later on, we got a hold of other copy of the rules of engagement in 2008 months after the publication. the rules had changed. the u.s. soldiers were not permitted to cross over into iran. i could speak for hours about all of the tremendous revelations. just yesterday, the editor of the most respectedaper in india ran over 21 front pages in the last six weeks that were based on the material. there is no a tremendous anti- corruption movement that has been building up in that country, something that has not happened since the time of gondi.

>> the final minute. >> i thank you. it is obvious that whistle- blowers make the world a safer place. we look at the arguments. this does not mean that everything in government should be exposed. it does mean that the system of breaking alleged alas -- laws is working at it must be kept going that way. otherwise, we cannot replace the reality that we are in. [applause] >> thank you very much. bob ayers.

[applause] >> when i saw the show of hands at the beginning, i realized what the questions felt like in the coliseum. just a point of clarification, the vietnam war was well under way before the gulf of tonkin incident. that was under the administration of a lyndon johnson. the war started und the john f. kennedy administration. your timing was a little off. >> the french were involved in that war for many, many years. >> sit down. sit down. >> thank you very much. >> please continue. >> we were very polite when he spoke.

we expt thsame courtesy from him. obviously, i am wrong. what i would like to talk about is not the specifics of how many documents were compromised or said what to do. what i would like to look at is how we as individuals and organizations and groups of people deal with issues of secrecy. secrecy is something that we have all experienced throughout our history. there are various forms of this. we have religious secrets, as shown by the gnostic sects and the knights templar. we have social secrets such as the freemasons. we have commercial secrets, trade secrets, property and commercial confince materials. we have criminal secrets. the mafia has a secret code.

lastly, we have state secrets. l of these organizations have a commonality on how they deal with those secrets. one is that the organization professes to hold knowledge that is known only to members within the organization. members of that organization are expected to take an oath or make a promise to retain the secrecy of that information. lastly, the members accept and acknowledge that they will be punished by the revelation of that information. this is common across all of those groups. it is not unique to the state. as people, we have deloped a very rich language and nomenclature that describes people who reveal secrets. we call them a snitch, a rat, pace wheeler, a trader --

squealer, a traitor, or a whistle-blower. this is not what i have invented. >> as someone who worked in government as a federal criminal investigator, we also called snitches people who came to us to rat on their friendsr provide information to the government. we also use that to describe people who supplied us with information. [applause] >> the rationale for people who break this oath or promise is as varied as some other things you have heard here today people break the oath for greed, for money, for a bandage.

they break the oath based on revenge, ideologies, fear, or ego. there is a wide range of punishments we put in place for people who break their oath. depending on the group you are in, it depends. if it is a religious group, you can be excommunicated. socially, you can be expelled from the group. commercially, you can be fired or even worse. you can be subject to a civil suit. criminals can be put to death, especially if you rat on the mafia. the state can put you in prison or put you to death for violating the oath. people that bright that oath, we

remember them and remember them in a bad light. if you are brish, i say to you purchase mclean, blunt, you know they are spies that gave british secrets to the russians. if you are an american, you say aldrich ames and robert hansen. those are men who violated their oath and gave secrets to the russians. if you are a russian, d i used the name ollie, you know he is demand that betrayed the motherland and gave secrets to the americans. if i say joe and you are in the mafia, you know he testified against her organization and was later sentenced to death. today, we are discussing the legalities and technicalities of whistle blowing. that is what the motion is

before us. what is interesting is that the motion before us avoid some of the basic human characteristics that should be shipping this discussion. humans aearo share this belief that people that betray their oath are something that extends across cultures, societies, and connents. people that break their oath o someone that we revile and distrust. the question before us, at least the unspoken question before us is due individuals or organizations that encouraged us to break that oath or facilitate our breaking of the oath, or promote us breaking that oath, are they just as guilty as the person who preaches the oath themselves? thank you. [applause]

>> i think this evening we have some whistle-blowers in the audience. i would like them to come forward. annie, please come forward. [applause] annie, is a former british security service. a spy that lefthe service at the same time as david. many of you remember. she helped blow the whistle about criminal service intelligence agencies. could you tell us a little bit about your experiences and your story? >> thank you very much for inting me. if you are an intelligence

officer with than the u.k. intelligence agencies, you do not swear an oath. it is slightly different than the american system. anything that i say now has already been said. there is no need. i joined mi5 in the early 1990's along with my friend. during our recruitment, we were told that mi5 had to obey the law. during our six years there, there were such a cascade of incompetence and criminality, we felt compelled to leave in order to effect change. that included piles of government ministries and a range of other prominent individuals in the u.k.. this included a phone tap.

should have and could have been prevented. and then mi5 colluding in the cover-up. palestinians were convicted wrongly of an explosionutside of the israeli embassy in london in 1994 that were sentenced to 20 years each that were riding in prison. in 1996, he was officially briefed about colonel gaddafi in libya. they wereunding a bunch of islamist rebels. the only difference between then and now, now they're finding the rebels, but they are doing it more openly. we all know about it. what do we do? we joined up to serve our country and try to be different.

in the u.k., there is a clear line of disclosure. you cannot go to anybody apart from the head of the agency which has committed the crime in oer to report the crime. whato do? we decided after many sleepless nights to go public to the press and hope the ensuing- it would have an inquiry into this. we would go on a run around europe. we ended up hiding for a year in france. we lived in exile for another two years. student supporters and even journalists re arrested and convicted because they dared to expose these crimes. of course, david went to prison, not once, but twice

in 1998 when the british government failed to extradite him from france. the second time as when he voluntarily returned to stand trial. he was convicted and want to present in 2002. what is worse that -- was that his reputation was ruined in the press and through nipulation. why does this happened? they are easily controlled by the government and the intelligence agencies. not through the security advisory committee. this is through the adaptation of the official secrets act. this is through the adaptation of terrorism act. there is a section in mi6 which sps and controls media news as well. if we live in an ideal world

where we had transparency and respect to human rights,e would not need the press to continue to support whistle- blowers. we live in the real world. there is a nebulous war on terror. we need some sort of channel to protect whistle-blowers. americans have that legal channel. i suggest that we need one in the laws ofhis land. we have wikileaks and the provide protection for whistleblowers. thank you very much and we hope that they continue their work in the years to come. [appuse] >> does anyone opposing the

motion which to come back on some of the points? she spoke about criminality within mi5. does anyone wish to talk about that? douglas? >> can i ask if you defied the official secrets act? there is the idea that you do not have to have some sort of silence if you are going to engage in the secret service. it seems to be inherent in the name. that if y join the secre seice, you can keep secrets. leaving the security services, you has a -- you have made a career as a 9/11 truther. i saw you testify hing to speak on oath. you were the short as witnesses

that in the 13 years that they have ever heard. u did not have anything to say. you came claiming that you had secrets and it became clear that you did not know anything. you are very low level and you went out into the world presenting ourselves as experts. you try to prevent -- present yourself as a free-speech expert. >> thank you. the pronunciation of your name? >> it would be nice if you got that right. >> briefly. >> the inquiry was about a state agent. we insure that the evidence given by mi5 was changed. that was one thing. we signed the offial secrets act to protect the official secrets, not crime.

[applause] whatever level we worked on, we know more than somebody who never worked on the inside at all. thank you. [applause] >> tnk you for that robust intervention. tell us a little bit more about your experiences. i believe you were dismissed for warning people about the extent of their overexposure. tell us in a little bit more. i would like to know your story about what happened to you. >> you may think that blowing the whistle on a bank has nothing to do with debt, but it

does. the banking crisis has driven 100 million people into poverty and killed many millions of those people. it does have something to do with death. i say one ting to bob. dwight eisenhower once said, neveronfuse honest the fence wi disloyal subversion. there is a fundamental difference between those who raise and speak truth to power from a position of ethical decency and those who are doing it for subversion. [applause] hague lifts the lid on britain'a secret past. the government that believes in transparency and openness. that is what people expect and what they have a right to.

transparency is the key to trut anything done in the dark is not nearly always the truth. it is the truth that sets us free. we only grow by taking risks. the biggest risk we ever have is being honest with ourselves and others. this above all, that it must follow the night into day. of course, obviously, proper whistleblowing makes the world a safer place. it prevents disaster. it prevents wars. on a micro basis, it removes people from organizations that are criminals or a civil wrongdoing. on a macro basis, it leads to major changes of policy process and transparency leads to a better world. in my case, after i was fired

by james crosby for trying to slowown the bank of scotland, it has led to some changes. some good changes. i have not got sufficient time to go through some of these things. there is not nearly enough changes that have come out of it. the principal reason for doing what i did was to have change i th policies so that we could be protected from the way that banks work. we have not done nearly enough about it. we are still not doing transparency. there has never been a proper inquiry. if you did a proper inquiry, the best interests would be fnd out. regulators, accountants, rating agencies, etc. in fact, we are thinking about driving a mass movement to get the transparency. mark my words, if we do not

solve it this time, the next time it will be and wipe out. i would like to blow the whistle on the format of this particular event. how could you have an event of this measure at have a whistle blower and not being allowed to speak? i was sent this whistle byhe sock -- an admirer. it says in latin, to speak up on behalf of the fatherland. >> you have one minute. >> whistle blowing may make the world a safer place. it does not make it a safe place for a whistle blower. you get treated le toxic waste. you get treated like a leper.

you care more about the organization and then the rubish you. i have been in the depths over this. this is my son writing a card to me on my birthday what i was in the depths of suicide. i know that you think that this birthed this stuff is nonsense, but it is a day to celebrate your life and what a great person you are. know this, everybody has flaws and i'd like to look past those flaws to the great person you are. there is a lot of good in you and what you -- then you get credit for. in everything you stand for, which is integrity and truth. do not worry. we get transformed by truth. the reality is that you get transformed by trouble. l of the pain and suffering have been worthwhile.

if you want to ask anybody how it changes from the valley of death to amazing grace. my daughter is in the audience tonight. she will tell you. thanks very much indeed. [applause] >> paul was blowing the whistle there. very poignant points. we have had many questions through our web site. one that seemed to recur again and again is this idea of collateral damage. this is as a result of whistleblowing or leaking valuable information. we want to hear you speak on that. >> i have a view on it. we have bent in the business for

about 4.5 years of exposing actual clateral damage. the deaths added up in total of over 140,000 people documented case by case. in the case of the u.s. military and the assassinations from kenya. that is actual, not only collateral damage, but murder. if you speak about wikileaks, there has been a lot of hot air said about our publication and -- by the pentagon and its rich -- supporters. anything that the press publishes that embarrasses the national security sector. we have a perfect record in true

respect. that is not the record that we can keep forever. today, we have never preached a document that was mis-described. we have never gotten it wrong, as anyone alleges. nobody has ever suffered physical harm as a result of anything that we have published. that is the answer. that is what gates, the defense secretary of the united states admits. it is what made out that mets. that is what the ptagon admits. if you google the phrase blood on hands and wikileaks an pentagon, there are 10 times as leaks eferences to wikik

and blood on hands than the pentagon. that is including all the wars that the pentan has done everywhere. the opponents say that it has no blood its hands but there is some hypothetical risk that they should be talking about. they are saying that their opponents have blood on their hands when there is none. [applause] >> i am very keen to keep this debate going as much as possible. i would like to hear from douglas murray. i would like you to come forward.

>> do you want me to preempt my speech? very well. are you sure? >> i will come back. i am worried about how one side -- >> i am worried about it, too. i am happy to hold. thank you. >> please step forward. everybody has been waiting for you. [applause] >> i am worried about how one- sided it is, too. there are countless debates on the panel. i am joking. i do not want to talk about wikileaks, julien, me, paul, i

want to talk about a man named joe darby. he is a high-school graduate fr small-town pennsylvania. he joined and it went to iraq in 2004. he was accidently given two cds containing photographs taken at abu ghraib. he sought the iraqi prisoners being stacks and forced to perform sex acts on each other, being attacked with dogs, being attacked, sodomized, raped. those pictures showed torture, abuse, rape, every indecency. joe darby, to use the lgo of

the military, ratted on his friends, his fellow show -- ellis soldiers. they did not arrest those guys banged. when he went home to see his wife, they were told that they had to sell their house because it was not safe anymore. he had to be followed around by bodyguards. he had to quit the military, all because he decided to blow the whistle. he helped uncover one of the worst crimes perpetred by the u.s. and abroad in recent years and there are a lot to choose from. darby was asked by anderson cooper in an interview, did you ask -- did you wish that it was

not you that was given the cds. he said no, they might not have been reported otherwise. they say that ignorance is bliss. to know what they're doing, you cannot stand by and let that happen. that is what whistleblowing is all about, and that is why this is so important. that whistle blowers do not make the world a safer place, but they have risk lies rather than save lives. -- they risk lives. tell the inmates of of the great prison that whistle-blowers do not matter, they have no impact in the world. i would like to go to those people and say, "you should not have come forward. you should not have spoken out." whistle-blowers have a life- saving task.

i would take your point in one second. traitors, those who went to the soviet union to sell secrets. people who speak out against dangerous, dishonest, or illegal activity. that is who i am here for. who are you here for, bob? [applause] >> i am here to be entertained by some of the eakers. the man turned over the cd's of abu ghraib. the man returned to those over

we do who turn those over had no responsibility to keep silent -- the man who turn those over -- who turned those over had no responsibility to keep silent. >> i thought we were having a debate about whistle-blowers. proud of being a whistle-blower. but, listen. this is a debate about people. paul d not take an oath. it is not about roads. it did not about swearing. this is about people and speak out, very clearly, people who speak out against dangerous, dishonest, illegal activity. let's be very ear. it is about big business.

take the man that was portrayed by a rather potbellied russell crowe in the movie concern the tobacco industry. he saved lives by becoming a whistle-blower. this was about reducing the carcinogenic elements in the cigarettes. his asstance was central to the fda investigation into the role of nicotine. i do not know if he took an oath. but he stood up. our world is a betterlace. we do not live in a perfect world. we live in a very imperfect

world, where our government lied to us. they engaged in corrupt back room deals. and then they demand our trust, our trust, year after year after year, lie after lie after lie. well, stop lying to us and we will not have whistle-blowers. surely a government, show me a government, democratic or nongovernment the democratic. i remember the labor minister telling me, "trust me. trust me. i have seen the intelligence. the weapons are there. the weapons were not there. did it was working in the foreign office when they were going around saying that the case for wargainst saddam was thin.

instead of 2003, instead of gog to chat with andrew billingham, those weapons of mass destruction. we would have hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis still alive today had we had whistle-blowers. [applause] and in in in a perfect world come in and in corporate world, we need whistle-blowers, and for have said they will come when governments and neurologists will own up to the level of deceit and corruption in our public life. and if you want any more evidence of the whistle-blowers, just look at what happens to the people who blow the whistle. threatened and blackmailed by the nixon administration who wanted him incapacitated.

another held by the israelis for 11 years. and another is being held right now by the obama administration, and his underwear is taken from him before he is allowed to go to sleep at night. when whistle-blowers, long to put power in our hands, they say this is outrageous. this is wrong. this is going to destroy the world. whistle-blowers and power fall and dare i say, these people and bradley manning and make the world a safer place. i urge you to back the motion. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you. a senior with the new statesman. something for you to answer. whistle-blower organizations may become a powerful tool to control the government, but who will control those organizations? who will control the whistle- blowers, and how do we know that the information they published is not being manipulative? >> the public holds us to account, d the public takes it weather materials submitted anonymously, if something is

done to conceal an agenda -- i think all of what we never really does not give enough credit. they can take in information that is submitted anonymously, and they throw in opinions and evaluate it and determine whether or not this is information being put out there for some other agenda or if this is to legitimately call some of the out for wrongdoing. i think there needs to be a conversation on journalists, those who touch and taken the information, about what we put out and we do not put out. for example, in my own opinion, i do not think it would be good to put that informati related to critical infrastructure of vulnerability. >> you do not support that.

>> no, i do not. we do have some context, some background, some new ones. we do not just bonnett information. >> -- >> i will let julianne speak about -- julian speak aboaut wikileaks. sometimes, there is information that is just too important for one news organization to have. so you partner, i think when you get more partnering, you get more accountability. this is a new type of journalism. there does need to be some sort of code of ethics and standards, and i think as a new form of journalism, it is being worked

out. this is why it is so popular. and that is why he was voted as on of the most popular figures in the world by "time magazine." thank you. [applause] >> could you please step forward? >> thank you. well, thank you very much. >> i have been trying to get your on all evening. >> i know. this allows me to disagree with some of the previous speakers and also to agree with them. i am sorry to enter borne by partisanship, but i agree with many. democracies and governments can be corrupt.

this is true. democracy is a deeply flawed system. it is not perfect. it is, as churchill said. and i think we have to be aware, very aware, of this discussion between the difference between open societies, democracies, in whichvil can come to the four and do in those systems in which they never do and cannot. are there flaws in our government? of course. but, by and large, a democracy like america has a lot of checks and balances,ifferent officials, different parties coming to power, elections, elections every two years,

elections which just throughout the government that many were critical of in iraq, making your biography may be as terrifying as the prime minister. who knows what we should know? the decides? well, peop like mr. assae, so with him on the panel, we are likely going to be talking about wikileaks. but do they know, ladies and gentlemen, what they e doing? to criticize the government when it goes wrong. to some extent, not perfectly, they do know what they are

doing. my own personal feeling is this. that when you unleash thousands and thousands of documents that were never meant for the public eye, were never meant for your opponent's eyes, were never meant for an intelligence agencies eyes, you introduce an element of chaos. it is like war. it is very hard to contain once you start. you may think you know you are doing. you may think you'reoing to lead to great criticism, but what about the collateral damage in your campaign? are you sure you know what you're doing when you release secret documents relating secret convertions between states of the fragile governments of yemen or jordan or a confrontation with the king of saudi arabia saying that he hopes that the israelis do bomb iran could be

sure you know what you're doing when you introduce an element of chaos like that in a region which i can assure you does not need more conspiracy theories. another talked about with great pride the release of information that miooking at trying t assassinate, khaddafi. are you sure it is good to let colonel gaddafi know you want to do that? you will get a chance to answer my questions in a minute. the woman said she was proud of the gaddafi. are we sure that is a good idea to lexcano gaddafi know 10 years ago that mi 6 was doing that? is mr. assange sure?

>> there will be time. >> is he sure that he knows better than foreign intelligence agencies? maybe he does. maybe he is, indeed, the god like figure that the to person would have to be. what about this new era of journalism? it seems to me it is very much like the old one. people get to pursue their interests. if they hate america, they can release a whole lot of stuff that they can do to make america look bad in the world korea if, like aljazeera, if you are hostile to the state of israel, you can release the information -- no, no, you will get time. this is not exactly an open

democratic government. and release as many papers as you can in a big white -- in a big light. are you sure, ladies and gentlemen, that they are really and brave and they present themselves and who -- as they present themselves? he said, "we took a lot of heat for doing it." i am surprised you are here. it is a lovely light. you can maka lot of money. you can get a lot of money when you present yourself as a great adversary of something you do not understand entirely.

but surely, you have to take one. >> no, no, they will get time. i caot help noticing. why has the russian government secrets not come out? is it because they actually kill a journalist? >> please come in a shouting from the floor. -- please, no shining from the floor. j8ul -- no shoutin from the oor. julian assange.

>> i would ask you to do your research before making comments like that. >> there was a "the guardian" journalists, and they said they were informants. >> point of order. we are in the process of suing "the guardian" and -- you are welcome to sue was iffy -- to join us if you would like. >> there are some of point of view that are exactly counter to what you are saying. >> lives have no social utility.

the view abuse is a terrible thing. that is why i was involved. to protect us all from the abuse of libel laws, actualize. ere must be a reurse, and that records is in the courts and in the crt of public opinion. >> thank you very much. >> another point of information, i would lead that was to be able to finish his speech. >> as i said, i very muclook forward to them releasing the information about the russian cret service killing journalists.

the fact that the cia does not hunt down and kill its critics, they do. i would like to see that more reflected in your work. daniel said that by and large notice that the complaints of human rights abuses happenings that disproportion -- inverse proportion to the human-rights abuses happening in the country. the more likely you hear about them, the less likely they are going on, because in a closed society, you do not hear about it. finally, democracies, ai said in the beginning, are in perfect things, but they are the best thing going. they have to answer questions. sometimes, those questions are unpleasant.

they have to be answered. and when they are not answered, you and i and the public gets to throw out the politicians we no longer trust, and we do. so those people who are very critical, like julian assange, should, perhaps, and to some questions themselves, and since we have the opportunity tonight, i would like you to answer a couple of questions. you are, after all, an organization dedicated to freedom of information. are you willing to reveal all of your sources of funding? how can you demand transparency from government when you as the organization have no transparency yourself? who works for you? who are you involved with? who are your employees?

where are you even based? none of these things get answered. .et's ask some more questions what is yo relationship with the holocaust deniers who says he was an employee of yours? what about what the public should know and what they should not prove governments are elected. you are not. finally, who guards the guardians? or in this case, who guards the guardians guardian? it seems to me tht -- that wikileaks is not the best pla for this to be. you said there was a conspiracy against you, which included an editor, and then you said that

they were jewish. and then when he was not, you said his thoughts were jewish. i am coming back to the point, i assure you. all of the rest of your attributes aside, somebody who has gone so far with the conspiracy theory, whether you are really better place than any government to decide what these ladies and gentlemen and i and all of us do know? thank you. 2 -- [applause] bonds >> the assistant director for the henry the jackson 5 to. we are running out of time,ut, julian. after those accusations, would you like to come back and say something briefly for the

debate? >> obviously, he has nothing to say about the motion he denied. since he has resorted like some many of that type to personal attacks on me and our organization, which are, of course, unfounded, and which i hesitate to respond to directly, because i can see them to be a corruption of what we're all here for, but i cannot read some of them go without comment. the most interesting of your views is about who decides

whether a media group or organization should be supported or not. i think that is an interesting question. and the answer in ou case, we are a publishing organization, and we publish the work of whistle-blowers. republish it to the world. all of the fruits of our labour go to the public because that is the tab of labor that we are engaged in. unlike organizations that are supported with money out of the tax base or by advertisers, we are directly supported on a week

by week basis by you. you vote with your wallets every week. whether you believe that us facilitating whistleblowing activity is supported or not. or you believe that we need to be protected in our work. that dynamic feedback between us, the whistle-blowers, and the public, i say, is more responsive tn the government's structure that is elected after it is soliciting money from big business once every four years.

>> i will allow one further piece of information, and then we will close the debate. >> i have not got money from anyone other than the general public. you have just cfirmed to us that you think you're better than our government. thank you. the lady there has done the job. >> thank you, douglas emerging. i asked earlier at the beginning of the debate were positions. this house believes that whistle-blowers make the world a safe place. i know julian has to go for obvious reasons, but who believe that whistle-blowers may the world a safer place? what is your view now?

is there anyone abstaining? this house believes that whistle-blowers make the world a safer place. [applause] i would just like to say thank you to mr. gallagher for the frontline club. thank you to our wonderful gst editor. and thank you for being such a good audience. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning g g

>> a day lost discussion on the state of race in america. among the participants, a fox news commentator. rev. al sharpton. film director, spike lee. from the aspen institute, monday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] 1] go online with the c-span video library. search, watch, click, and share with everything from 1987. what you want when you want. the amtrak ceo testified thursday about the company's 2012 budget request before a

house appropriations subcommittee. the corporation continues to operate at a loss. there was a study showing that on average, $32 of each amtrak ticket was subsidized. they are requesting $1.3 billion for improvements to the heavily travelled northeast corridor. this is about one hour and a half. your statement will be entered into the record. if you want to summarize in five minutes. >> thanks. i am a graduate of cornell university college of agriculture. if you are in the wrong room, sometimes i think i am as well. the chairman, members, i appreciate the opportunity to come here. i will be short in my comments.

as of this morning, we finished several -- 17 straight months of the year over year writer ship growth. it has grown more than 36% since the year 2000. the only restriction we are running into is available capacity. last year we carry 28.7 million riders. it does not tell the whole story. amtrak provides the opportunity for the commuter writers across the united states to handle about 1 million people a day so 300 million commuter riders. however 15 long-distance trains which carry about 4.5 million are the only in track service in 23 states. 43% of passengers with

disabilities who took in in check train in 2010 travel on those trains. amtrak plays an important role as a provider of role transportation services. that is becoming clearer to me as someone who came from rural new york. they become increasingly important as your services and bus services are contracted. our bus routes today serve about 12% of the fewer will residence than they did in 2005 and 152 internet stations served the rural communities, many did to not have any will bus service whatsoever. our budget request is 222 -- billion. that is for 2012. divided into 616 million for

operations. the only operations supported by amtrak are the rules services, not the fourth -- northeast corridor. our debt levels have been reduced in the last five years from about 4 billion to less than $2 billion. we published an update to a fleet plan which identifies some other -- equipment needs and 70 new locomotives and 130 single long-distance cars to replace some. long-distance cars is a new operation in the united states. these cars will be built from

the ground up in the u.s.. we use the recovery money in 2009 to restore cars to service. 81 cars, some locomotives and superliners. we also plan on growing our sale of service capacity by adding 40 cars to the existing trains. we expect to begin that in 2012. we will talk a little bit later about the vision of a high-speed service. i am sure questions will come later. we have made a lot of improvements. when you really look at amtrak and how you look at the numbers, for operating service, we cover 85% of our costs. for every dollar you spend operating -- we spend, you contribute 15 cents to provide

that service. it is the most efficient railroad in united states. no other can you find that operates that inexpensively inefficiently. i appreciated the opportunity being here. i will stay within my time. >> i was surprised to see that one of your employees paid $21,000 in regular pay and $149,000 in overtime last year. i thought it was an anomaly. there are 1800 into employees that made over $30,000 in overtime last year. i do not blame the employee, but i do believe in these tougher times, we've made stronger

management some help. how does this happen? >> it happens for a couple of reasons. it has been a long-term issue. this is not a new situation. it is partly supervision, but more importantly about how the work gets done. when you look at the list of employees, many of our engineering maintenance. all of them are in the northeast corridor. most of the dollars are paid back by the states to a large extent, because of the work that has to get done on our road on the nights and weekends. that is when the real overnight -- overtime gets paid. we had some of bridges that york wanted to get done. we said we cannot do that

because of the work we were doing, especially in 2009 and 2010. we did not have the work force to protect the railroads and help the states get the job done and the bridges done across our road. -- railroad. that happens on a frequent basis. it is a very difficult thing that needs to be managed. >> anything you want to address in your collective bargaining agreement? >> that particular one is not a done. we have 13 different bargaining agreements with 23 different unions at amtrak that we have to work with. this one is not done where the large part of it is. >> as management, who assigns the ships? does management for the

employees themselves? >> it is a combination. a bid of four shifts. when there is extra work, they have to be assigned on a prescription basis. >> on a regular basis, management does the assigned ships. >> management prepares the shift assignment. the employee works it into words a second shift in often cases, because of the amount of work that is available. it is not a consistent level of work. it is not as easy a situation to go out and get laborers. you have to understand railroad rules. >> explain how it works. there is a shift on monday from 8:00 until 4:00. someone -- there is one from

midnight coming on sunday night. from midnight until 8:00 in the morning. are those bid by seniority? >> i believe so. >> ok. if a person is working that would normally signed up from 8:00 to 4:00, they get paid overtime -- >> shift differential. >> do they work the next eight hours shift? >> if we needed them and they are available, yes. >> it is my understanding they do not. you cannot work stations together. so what happens, they are getting paid overtime from midnight until 8:00 in the morning, the next shift they were assigned to, someone else has to work that and they get paid overtime. >> we have some sharpshooters

who figure out what the loopholes are in the rules. they wind of getting paid more money. you tincal more people in to work on an overtime basis, not just because they have one shift to work. >> is this part of the negotiations going on to understand that there are some loopholes out there? >> part of the problem is we cannot take it down averell -- railroads except on nights and weekends to get some of this work done. they will work all week and weekend as well. we have some people willing to work on a continual basis. the sharpshooters are a problem to. that is the outrageous part. >> 5 time has expired. -- my time has expired.

[unintelligible] >> yue said 43% of the passengers with disabilities who took an amtrak train in 2010 travelled on one of those 15 trains in the long-distance routes. how does it come out to be 15? >> the 15 long-distance trains across the country. >> four long-distance routes? >> 15 that we operate. >> each one -- what do you call a long-distance route? they go across the great west from chicago to the west coast

or somewhere south to the west coast. what are the other ones that you call long-distance? >> york to miami, new york to tampa, new york to chicago. anything over 750 miles. >> 15 trains. how many total trains do you claim? >> 310 trains a day. >> those 15 -- those must come in -- >> 310 trains operate each day. i am mixing two things. a long-distance train has 1 or two going one way in one or two coming the other way on the same day.

one is headed west end one headed east. >> i will get confused as to whether we are talking about trains or the number of trips. the numbers of those 15 trains, if they are being counted the the, apples to apples, that group of a 15 would be carrying 43% of all of the disability personnel. it puzzles me because we have concluded from testimony last year that there are 48 out of your stations where they were 88 compliant. -- ada compliant. now we are up to 100.

this is out of 500 stations. we have a very small portion of the stations that are actually compliance. why is that a group of 15 trains carrying such a large proportion of the disability population, when my guess is a huge number of the stations along those routes of those trains are non-ada compliant. >> we still can carry a disabled passenger from the station even if they are not compliant. >> why are so many passengers using the service? >> i do not know if i have the answer to that. >> disabled people fly on planes. they ride on buses. this is a startling me, the

proportion of disability involved. >> i may not have a detailed answer, but i can ask the staff why this is occurring. like the answer is that people do find more convenient to ride a train than a plane. >> ok. next round. >> thanks. >> i am glad to be here. i took the amtrak from austin tx to washington, d.c.. it was an interesting experience. >> interesting does not necessarily mean good. >> for me, it does. my stepfather was an engineer on a passenger train. i had sinus surgery and they would not what may fly.

>> i understand. >> i think i have an answer for the disabled situation. i met a lot of people on the train who told me they are retired and a ride almost continuously. that may be part of it. >> that is a good answer. i am hoping to find out what portion of the population is using amtrak. >> i will ask questions about why it costs so much money. in the east coast, the mecca of amtrak, checking last night on some fairs. a one-way ticket from washington d.c., $76 to $109.

$144 first-class. a one-way ticket today from washington, d.c. to new york city, $232 for coach. by comparison to a commercial service non subsidized by the government on a boat, it was up to $23. jetblue, one way flight, $173. with the heavy subsidy the federal government puts into the trains, why are trained bears more expensive than plane fares? >> the federal government does not seven -- subsidized amtrak on the northeast corridor. we handle all of our costs. the united states to permit of

transportation has 60,000 employees. 50 per thousand of them work for the aviation -- 50,000 work for the aviation. the faa provides the air-traffic control system. nobody provides that for the railroads except for the railroads themselves. i was in the bus business. they pay tolls on the way to new york, but they do not pay for the infrastructure into the repair along the way. the federal highway administration and the highway industry gets about 51 billion a year to maintain the inner states that are out there today. there is a certain level of assistance provided, but it is not near what amtrak and

railroads have to provide for their capital. that is where the assistance for the federal government comes in for the northeast corridor. the investment necessary to keep it safe and the infrastructure safe. in regard to the fairs, which charged the maximum we can to reduce the amount of tax that has to be provided to amtrak. >> i understand that. it goes back to the debate we were having with ray lahood about high-speed trains. i take the position that it is 200 miles or better. >> i understand the point you

are making. >> one person wrote high-speed trains are not high speed. if the fares on regular trains are hard to justify the market at some level, the upper levels, putting in a real high- speed train in the united states will require a whole new infrastructure. i am told it least $1 million a mile to put in a super train. a least a minimum of $1 million a mile. it will take all kinds of maintenance. how will this ever become cost

effective so that the average american citizen can get on a high-speed train and utilize the speed capacity and compete with an airplane? >> you can only have cost- effective if you have enough writer ship. it is probably the most likely success in the united states. >> they stop, it is not a high speed. >> it can be done. people in philadelphia will not like it. >> i understand. the cost is going to be a lot. >> yes. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> to put some things in

perspective. talk about the last 37 years. the federal government has poured over $1 trillion into the highway system. billions into the faa system. 36 billion for amtrak. about $1 billion a year for the last 37 years. i do not think that is much. we would criticize them if we did not charge them enough asking for a higher subsidy. the writer ship has increased. i think they have been given a mandate, a tough job. they do not want to be in the passenger business anymore.

there have been mistakes. i think you are doing a hell of a job. let me ask you a couple of things. one is the proposal for this national infrastructure bank. it creates a new funding in the tv -- entity. a new rail accounts named a transportation trust fund. my concern is -- there were 126 diversions from the highway

trust fund. it makes me nervous. whatever the federal contribution is. rather than continuing the way we have been operating, it creates a new fund. maybe 20 people competing for those. what is your response? >> everybody in this industry on amtrak passenger rail supports the increased support that is proposed by the administration. there is always trepidation. i go back to something the chairman talked about, the number of our labor unions interested in what happens here in the future. they are looking at this very carefully.

my staff came back and gave me a thumbs-up. this is a very positive thing the administration is proposing. we have an obligation to think about it. congress can do anything they want to, to change something for the future. we have to read-balance for the benefit of the united states in the people of the united states. >> of course we do. i do not remember which freight rail line at commercial. it is a stark contrast to the fuel you bring in an airplane into the feel you burn and forget about the congestion and everything else. i throw it out as a caution flag. it makes me nervous when we set

of these new organizations. i am all for the goals of the program. they will come up with the peace train. all of the sudden, it cuts into now eligible to take money out of this fund that has been established. i am just worried about that. >> i thank the gentleman. >> thanks for your testimony. i do not know how many people have not ridden on amtrak. i have seen is a lot but have not written on it. it is done convenient for me.

the line that runs through arkansas does not come up for my particular district. it serves many important parts of our state. in 2010, he spent 53 million on the line in the lost 29. the federal government subsidizes the rest. the cost recovery ratio less than 6%. you can go to walnut ridge, other towns, but those cities are not in our most populous cities. those trips would have to be made in the early hours of the morning. is amtrak really feasible? is it feasible in states like arkansas that several character. ural character?e characte

>> i appreciate the question. you may be interested in air stayed 49 than the rail service. >> i will count that as an endorsement on your part. >> to a injured 87,000 riders -- 287,000 riders in that section of texas. revenue was 24 million. total cost was 53. all long-distance trains, the

business model does not work because of the time it takes in the availability of capacity on the train for us to get -- we are not cheap. we are not a cheap operation. we charge as much as we can and still try to provide a service that is cost-effective. it is very difficult to do. it provides an ability for bus services coming out of northwest arkansas to connect to little rock or one of the other stations. that is an important part of what the connectivity service is about. >> back to