. i read in a report that the reason it is on the southbound was implemented on the south of -- >> excuse me i want to understand it is not positive train control that we are talking about here. it is automatic train control. it is a major difference in how it operates. that is all. >> so automatic train control is on the southbound track and not the northbound track. so when you talk about the megahertz, that was a ptc, not automatic? the nine megahertz.

>> yes, positive train control fair. >> so there is no positive train control in the southbound. it's automated. >> there is no positive train control on that at all. it is using a code coming out. as for crows. they were really made initially for not having one train run into each other on automatic block system. i am digging into a much date on train deeper peace. >> trained to understand is that little better. does this train has the capability to gain speeds faster than the way previously thought? >> acs 64 has a different performance metric like we have three or four different kinds of locomotives out there that have different care or mistakes. so surprise me that it does. >> i think in 2013 and a hearing

he told chairman shuster what was the biggest priority for the amtrak was the northeast corridor or long-distance services. i believe you responded long-distance services. like the accident are you looking at revisiting matt? the big question here today is why was the ptc on this highly traveled northeast corridor where dollars reprogrammed to other countries for long-distance services? >> no, they weren't. we make decisions based on safety that we knew what i schedule time was in the deadline is going to be december 31st 2015. we were working against that in resolving the problems removed along with other process. >> mr. pearce, in your written testimony you take issue with

ptc replacement as the second member crew of the cab. a number of accidents cited in chairman hart's testimony to determine the ptc would've prevented them not a two-person crew. do you agree with that? >> there is one example cited at red oak iowa that was not a ptc preventable accident. when two trains get in the same block of signal, there is no meaningful way for ptc to avoid collision in the circumstance. we do not believe ptc can actually replace the second crew member because it doesn't do what he does then it isn't always going to prevent a train to train collision. it will be prevented, but not all. >> ms. feinberg, do your ptc the northeast corridor where some of the lies. and for dollars cost? >> i would defer to amtrak on

the actual cost because they think they have predicted it. it is less than that for the northeast corridor and what they have implemented and how far they go to complete implementation. >> i'm sorry i didn't have the base question. >> my previous question that ptc is not implemented at all or parts? >> it is installed. it isn't activated because we needed radio frequency. >> $111 million is where we are for the ptc. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> thank you mr. gibbs. ms. edwards. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses today. i know there's still a lot of facts and many more questions we have to examine before we get the real answers. but i want to follow up with ms. norton's comments. on may 12, my understanding,

mr. pearce the engineer who is operating system and so underrated under a new controversial work schedule that began march 23rd 2015 and not included shorter turnaround times on most runs that has happened in before march 23rd. so i guess i'm just curious as to whether the union or the workers have been consulted prior to the implementation of this new work schedule as to what they believe the impact would be on them. >> yes, they have been. the unions are in discussion about the scheduling of over worst on the assignments are talking about. the assignments as they are in as they replace them as i understand it do not violate federal hours of service and they are not restricted by the current contract language. it is something the parties work out between themselves as the best way to assign jobs and representatives of amtrak are

the ones involved in negotiations now. >> du jour expressed concerns to amtrak about the schedules for the inclusion of the schedules in the new modeling first agile in? >> our representatives have shared their over schedules. >> you feel that has been incorporated in the rule in place? >> i'm not sure i understand the last question. >> do you think that concerns you request about including the demand on scheduling issues that impact the workers have been appropriately included in the new work required that? >> i don't think the process has completed yet so i can't comment on what the final product will be. the parties are discussing it as to what the appropriate assignment and the rest that time should be between those brands. >> to mr. boardman, can you describe for us if you would how

you incorporate fatigue as an element of the modeling when it goes into the work schedule? >> i cannot. >> do you want to incorporated in there? >> i can't describe a modeling for fatigue. in this run there were no changes. it was the same schedule. >> but in developing the model what is said that amtrak does to incorporate worker fatigue, engineer fatigue in the model. >> in terms of whether we would have sufficient rest for the employee, we ensure that is the case. but having a model differently from a mathematical model i am not sure your question. >> mr. hart, when you examine what it is that the number of things that may have gone wrong

how do you look at fatigue and how do you look at the modeling for work schedules? >> we start with the 72 hour history of the person involved and the fact commands us to dig deeper and find out what programs the employer has that would result in the 72 hour pass and we would dig deeper. boomers start with with the 72 hour history. >> ms. feinberg, has the fra involved in the process of implementing previous recommendations from the ntsb? >> on this specific issue, we have to work on fatigue and generally for quite some time are now in the midst of working on a comprehensive rulemaking that would address fatigue. >> because we have done this when there has been transit accidents and other things. when recommendations come from the ntsb how do you decide if

it is not a requirement how does the fra decide whether it is going to implement them because it seems many recommendations remain on the list forever until there is an accident and we look at recommendations again. >> i wish you were as easy as the mts week of a mass recommendations and we just implement them. we have to we have to enter into a rulemaking which probably wouldn't stand up in court. a lot of times we have to enter into a rulemaking that would take years. there are occasionally some ntsb recommendations we may not agree with in chairman hart and i will write back and forth to each other to talk about it and our staff will frequently work together to see if we can come together on it. i think when i arrived at the fra we had 72,000 recommend nations with one of my top

priorities. i think we are down to 63 and we meet weekly to clear the desk every single week. >> time is long expired. >> thank you. among other things and there are members who would defined and tracked generally. this accident and this tragedy pointed out the importance of amtrak i think in ways we should observe. mr. boardman, maybe you can speak to that. i do transportation of goods and people up and down the northeast corridor as a system. but we noticed in those days was a pressure on the highways on aviation and tremendous increase in some of those tickets and

difficulties on the highway. i wonder if you would like to speak to god and it totally. >> certainly. i believe you are right. people understood intellectually a first for shutting down the rabbit would cause a major economic lab for people who want to get to work and not part of the railroad. and so much more emotionally and in their pocketbook because of the problems that occurred in that period of time. they could take one or two days but when it became a shutdown for that period of time their personal economy had suffered and the mobility of the business community had suffered and was

suffering from the increase and the number of cars that were on the highway and the inability to even find a seat by aviation between -- >> i heard tickets over $2000 from new york to d.c. >> i heard an article where it was a pretty high level. one of the things the aviation people did say was the last seat is always much more expensive because the way they price their services. but it's definitely a problem. >> if i remember the numbers correctly, $100 million a day entity. anytime service is shut down on a portion of the northeast corridor, it has a germanic impact which is why we frequently talk about the importance of making sure the northeast corridor is in repair.

>> we are fairly well concluded here that it is not in a state of affair. but one bridge over 100 years old that pay this and could shut down virtually everything. the plans are done it could be built that were funded and that is a point in the system that could virtually wreck everything for a long long time. the $100 million a day in a week would be 700 million. >> of there are multiple checkpoints like that. >> the tunnel underneath the hudson and the baltimore tunnel. it depends on where. >> mr. hart you have a disagreement about audio and in what facing cameras.

and maybe explains yours more thoroughly because you clearly have a difference of opinion and what mr. pearce referred to as un-american. >> thank you for the question. the more we now come of them are typically we can prevent it from happening again. see additional information that helps us be more specific about what causes the crash and be more specific about a recommendation. >> says a public servant an engineer that is not too much to ask. >> well congress assets to improve safety and rethink -- >> i think our position on campus has been somewhat misrepresented. the problem we have is cameras is there's no installation and

railroads run programs on their home without consultation from the labor unions or the people being filmed. >> you think there is a way to do this that could accommodate everyone? >> we have made almost no approval. we have met individually to try and come up with ways to have a reasonable implementation. we have not satisfied our goal yet. >> my time is expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. vile, one of the great angst about being at the end of the questioning is to get to hear all the good ideas. so this is what so far i have heard from suggestions. cameras see the modernizing

the cars more training, more employees that the infrastructure train control those who have lost loved ones i think it is pretty obvious. my question is from a practical point of view what do each of you recommend as the best way to proceed that will keep train travel affordable and recognizing that this congress

has put a sequester on itself. >> humans make mistakes. that is fundamental. they are hard working, try to do the right name, but they make mistakes. that is why positive train control is the most important backup to human error. >> stand a positive train control for a minute. we will be done by the end of this year. that will contribute to the greatest leap in safety for the northeast corridor and positive train control in this nation should be done by this generation of railroaders. in terms of the structure of the northeast corridor, it is no different than what is happening to our interstate highway system and our aviation system.

with the nation must begin to make an equity investment, even if we have to find other ways with third parties and public-private financing. it has to occur for our economy will begin to suffer. that needs to happen. >> in terms of human fact there is some positive train control is a game changer. fatigue management and bring in our infrastructure to a state of good repair. >> i think the positive train control because the only thing that is not a machine on the locomotive is the crew and they are humans and it would be like walking a tightrope without a net and this comes down to a discussion over what level of risk we are willing to take as a nation and how we would find avoiding that risk. >> whoever wants to answer this question, just for the public purpose could you explain the

difficulty in getting positive train control. is it getting the airwaves or the technology. what are the biggest obstacles. i would take a stab at it. for amtrak it has been recently getting the spectrum of radio that we need to ensure the reliability for a system that needs to be vital and needs to be failsafe and that has been the holdup. the move too quickly with the fcc. the testing will occur and we would get this done by the deadline of the northeast corridor. >> do you believe the fcc has been responsive enough? or could they be more helpful? >> we think they have been responsive in the last couple three weeks.

>> how long have you been pushing this through? >> we began to run into problems in 2012 or thereabouts that they began to point us to the private sector to buy the spectrum. >> ms. feinberg. >> it is certainly an issue. it is a complicated technology. it requires a back-office. it requires the spectrum, transponders. it is a complicated technology and takes time. it requires to submit a safety implementation and provide added and changes so we can work together to get them to a place where they are able to implement it. we were saved when safety plan from a railroad more than 5000 pages long. it was appropriately long. so what is a massive

undertaking. we were able to get back to the railroad and provide them with feedback so they can start implementing. it is certainly complicated and expensive. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> ms. frankel, before i recognize mr. bryce, let me remind members we have 20 members in line with that and still before the gavel and is quickly approaching 12:00. if any members would like to submit questions in writing, the committee would be happy to accommodate them. mr. bryce, you are recognized. >> mr. chairman, point of information. did you just ask members who may wish to submit their members than writing or argued limiting to ask questions allowed? >> there is no -- we are not

dictating when the committee will adjourn. we only say if members would like to buy choice center questions in writing the wizard they accommodate them. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will start with mr. hart. we have talked about a number of safety measures that could be added but increase safety on the fly and then some more expensive than some cheaper. we talked about the positive train control and adding seatbelts and having to bulk up the seats. and we are facing cameras among others. between those three, what would be the cheapest to implement? >> we don't get into the cost of implementation. we look at what most effectively improve safety. >> mr. boardman, what is the cheapest among those questioned

dark >> for mass because the authority gotten a positive train control moving forward, it is not a great expense at this point in time and the overall part of it. we don't think the inward facing camera isn't outrageous costs either. >> pretty reasonably priced. why would inward facing cameras in safety? >> because we can use them for efficiency testing. we can see what is going on with the engineer itself. >> you think they might change their behavior? where the pilot program in the system we operate now, metrolink, where there is much less stress than what the engineers that they were going to have. actually it has really helped. >> mrs. feinberg, among those three seatbelts, inward facing camera, what is the most

inexpensive to implement? >> inward facing camera you get more bang for your buck. we are moving forward with both. >> which one do you think would be the cheapest? positive train control ever facing cameras. >> the jury is out. the technology adopted has not even been measured to crash worthiness standards. the technology failed in several collisions said the data was not available. it didn't provide postaccident testing it is provided for. >> why do we have inward facing cameras? this feinberg, why do we have those now? >> we do have inward facing cameras now. many of those have implemented. >> why isn't everyone on this train? >> some have chosen not to implement inward facing cameras.

we may take interim step to recommend and were facing cameras. >> why haven't they been mandated? >> the issue has been for us to mandate that. railroads are moving ahead with them. >> mr. boardman, why haven't they been inundated? >> i don't have the answer to the mandate. we've been supporting that did occur. >> why haven't you required it? it would be very inexpensive. >> i have required. >> i did not make the decision myself to do that. we have been supporting the rail safety advisory committee and discussing. >> the would've argued against? >> it has to do with how the data is used and whether it is going to be appropriately used. >> is that privacy issues? >> i have to let the engineers answer that.

>> mr. pearce. >> it is not of a privacy issue. it is the way they are implemented. no safeguards. >> it's not going to hurt anything. why would they have inward facing cameras to increase safety? >> you are suggesting we are going to change behavior that suggests intentional bad behavior and i would argue that it's inappropriate or not an accurate exponent patient. >> we've had proven cases of bad behavior two years ago there was a driver who says he fell asleep going into a curb and people were killed. we don't know what happened in this case. >> i don't consider fatigue that behavior. >> if they are on camera they might be a little more aware of their surrounding. >> i don't think the camera will cure fatigue. it will not make you less tired. >> i suspect it would be a great

increase in changing behavior. i want to ask one more question. mr. hart, you said you are looking up phone data for the last three weeks and it was complicated by a change of time zones. how many times you cross philadelphia? >> the time zones at the time zones and the phone system because of the california-based carrier and so the time zones would talk about her in the phone not the time zone in the tests. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. boardman, i feel confident based on your testimony that for at least the northeast corridor that you are going to be able to complete ptc in a timely way by 2015. i wanted to know whether you believe we have the resources and technology to track at least

two complete ptc across the country by 2015. >> amtrak doesn't have the responsibility to actually implement ptc across the country on host railroads for the most part. a couple of class very railroads in kansas city and the other in st. louis believe we need the ones to implement train control and those communities. the rest is primarily the class one railroads and our part would be to implement in locomotives and we will be ready we believe when they had their positive train control available. >> amtrak in california, you say you are not responsible they are? >> if it is not powerline, we are not responsible. >> okay. this feinberg, in terms of implementation, are there any penalties that would be imposed for railroads that have not met

the implementation? >> we have significant discretion in how we would impose penalties but we are having an internal conversation now about how we will go about enforcing the deadline. >> and when will you complete the task and the public what now? >> in the coming weeks i would say. >> in the coming weeks. this feinberg i also wanted to follow up with you just in terms of your opinion and blew a full implementation of ptc. do you think a two-person crew is something that would be an appropriate safety net for the short term? it doesn't sound to me like there's full implementation by 2015. certainly the airlines have to crew member. do you think that a sound and

that could be a short-term or interim safeguard? >> certainly that is one of the things we take a close look at and a week at the league could be an interim solution along with additional backstops as well. there are some places where that two people in the cab may not be possible that you could have additional folks on the train communicating back and forth. >> why would two people in a cab not be possible in some instances? just not enough room. mr. hart, same question to you. do you believe a two-person crew might be an interim solution before it is fully implemented? >> our experience is limited. there haven't been that many. from my limited experience we don't find two-person crews are an improvement over single person crews. >> it just seems to be

commonsense if you have another two people driving a train that if one person falls asleep the other person as they are to take over. >> and carried that is true. two people can fall asleep. two people can be distracted. it is limited because we don't have that many two-person crews. we are not fighting them to be a safety improvement. >> thank you, sir. i would feel bad. >> mr. perry. >> mr. chairman, thank you. it is my understanding he would like to be healed sometime to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a quick question for ms. feinberg. safety is important across the entire country and my home state of california ptc is slow to be implemented as well. 3.7 billion was put to california high-speed rail. the money has now been transferred to cal train. it has been transferred to

400 million of -- to help implement the terminal. why are we not transferring money to do ptc on the connector routes in california? >> we have asked for significant funding for implementation for the commuters. if you have the high-speed rail authority. >> e.u. stimulus dollars in different places in california for a change in terminal but not using for ptc. high-speed rail. the connector routes has the money if that money is available.

>> 600 million -- >> so you're saying it's a priority you have it then it was then a quick enough in california? >> by the end of the year. >> just for the record we are spending california high-speed rail dollars on many different areas in california to do other things. we are far behind on ptc and has not been a priority in california. >> you're asking if we could take stimulus dollars to high-speed rail and transferred to ptc i don't believe that would be in keeping with the great agreement, but we can take a look and come back with a formal response, but i don't think that would be in keeping with the grant agreement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. reclaiming my time ms. feinberg, i just want to establish something.

there has been an assertion or lease an implication made in this committee that congress itself and maybe certain individuals for a certain party responsible financially for the mishap, the accident in philadelphia. i want to get the facts straight. it is my understanding that fra has stated a lack of public sector fund and may cause unwanted delays in fully implementing ptc. also it would cost about 100 dirty $1.2 million to fully implement positive train control on the northeast corridor of the track that amtrak goes. over 12 years they lasted billion dollars in fees surveys. it is also the factor general's opinion that amtrak is large bonuses to ineligible management and staff. the 31 million amtrak tickets

sold last year were subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of 42 to $350 apiece and this particular makes anywhere from 400 million to $500 million a year. plus we give amtrak, the taxpayers fund amtrak from 1.32 whatever billion dollars a year. how come they can't spend 10% of what they lost in food service on positive train control and is a commerce of positive train -- is that fra's assertion it is congresses fault that ptc wasn't funded in the northeast corridor? >> amtrak has said they would implement ptc by the congressionally mandated deadline of december 31st 2015. we agree with them they can meet the deadline. >> so it is not a funding issue.

>> amtrak does not have a funding issue in terms of ptc. they will make the deadline. >> it does not have a funding issue by the deadline. it is not congresses fault. correct or not correct. >> amtrak has said they will make the deadline. we've had many conversations about the need or request to give additional assistance to commuter railroads to meet the deadline. we've also requested assistance for amtrak to meet the deadline. >> one last question, mr. chairman. before i came here, 2009 $800 billion in stimulus was passed in the majority to infrastructure. if ptc was such a concern, how much was spent understanding 131.2 million a small percentage would be required to fully implement the northeast corridor. how much was spent, allocated by

this congress, how much was spent at the touch of priority? do you know? >> will have to get back to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> ms. brown coming after five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. s. former ranking member and a strong supporter of rail my heart goes out to the families and individuals who suffered in the wake of the amtrak train around the that occurred recently in philadelphia. i personally want to thank today's panelists for their hard work and dedication and the employees during this terrible disaster. i want to particularly thank you for your leadership. i know that you all monitor the

train and the rate that the speed. can you discuss what safeguards you have in place with your locomotives and engineers. >> yes, ma'am. i don't think you were here earlier when i said we ought and check to the speed. we've had 60,000 checks of speed since january 1st to 14. but do that through radar and by downloading equipment to find out what speed they are traveling. >> yes sir. i was here the entire time. i just wanted you to repeated again. positive train control. that is one of the most important aspects of safety. but we talked about is the car itself and we talked about the

crew as a combination. can you expound on that little bit? >> certainly. positive train control is a system layered on top of several systems we operate today. one of them automatic train control and every time there's a temporary speed change, we used a manual system because the dispatcher and the engineer has to write down what has occurred here. so we use all the way from the manual system to a positive train control system in order to ensure we operate safely and we do run a safe railroad. >> mr. hart other than train control and that facing cameras what are the other safety measures we need to put in place? >> thank you for the question. we've heard lots of talk about fatigue. the infrastructure is always an issue in terms of the made men

and the state of repair. we are looking at the totality of circumstances for the train to stay on the track so we want to make sure that happens. you've all -- g think there's a training the employees need. >> data something we we take a look at now. but the package they put together >> mr. pearce, but about the employees i want to commend the employees did not want job and it was being monitored as soon

as it happened. but additional training do you think the employees need? >> i think the training is in large part the normal operations training. disaster training is something we don't hope we will ever have to experience. i'm not sure exactly to what extent the difference as to how much actual accident type training the employees receive. i have to defer to mr. boardman on not. >> so what amtrak does today as an emergency management system working in concert with first responders up and down the corridor and across the country with police departments and we have an incident command structure that was a requirement in the blog that we have a family assistance program. we work with the ntsb to make sure we stand data properly. we depend on firsters wanders in communities such as philadelphia

in this particular case but we have an ongoing good relationship with bad the fra and ntsb to make sure we have the proper training in disaster drills across the country. >> my time is running out. what i would like from each of the members in writing are some of the infrastructure projects we need in the northeast corridor like the baltimore turns and other things to make sure we in congress do what we need to do. when my colleagues implied money is not the issue. some of the tamils -- we went up on the train and talk to people along the way. we know there are many tamils and infrastructure conditions that need to be upgraded. >> i asked for a response.

>> we will provide the list for you congresswoman. >> you are recognized for five minutes. [inaudible] >> will provide to the questions in writing but we ask our response and infrastructure needs from each of you. mr. wiki that, you that you're recognized for five minutes. >> i think the witnesses for your testimony. following up on some questions that a party ben asked. i want to go to you about what seems to be in your testimony a right to privacy and the locomotive cab but they were facing cameras. is that the location or not? >> i didn't say right to privacy.

there are privacy concerns about storage of data. i don't think anyone in this room was to see their last moments as they are killed to be floating around youtube. steps need to be taken to be sure that data is protected and used for what everybody seems to think it should be used for which is postaccident testing. >> it seems like that is covered in other modes of transportation. surely that can be worked out. >> to date it has not been worked out. there is no regulation. fra has started it on campus but until there's a regulation and the railroads are running programs, each one independent of each other in the storage is different on every railroad. >> right. however gruesome photo or whatever the situation might be when you are on the job you don't agree there is a right to privacy, do you?

>> you are kind of putting words in my mouth. >> is a yes or no question. you don't agree for a right to privacy? >> i don't see it as a yes or no answer. >> there is a right to privacy when you are on the job. >> there should be a reasonable application of the relation of cameras. we have not been afforded the opportunity. >> to airline pilots have a right to privacy on the blackbox or anything like that? >> it is my understanding faa made a presentation about the model to airline industry uses and i was in our recommendation because we would embrace that. it has not been offered to us. [inaudible] >> yes. >> okay, great. following up on the line of questioning on the $800 billion spent on stimulus projects --

i'm sorry i've got ahead in the way. mr. boardman do you have any experience or recollection a rainy kind of numbers regarding how much of the hundred billion was spent a year ago? >> 800 william? >> yeah, part of the stimulus package. >> 800 billion is not a number that rings a should amtrak would love to have 800 billion. don't get me wrong. >> of the stimulus funds, how much was spent in your estimation? >> we did not spend any stimulus money on ptc per se unless there is some particular part of another project because that wasn't what it was used for. it was looking for real

investment in the name of tape rage, for example and also rebuilding the whole section. >> was very prohibition? was there a legal prohibition your experience against using stimulus fund? >> they were looking for infrastructure projects. >> ms. feinberg, can you add anything to that? do you think there's a legal prohibition against stimulus funds for ptc? >> i'm sorry, i don't think there was a legal prohibition. i don't think so. >> why do you think we didn't use find that that is the case? do you have any estimation of the amount of stimulus fund used? >> to take all the stimulus dollars and give it to amtrak and implement ptc, i'm not sure

that is something that occurred to anyone. i don't think it was even discussed. >> briley because it is being discussed like it was a no-brainer high-priority wanting to be done for decades since 1969. this never occurred you might use some of these funds? >> the congress mandated by the deadline we approach now. i do not know if there was the subject you all discussed at the time. >> i'm asking if you discussed it, anyone in the industry. the regulators are all testify and this is such an important provision whose concept came about in 1969 i think is what ranking member of fazio stated. ..

>> mr. boardman, $800 billion estimate is fun, isn't it true amtrak out about 1.1 billion total? >> i'm sorry, sir? >> of the 800 billion statements fund, 240 going with tax cuts, not spending, isn't it true that amtrak was allocated 1.1 billion? talking 1.1 billion not 800 -- >> i think it was 1.4 1.3. >> and the total cost and that was basically congress

instructed you to spend that on projects that were ready to go ss as possible from infrastructure projects, is that correct speak with that's correct. >> you spend it on what in broad terms? >> some additional infrastructure -- >> infrastructure bridges and so forth which i assume catching up spent on those that would've been safety problems? >> yes. >> okay. so the basic -- thank you. amtrak has requested $36.4 million to over the ptc fiscal year 2016. does this go beyond finishing the implementation of ptc by the end of this calendar you? >> yes. this is off the northeast corridor. this isn't on the spine of the quarter. the spine of the quarter will be done by the end of december but we are the work that we need to get done. >> and amtrak have implemented

ptc center if they had more federal funds? >> had become a while ago, yes but not now. >> it and trap -- but if amtrak had -- >> if we had it up in the amount of money to move forward yes. >> okay. to switch topics for a moment. the tunnels into new york have been described as ticking time bombs because of damage from salt water during hurricane sandy. what's the status of those tunnels? what would happen if he would go out of service and how much fun it is necessary to prevent that from happening? >> we found out this when what would happen if if you went out of service because with so much ice. we had regular ice patrols that have been knocked down the ice. when it happened you went from being able to move 24 trains an hour down to six trains an hour. we got a lot of complaints from new jersey transit and from amtrak riders that they had to wait outside one of the tubes in order to get into new york city.

so that's exactly what is -- >> went from 24 trains an hour to six trains an hour is the only rail access into new york city from new jersey would have a significant effect on the economy? >> absolutely. >> and you quantified it all? >> i will for you. i would get back to you with that answer. >> police. i understand amtrak is a $21 billion backlog of projects on the northeast corridor just to achieve a state of good repair? >> that's what the commission developed and produced yes. >> do you have any source of funding speak with no more so than what we did each year. >> how much is in the budget that the house just passed? >> 1.39 was what we had last year and i think -- >> that's the total. that's not just for projects on the nec speed and not just for the projects on -- >> $21 billion necessary just to get up just a good repair in the

northeast corridor. how much was appropriated for the purpose or available for the purpose of the amount of funds voted by the house a couple of weeks ago. >> there were some dollars specifically identified for offensive our gateway system not capital dollars for us to actually build it. >> no, capital dollars at all? okay so zero over 21 a pretty good ratio. now we have heard ms. feinberg come we have heard that amtrak will have ptc, positive train control, in place by the end of the year at least on the spine a little later elsewhere. what's the status the pdcf limitation another passenger rail lines and other commuter rails quick so we take for commuter lines line such as those in the new york area to meet the deadline? >> they are struggling, very much struggling to meet the deadline. we just completed a loan to india for almost a billion dollars to assist with the pdcf limitation. it does not reach the deadline.

that will go beyond the deadline. >> do we have been asked and asked when the commuter rails across the country are likely to be able to implement ptc? >> it varies dramatically but anywhere from 16 to 18 to 20. >> in other words, year to two to four years after the deadline deadline. and we know the possible safety repercussions. let me just say that the transportation appropriations bill on the floor includes no money for commuter line such as metro-north to install ptc. amtrak funds this out of federal capital grants which which is cut by $290 million. despite the fact that a $21 billion backlog to achieve a state of good repair in the nec we spend about $50 billion on highways and about $16 billion on $17 billion on aviation, and $1.2 billion unreal. there's something very wrong with the appropriations process.

and for us to sit here and not understand that the fact that congress has been starving amtrak as a large role to play in what we are talking about is putting our heads in the sand. i yield back. >> mr. costello. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start with ms. feinberg. i want to thank you for your time and attention the day following the tragedy when chairman denham, ranking member cap on myself when i visited the site. my question to you relates -- cap want to -- restrictions around with operating employees use of cellular telephones and other electronic devices. the final rule in which the secretary essentially delegated to you duty to exercise the authority to prohibit the use of personal electronic devices that may distract employers from safely performing their duties. dfar a study of railroad

operating a place where increasingly using distracting electro- devices in a manner that could hazards and i'm going to the federal registrar dated monday september 27, 2010. and i found this particular interesting forms the basis of my question. relating to access to employees personal cell phone records fra has decided that a provision mandating that railroads require operating at least to provide access to personal cell phone records in the event of an accident is unnecessary for every purposes. instead fra currently uses its investigative authority of the personal cell phone records when appropriate. is that what you're doing now? in other words, to your investigative arm not -- that's how you're getting the personal cell phone records? >> that's correct. so following the accident we subpoenaed of those records. >> and in looking come we talked about inward looking cameras i think is the true. if you had inward looking

cameras, with the operating engineer at that point of view would be able to ascertain whether it personal cell phone was being used correct? >> that's one of the purposes of an inward facing camera. >> is there concern that without the inward facing camera there i did did also go to this rule in detail, there are times throughout the ride when it would be an operating engineer would legitimately be able to look at their personal cell phone? >> the regulation is the phone should be off and stored. >> should be, right. okay. if we had an inward facing camera we would know already if that were the case. >> yes. and the inward facing camera i think would also provide as information after an accident, which would be useful. we wouldn't be needing to have this debate at the moment.

>> so my question next turns to mr. pearce. i understand i think you're making a distinction between privacy concerns and a right to privacy. i sort of intuited that from some your testimony, some the questions that you were answering. can you talk a little bit more about this reasonable implementation? i'm a little concerned when we're talking about the privacy concerns of an individual operating engineer who would be taped while there in the performance of their duties because essentially you have to balance that against the public safety considerations of the 200 or 300 plus passengers who are in the trinket and i think a lot of us are concerned that your testimony seems to suggest that we need to really focus on the privacy concerns of the operating engineer and not some of the public safety assurances and some of the information that would be elicited if you have inward facing cameras moving

forward. i want to give you an opportunity to sort of share with me a little bit more, share with us all a bit more what it is about these privacy concerns that you hold so dear on behalf of your membership. >> well, thank you. i do want to first comment about the comments made earlier about litigation when cameras started the unions didn't go to court to block cameras. the railroad took us to court to install the but i think the record needs to be clear on who actually started the litigation effort in or to install cameras. the cameras installed so for any country bent on freight railroads printed on class one properties. those cameras run 24/7 weather the train is moving or the train is stopped and with crew members i can sit on a train for up to six hours without moving. we passed the railroad shut the cameras off it is a safety sensitive duties he performed and they have refused. it is a privacy concern. >> what about -- >> right now they run 24/7. the parts were taken exception

to i'm trying to identify. we have instead that there should be an outright prohibition. we've said the invitation has been done in a way to our dispute over it. >> do you believe there's a sound public policy in favor of having an inward facing camera on the operating engineer at all times during the moving of the passenger rail? >> i know that that's what interest is added but -- >> that could be aes or no answer. >> chesley and all of the activity of india are already recorded on an event recorder is a technology of the control stand. all week is a picture of what he does. we already know with exception of cell phone use what he does spent my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> just to round out the point on funding. well first of all ms. feinberg, congratulations on being named the future administrator. i want to point out that

throughout this process my time with the committee here been exceptionally responsive incredible helpful to us in some new ways and i'm excited to see you're going to be continuing in this role. on the point on funding, the point is that in the grow america act you include $800 million for commuter rail systems to help them speed up the invitation of ptc right? >> right. >> we are not just what about amtrak. amtrak is doing less their act together on this, right speak with amtrak is in the u.s. their act together. i would say metrolink is in good shape. >> when the great tragedies about this accident is the fact is that amtrak is in the best position of all the major rail systems where concerned about and this life-saving technology. that are real and important questions about what happened here and blog buzz among them is not some fish of amtrak lagging

behind other systems in its implementation of ptc come isn't that right? >> that's correct. they are everyone else. >> beside the point to talk about what amtrak is doing with respect to the federal funding the point is that the federal funding is absolutely critical for the other systems like metro-north. we know the crash would've been prevented by ptc. i want to thank you again for approving $969 loan to metro-north to get the system moving faster with the installation of ptc. you worked with us close all my legislation included in the passenger rail to with the assistance of mr. denham and others so that we could make explicitly clear that risk funding is available because money is the issue, right? >> correct spent of all the people ought to be apologizing for this accident a kidnapping because we don't have a safety systems in place, innocents

congress made it onto the top about this, wouldn't that be fair to say? >> i think i would be fair to say. >> when mr. boardman comes in here was clearly heartsick over this episode and is doing everything he can and will meet this deadline and expressed his heartfelt it might be nice -- what to say to the american people is being compromised because we are dithering instead of investing in our own country come isn't that you? >> yes. >> thank you. we've got 30 accidents and 59 deaths and 1200 injuries, and this is the first one of amtrak because women had one amtrak like this in -- >> that's right spend most of the deaths and injuries are occurring isn't that correct? >> that's right. >> thank you. so much, so much for whether funding matters for safety. i have a couple of other specific questions

mr. boardman, maybe can help me out. you said on the northbound trains approach at 80 miles an hour at this junction and southbound trains approach at 110 miles an hour. so they installed this is what ended the episode at least to get to the dram at speeds of 90 on the southbound side. isn't it the fact that the required speed for the corridor 45 miles per hour when you slow down. note you don't just love down to a speed equal to or less than a derailment speed. you actually go down about half of it, right? >> are down to 50-mile per hour speed for a safety measure from the 98. >> if that's that's the case to recommend us be going to is that even though the approach is below a derailment speed, it's not recommended that you take at 80 can't even though -- >> know and we been going around the corner since the '30s and the same construct is there. >> but it was featured in engineer take that corner? >> fifty miles an hour spent

northbound, 50. it was just an oversight not to put the apcs system that workforce reduction in speed to 50? >> no. what is happening because of the incident, the entire community of safety folks along with the regulator look at what was reasonable for us as an industry to do. and what was reasonable was to make sure that we put in six locations a code change because only one you could do to was 45 miles an hour and that was where you were approaching at a speed that would overturn the train in the corridor. >> and that's what we are working on now. we will close back at the last question mr. hart. can you just tell seeking in plain english what we don't know whether this operator was on the phone three weeks after the accident what you said it was at times an issue? do we have the records? if so what we know whether he was on the phone? >> we do have records. engineer was very cooperative. even gave us the password to a

cell phone. we have all of that. we found more and more competent issues related to the fact that the taxes on one time zone, the call is on another time zone. it turned out to be far more competent than anyone anticipated. >> we will be able to determine whether the phone was operated at the time of the accident or shortly before? >> yes. >> thank you sir for the extraordinary work your agency does. i've seen it up close and its extraordinary how professional and how efficient you guys are so thank you all. >> ms. comstock. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow on that. after three weeks i am very frustrated that we don't have a timeline today in any way shape, or form. to the extent we have one indicates the train departed at 9:10 and the crash is at 9:21.

in terms of the phone records, follow-up on that, since the requirements it should be turned off and stored, do we know if the phone was turned off and stored during at 9:10- 9:10-9:21 timeframe? >> we know the wishes of the phone on that day may 12. that's what we're trying to do to get the specifics of your question. >> i just texted back my daughter yes, i can babysit on friday, 11:42 to get some iphone appeared if it was a california but i guess it might say 8:42 continue to figure it out. and three weeks after, why can't we take those 11 minutes and have a timeline i think for the victims and their families to have that type of information? i just understand what the hold up is? >> we had no idea would be this couple did when we started down this path either. it's been far more complicated

than any of us anticipated to be able to not only get the records on the phone but also to verify -- >> but once the device is turned off? if the device was turned off and you could not have used it between 910-and 9:21 right? >> one of the things were determined is what it was turned on or off. off. >> given to three hours in california your timeline within certain limits. if you used the phone within a certain hours you would know whether it's possible or not. like if my fonts at 8:42 instead of 11:42 you know was an issue but if it said 7:42 you would know it's not possible. i'm just trying to understand why this is so complicated. >> we found discrepancies within the carriage own time systems were it didn't even agree with itself. we've got a lot to work out it was for more competent than we anticipated. >> how much would it cost us to not allow an engineer to have a phone and a cap in?

>> i couldn't speak to that question. >> would it cost anything speak with we don't deal in the cost -- >> my interest in is the regulations of the railroads have the right to government to own more stringent rules. why can't we today just that you're not allowed to have your personal devices in the cabin period just like when we go to trust -- classified briefings we can't break again. why can't we just did a? >> i would defer to ms. feinberg. ms. feinberg. >> railroads can certainly put that into place. >> it would not be a cost issue, which is? >> i would not think so. >> would you all feel safer if someone did not have a device we would be three weeks later tried to tell someone they had a device and were using it at the time? >> it would make our investigation easier. >> but if we implement the policy that you said don't have a device is in there, period but if you need to use a device step out of the cabin use it when you're stopped but you are not

physically go into. is there an issue about why is about to? >> again i would have to defer to the regulators and to the railroads on that. >> does anyone think there would be a cost to removing personal devices from a cap in? >> use of the device is already prohibited. you're talking about an additional prohibition i'm sure the ntsb would also investigate compliance with the prohibition just like they do with today's prohibition. >> what kind of compliance issues either asked what kind of spot checks on the right now to know whether or not short of an exit whether someone is using their phone or texting during their time in the can? >> certain locomotives now are equipped with cell phone detection equipment. it can be detected. >> did this cabin have been? >> i don't know the answer to that at this point but what -- >> it seems like the least no

cost safety solution it is today to say just don't recommend. >> whatnots a detectable is whether someone manipulate the phone but not sending a signal -- >> but you did find, the cell phone was in the cabin that they? >> yes. >> and wasn't turned off or not? >> do not know the answer to that. >> does anybody know what it was turned on or off? .com and not know that at this point was that the regulation. so if it was on it was a regulation violation. >> i'm saying i don't know at this moment. >> anybody here come any of the witnesses today know that? >> i would just say that as the ntsb lead to the investigation we partner with them and your own investigation. or has not been a concern on the fra part that we will not figure this information out. it's a little complicated. >> i understand that this is something that's a easy to find it quickly and then we could

know, like this chinquapin taken the day after. until we know, we know there was a cell phone in there. why would you say you're not going to bring a cell phones in the cabin anymore? because a lesson we can tell me there's a safety concern about not having -- my grandfather worked on the railroad for 40 years a safety worked on them for years without a cell phone to understand they got is a cell phone issue that you need to have it in the cabin for safety purposes? >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> transportation fun is the focus of it in the u.s. house. over on c-span members are working on the 2016 transportation, housing and urban department spending bill. members are expected to vote on amendments to the legislation. live coverage of u.s. house on c-span and the set you on c-span2. >> the house picks up the

appropriations bill, the transportation, housing and urban development bill and were joined by the stephanie beasley covers transportation issues for bloomberg be ended. let's start off with the overall spending levels. how much is proposed this year and how does it compare to last year and what the president wants this year? >> guest: so the bill is going to the house floor today proposes about $55.3 billion. so as you say that covers this petition and for the transportation department this is about $1 billion less than what they received last year in fiscal year 2015. so part of the issue is the president has proposed about $9.7 billion over all more than what this house bill includes. so i'm expecting a lot of debate today asked the bill hits the floor this evening. >> host: it's an annual issue the funding event track and how much does come out and dispel post-amtrak. how much money will we see and what is it a big issue this year? >> guest: so this year the

bill has been put forth by the house with a amtrak money but about $260 million. the reason why that's such a big issue is that the anti course of course and check out an accident earlier in me and and this bill came right after that accident. so democrats are saying this is really the wrong time to get amtrak funding and it would like to see higher levels. but the republicans of course have invited them that they are sequestration caps that sort of basically limit how much lawmakers able to spend. if democrats want to see more money than they need to offset what they want to see for amtrak. >> host: on the philadelphia doing what you covered the house transportation and the other detested c-span indication of funding came up during the hearing. who were the chief proponents for more funding for amtrak and those who saying no we have to stick with the plan? >> guest: well again democrats took the lead on the

issue and peter defazio is a democrat from oregon talked about the fact that republicans really have proposed lower levels for amtrak. you would like to see higher levels particularly so the amtrak and other railroad passenger railroads can intimate what's known as positive train control, which is an anti-coalition technology that the national transportation safety board has said could have prevented this accident in philadelphia a few weeks ago >> host: the white house has already issued a veto threat against the business transportation and housing and urban development bill largely based on the amtrak funding or are there other issues the white house is concerned about? >> guest: largely based on amtrak and also those reduction for the pipeline hazard agencies. he said overly find the funding level for the transportation department to be insufficient. as you said he has threatened to veto the bill should it get out

of congress. >> host: before congress broke for the memorial day recess to pass a two-month patch for the highway funding. what does this transportation and housing bill proposed to do about the highway funding measure? >> guest: so the highway funding in this bill would stay about the same as it was for fiscal year 2015, but that's contingent of course the lawmakers come up with a long-term or some kind of reauthorization bill in july. it's only a two-month patch by this is to get back to july lawmakers wanted to get what they want to do next. and so far they haven't identified a long-term funding mechanism for highway. so that will be interesting to see. >> host: we've touched me in on transportation issues by any other issues you expected, during debate? >> guest: i don't know of course i cover transportation, but some of the issues that might come come up, there are some policy writers on this bill, notably some dealing with truck

safety, the department of transportation has proposed a rule that would limit how long truck drivers are able to drive without rest. so that's something i expect to be controversial. there's also a policy writer into that would block travel to and from cuba by plane or boat. so that's something i definitely expect to hear about as debate on the bill gets to the court's. >> host: stephanie beasley covers transportation issues and you can follow her on twitter. thanks for joining us. >> guest: thank you. >> ascended is meeting to continue debate on defense department programs and policy for 2016. they will vote on two amendments, one did it with the stryker military vehicle and another on veterans administration contract. that is expected at about 10:15 each of the and other -- andthe defense authorization bill

allows up to $612 billion next year for pentagon weapons and military programs. funding is limited due to this question so increases would come from overseas war finds. the bill includes 1.5% pay increase for military personnel and start shifting military personnel from pension plans into 401(k) retirement plans. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal father, in who we live and move and have our being, from who we come and to whom we

go at last, in this quiet moment of prayer we praise you for your providence that undergirds our nation and its leaders. let your kingdom come and your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. today, give our lawmakers grace to distinguish between that which is nation-serving and that which is self-serving. make them committed to serving you by serving others. give them the wisdom to separate the important from the unimportant, the big concern

from the trivial contention. use our senators for the betterment of this nation and the building of your kingdom. and, lord, we thank you for the wonderful work of our pages. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the sna the will continue its work on the defense authorization act today. both the republican and democratic bill mearption have called for senators on both sides to get their amendments offered so we can get the process moving. i would urge all of my colleagues to do so. now, mr. president on another matter we've heard a lot about the supreme court's supreme court's imminent decision. no one can be sure how the court will rule. one thing we know is this: obamacare is a mess. it's a law filled with broken promises one that's been plagued by failure and one that's caused costs to skyrocket for millions. after the supporters of this law

promised the costs would actually fall. i speak to you now in the wake of a bombshell admission from the administration that many insurers are now requesting to raise premiums by double digits all across the country. numbers for kentucky, for instance just came out yesterday. most of the insurers on the commonwealth's obamacare exchange are looking to raise premiums. some of the proposed increases are as high as 25% and some kentuckians may now face double-digit premium increases for the second or even the third year in a row. this is more bad obamacare news for the people i represent and in some states the proposed increases are even more alarming if you can believe it. kentuckians can look next door for proof of that where some hoosiers could be hit with a 46% jump in their premiums, or they can look south to tennessee

they'll see the premium hikes of 36% have been proposed. these are huge numbers. they affect real people. we've seen the truth of that statement in the stories we hear from constituents about how obamacare's massive cost burdens affect all of them. take the kentucky small business owner who wrote to say this his plan is now being canceled thanks to obamacare. here's what he had to saivment "my monthly premium will increase from $610 to approximately $1,200. from $600 to $1,200, he said, and this is with a very high deductible. " or another constituent said she can no longer afford her silver plan after the premium spiked by more than 15%. "i was forced to take the bronze

planning," she said, "which isn't worth the paper or ink to print it on." these are the kind of stories that have become all too familiar in the age of obamacare. they're compounded by a continual drip, drip of bad news about this law. like the recent report that showed how obamacare's multibillion-dollar attack on hospitals in kentucky is expected to result if a net loss -- a net loss -- of $1 billion over the next few years. a net loss of $1 billion to kentucky hospitals. mr. president, this is after obamacare already compelled taxpayers to shell out billions for web sites that never worked along with some pretty sad and desperate but expensive taxpayer-financed markets campaigns that usually just directed people to a nightmare not affordable health care. take oregon, for instance.

taxpayers spent over $300 million on that state's exchange, only to have it taken over by the federal government, and then along with the obamacare exchange in massachusetts placed under federal criminal investigation. or look at hawaii, which received more than $205 million to establish its exchange. we learned just last month that the hawaii ex-chapping is planning to -- exchange is planning to shut down operations by september 30, since lawmakers couldn't decide on a path forward to pay for it. and then there's vermont. "the new york times" this morning reported on the spectacular crash of vermont's even more ambitious version of obamacare. many on the left thought vermont's experiment would light the way forward on health care. in any event it turned out to be a remarkable failure and as one vermonter put it, an unending money pit. the state's top health official

now says that obamacare's exchanges just weren't set up for success. that's in vermont. obamacare is hitting small and midpriced businesses, too. these are engines of job growth in our economy. but too many of them are now facing premium hikes of more than 20% because of obamacare. one 54-person company in connecticut is facing up to $100,000 in new costs. its own says that obamacare punishes companies for hiring new, younger workers. and, indeed, the uncertainty is causing her company to hire temporary workers rather than create permanent jobs. so while it's impossible -- while it's possible that obamacare will survive its latest crisis, that's not going to change the grim, grim reality of that law. it won't change the broken promises it won't change the

repeated failures, and it won't change the fact that obamacare has led to skyrocketing costs for taxpayers or the small businesses that drive the american dream and most importantly for middle-class americans who work hard every single day and play by the rules. it's about time the president and his party worked constructively with us to start over on real health reform that can lower costs and increase choice instead of hurting the middle class the way obamacare does. that's what the american people deserve. and on one final matter, several weeks ago i had the pleasure of meeting with the speaker of the burmese parliament on his lift to washington. it was the third time we've met. we had a cordial but frank discussion about the challenges and opportunities facing his country in 2015. there are obviously many issues that fall into both categories.

when it comes to challenges, there's the need for the government to do all it can to protect and assume responsibility for members of a long-suffering religious minority group the rahinga thousands who have been faced to take to the high seas to escape persecution. there's the long-standing need for the government to continue its work with other ethnic minorities toward a permanent peace agreement that calls for political settlements. in order to end a conflict as old as the modern burmese state itself. and then there's the need for constitutional reform to enhance civilian control of the military along with more progress on efforts to protect liberties like freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom offreedom of aseem blivment these are just a few of the challenges facing burma in to 156789 but it is also clear that burma that is come a long way from where it

was just a few years ago. reform has been offered. change has occurred. and considering the conditions within burma when reform began this is no small achievement. that's why there are opportunities as well. the parliamentary election that will be held later this year represents a clear opportunity to demonstrate how far burma has progressed. there's some encouraging signs that the election will be more credible more inclusive and more transparent than what we've seen in the past in that country. unlike recent burmese elections international election monitors have been permitted to observe. by and large the work of the union election commission has been encouraging thus far especially as it relates to serious efforts to modernize the voter rolls and to make it easier to run for office. and our embassy under the capable leadership of ambassador

derrick mitchell, has been engaged in the process as well. so these are all positive signs but it's going to take a sustained commitment by their president's government to ensure free and fair election, as free and fair an election as possible takes place in fall. because for all the positive change we've seen in recent years, it's obvious that burma still has much, much further to go and there are signs that it's political reform effort has begun to falter, which is worrying for all of us who care about the burmese people. it doesn't mean burmese officials can't turn things around. i believe they can, which is what i indicated to the speaker when i met with him. i believe there's still time before the next critical test of burburma's slow critical election

this ought tom. there still may be time to amend the constitution, for instance, to ensure that it promotes rather than inhibits burma's democratic development. it's hard to claim democratic legitimacy with a constitution that unreasonably limit whose can run for president or that effectively lacks in a parliamentary veto for the military. at the very least the six-party talks that we've seen between their president opposition leader aung san suu kyi the military groups and others certainly represents progress. it should continue in a sustained fashion. i also hope to see further progress on the draft national cease-fire reached between the burmese government and representatives from 16 ethnic groups in march. those of us who follow burma want the country to succeed. we want it to you can is succeed in carrying out a transparent and

successful election on a broad scale. we in that this standard goes far beyond simply holding an election without mass casualties or violence. it needs to be more thank just holding an election without mass casualties or violence. it means the lead-up to the election must be transparent inexclusive and credible, too. it means there should not be political favoritism shown by the state or its media organs. it means freedom of expression of the press and of a peaceful asystemly must be ensured. it means citizens must be allowed to vote without harassment and it means they must be granted equal opportunity to organize, campaign without fear and violence. these basic standards of fairness are minimum goals that burmese officials must strive towards. if the burmese government gets this right if it ensures a transparent, inclusive and credible election, with results

accepted by competing parties that would go a long, long way toward reassuring burma's friends around the globe that it remains committed to political reform. but if we end up with an election not accepted by the burmese people, as reflecting their will, it will make further normalization of relations at least as it concerns the legislative branch of our government much more difficult. for example such an outcome would likely hinder further enhancement of u.s.-burma economic ties and military-to-military relations. further, an erosion of congressional confidence in burma's reform efforts would also make it more difficult for the executive branch to include burma in the generalized system of preference program or to enhance political military relations. so these are some of the most pressing challenges and opportunities awaiting burma in 2015. i noted many of them in my

discussion with burma's parliamentary speaker. i would close by making it clear that we in the united states will be watching intently to see what happens in burma in the coming months and that we're prepared to continue doing what we can to encourage more positive change in that country. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: mr. president i've watched over the last decade senator mcconnell focusing attention on burma. its remarkable the good he's done for that country. his vigilance in watching literally every move that government has made has been good for that country and i think good for the world and i admire and appreciate the work that he's done. there's not been a watchdog over any country that i'm aware of that has been more intense than the senior senator from kentucky

keeping an eye on what goes on in burma and i appreciate his remarks today in that regard. mr. president, my friend, the republican leader, can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to health care, and i understand that he's given many, many speeches denigrating obamacare. the facts are that more people are getting access to health care today under the affordable care act than ever before. the share without insurance is at an all-time low. the cost growth in health care has never been lower than it has been since obamacare kicked in. mr. president, i was telling one of my senator friends yesterday that we were home during the memorial day recess, i had two people come to me, and i'll admit that's not a great sampling but it shows how impactful that legislation has been. both of them had children with

challenges significant challenges physical and mental. these young men and women now have the ability to get health care. they cannot be denied insurance because of their preexisting disability. this law that was passed does not only apply to people with the disabilities about which i've just spoken but it applies to people with disabilities, who have diabetes. prior to obamacare if you were a woman you could be charged more for your health care. so people are extremely satisfied with health care. and the supreme court should understand seven million people who are happy with their health care, who are receiving subsidies for their insurance to take care of themselves would lose that. they would lose these subsidies. it it would be a devastating blow to seven million people but

also to the economy. and those people who don't need subsidies benefit significantly. the people who have had increased premiums, my friend was very, very selective in who he chose because people having increases are very, very minimal. i'll have more to say about that at some subsequent time in the near future, i should say. so mr. president obamacare is working. reports out this week, all the targets have been met as to people who purchased insurance and they're paying their premiums. so mr. president i think we should try to improve the law rather than my republican friends continually trying to talk about the failures that don't exist. mr. president, every senator wants to keep america safe, and that's why every senator should be concerned about a particular threat to our national security.

and this threat to our national security is called sequestration. sequestration puts in place drastic cuts to all funding: defense and non-defense. the defense authorization bill that's before us today doesn't fix that, and that is a gross gross understatement. we should not start spending until we develop a bipartisan budget that does. that's the only responsible way to protect both our national security and america's middle class. sequestration results from what happened four years ago with another threat for a government shutdown because republicans couldn't get their financial house in order. the budget control act of 2011 passed. that act included a significant a number of significant spending cuts and established a super committee led by senators murray congressman ryan to produce a balanced bipartisan

agreement for additional deficit reduction -- i'm sorry. it was not ryan. it was hensarling from texas. republicans could never ever agree. there were a lot of "we're almost there we're almost there," but they could never pull a trigger and agree. so there was a refusal to close a single tax loophole to reduce the deficit. not a single one could they agree on. so the super committee failed to reach agreement. and now the budget control act that triggered deep arbitrary automatic cuts. sequestration was never intended to happen. the point was to the threaten cuts so deep and so stupid that congress would never let them happen. but never put it beyond the republican group the last ten years who are still here in congress they allowed this stupid thing to happen. the cuts affected both defense

and non-defense programs. so everyone will feel compelled because the cuts were equal. unfortunately what was stupid in 2011 is now official republican policy. the congressional republicans incorporated sequestration into their recent budget resolution. that resolution leaves sequestration cuts in place for parts of the budget that affect the middle class and it also directly threatens national security. there are many examples of this. how does it affect the middle class? the list is really endless. cuts investments in roads and bridges, rail and transit. that costs jobs, lots and lots of jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and put travelers at risk and weakens our economy. sequestration cuts education. that means fewer children with a shot at going to school. they can't do that. they don't have a shot at success. fewer americans who can afford

college; that's the way it is. less economic opportunity for millions of americans. sequestration cuts research. leaves fewer chances to beat cancer heart disease alzheimer's. as a result of sequestration the national institutes of health the premier medical research institution in the world, was whacked with sequestration to the tune of $1.6 billion. they have never ever gotten that money back. and it stopped the finalizeation of work done on a universal flu vaccine, and the list is endless as to what they can't do because of that money being lost. while sequestration is a dagger pointed at the middle class, it also represents a threat to our society in many different ways. fewer opportunities for american businesses. consumers benefit from cutting of innovations. sequestration cuts from the f.b.i. the federal bureau of investigation. that means fewer f.b.i.

resources devoted to finding terrorists and hunting them down. sequestration threatens cuts for the transportation scriewrt administration which -- security administration. sequestration, there are cuts for fusion centers which have worked so well. these help law enforcement officials work together and for the coast guard and border security officials who protect americans from dangers abroad. these are cuts that are in place right now. the bill before us is designed to write an end run around sequestration for the department of defense by exploiting a provision that exempts spending caps called the overseas contingency operations or o.c.o. mr. president, we all know that o.c.o. was put in the budget many years ago and it was set there so we would have the money to fight wars. as always, very hard to determine how much wars are going to cost. we know that because of almost

$2 trillion we had to borrow for the wars in iraq and afghanistan, especially in iraq. but the o.c.o. does not solve the problem of sequestration and that, mr. president is true. i'm disappointed that even senators who long have had a reputation for fiscal honesty like the chairman of the armed services committee my friend, are turning a blind eye to the o.c.o. gimmick. not a word, not a word about people who have had a reputation for fiscal honesty. not a word about this gimmick. the department of defense says it won't work. it's just a one-year gimmick and that will make it impossible for military leaders to prepare for the threats we face in the future. the o.c.o. gimmick does nothing for other agencies that protect us here at home. as i've indicated the f.b.i., even the department of homeland security. that leaves all americans that

vulnerable to attacks if they don't get the money they need. until we get an agreement that protects national security and the middle class not a single spending bill will become law. if any bill reaches the president, he'll veto it. he said so publicly many times. he should. it's critical for the middle class and it's the only way to be fiscally responsible. we ought to budget before we spend. days after letting critical national security tolls expire on their watch republicans are showing yet another way they can't govern. now they're wasting time on a bill that has no chance of becoming law. no chance. no troops will be helped by the bill that can't be signed into law by the president. mr. president, our military needs all the help they can get. they deserve it. if republicans want to join us in supporting our troops, they

should start talking about the responsibility to govern seriously and work with us on a defense bill that can actually become law and help those in our armed forces. let's be straight, the moment we don't have a budget without the vote of a single democrat, republicans approved a nonbinding resolution with their own wish list. it means nothing. the budget means nothing. there were a lot back slapping, a great budget, we're going to balance the budget. but everyone knows that's just a farce. but until both parties join together the government does not have a budget to actually guide decision-making. we need one. this is not rocket science. after all budgeting for the federal government isn't all that different from budgeting for a family. if two spouses are trying to resolve differences over their own budget, would it be responsible for one spouse to go out and buy a new car on credit? we all know the answer to that is "no."

the same is here in washington. shouldn't we agree on a budget first and spend later? that's not asking too much, i don't believe. we don't need political theater and meaningless votes on bills that are going nowhere. we don't need another manufactured crisis. we just need to sit down, get real and fix sequestration in a way that protects both the national security and the middle class. they go together. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 1735, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 99, h.r. 1735, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form.

mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: is it under -- my understanding that there will be a vote at 10:15? is that -- the presiding officer: there will be 30 minutes of debate prior to the vote. mr. mccain: all right. thank you, mr. president. i just listened to the words of the senate majority leader concerning his views on an authorization bill. not an appropriations bill, not a funding bill, but an authorization bill. and i would hope that the majority leader and frankly my colleague and friend, senator reid would pay attention to what's going on in the world today. i refer to "the washington post" this morning the article entitled "deadly fighting tests

truce in ukraine." as many of us predicted vladimir putin will continue his aggression and dismemberment of the european nation for the first time in 70 years. i ask unanimous consent that the article entitled "deadly fighting tests truce in ukraine" be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: perhaps the majority leader and others have missed syria likely used chlorine gas in recent bombing raids. rights groups accused the syrian government of using toxic tem cals in attacks involving barrel bombs on rebel-held areas it in northern syria. i ask that article be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: front page of "the new york times" this morning "isis making political gains