give you an overview of the capital budget, you had already approved the 20-year capital plan, unconstrained. where we are for the next step forward is the five-year capital improvement program, constrained, meaning that we have to balance the programs that we put forthwith the revenues available. from that five-year picture, we get to our two year budget, which will come to you along with the operating budget in april. in terms of sources, this is where you will see the potential impact from the activity happening right now in washington, d.c., on us. we are fairly heavily reliant on federal formula funds, for example, for much of our transit capital improvements. if that were to significantly change, some of those proposals seem to be leaning towards the back, moving forward to maintain what we have. you will see that there are a number of other local state and funding sources for the proposed city obligation bond. passed by the voters this past november, legislating a small portion of which, coming to the mta, the mta has not generally been a significant center -- player in the geobond ta

so, the 20-year plan, because of the unconstrained numbers, they show what the allocation could be. but we have done now is overlay the five-year picture, so that you can see proportionally who the winners and losers are as we start to put the constraints of the reality of revenue on to the program. that is shown in slide 7. what you will see on the far right column, those items that have a negative are in parentheses and in red. the ones that have a lower percentage of the portfolio based on the revenue available, more than what we think we actually need, based on the 20- year plan, it is based on the revenues available. they will do a little bit better as a percentage of total available and based on what the total needs are. it is important to note that we may end up with a higher percentage of the revenue coming in and what it needs as a result of the overall portfolio. as opposed to 21% of the overall capital need. we still will not have the revenues that we need in that one line item. this just shows the impact of putting our constraints and how it changes the distribution of t

what you have is them saying it is a financially unconstrained schedule.all of the money will be needed. 203ur

what you have is them saying it is a financially unconstrained schedule. all of the money will be needed. 2030 four 4 cents as an, it may not even be that. other concerns that the city family had is that there is no commitment, as we discussed. the money is spent before the first passenger boards a train. we believe that the long wait for service will frustrate the public and turn them against it. this may be problematic. they do and grays and operation. but it is different than their vision. theirs is at very high cost. we also believe it will not attract private funding. last week, we had a technical meeting. with the high-speed rail representatives. it was a very positive meeting. they welcome to our comments. we will continue meeting with them, looking at ways to incorporate our comments into the business plan, so i want to make it clear that we are working with a very positive relationship with them. the fast start project. this is a concept that i guess had its initial determination in april of last year, when we started to think about what we could

to assert the president had an unconstrained right to determine for himself when the session is or is not in session and to appoint nominees unilaterally at any time if he feels the senate is not responsive or as responsive as you would like to be even in the senate is meeting is to trample upon the constitution's separation of powers and the system of checks and balances that animated the adoption of the advice and consent requirement. i look forward to answering your questions, and as i answer those questions i will continue to emphasize again and again that ours is not a government of one. these are rights upon which the president has trampled. this is power that he has taken that doesn't belong to him. it belongs to the american people. and under our constitutional system, that power is to be exercised by the representatives in the senate, and not by the president alone. there are people were about my state and across america who feel powerless and that is why i have made the comment that i have that this is the action we need to object too strenuously. i olc the gentleman to real

rest because at least i have never in my 38 years' experience any strategy that was completely unconstrained. there is always a risk in every strategy in every budget to support it. one is a risk to our missions, can we accomplish the tasks given by the national command authority for freedom of access to defeat our enemies, to deter aggression? the other is a risk to force, which gets at a phrase that would be familiar to you -- how much can we ask of the all- volunteer force and in terms of deployment, redeployment, we deployment? in both cases, we assessed the risk to mission and force. we have found that there are portions of our capabilities that are more stress. again, that is not anything new. what we have been doing now for the past month and will continue to do is look for ways to mitigate those risks, but we're very confident, because we worked this collaboratively, that we can mitigate risks by observing that lessons of 10 years of war, new capabilities, and integration of all of those and the interdependence of the joint force is what allows us to mitigate the risks to our plans a

to assert the president had an unconstrained right to determine for himself when the session is or is not in session and to appoint nominees unilaterally at any time if he feels the senate is not responsive or as responsive as you would like to be even in the senate is meeting is to trample upon the constitution's separation of powers and the system of checks and balances that animated the adoption of the advice and consent requirement. i look forward to answering your questions, and as i answer those questions i will continue to emphasize again and again that ours is not a government of one. these are rights upon which the president has trampled. this is power that he has taken that doesn't belong to him. it belongs to the american people. and under our constitutional system, that power is to be exercised by the representatives in the senate, and not by the president alone. there are people were about my state and across america who feel powerless and that is why i have made the comment that i have that this is the action we need to object too strenuously. i olc the gentleman to real

that his unconstrained free market winner take all theory had never worked in his 80-plus year life span. never mind in the 1970's we used to spend 5% of our national income on discretionary domestic spending like education, job training, health, research, veterans, and infrastructure and more recently we have already peared that back to 2.5%. with this bill the majority tries to balance the budget on the packs of workers, middle class families, and small businesses and society's most challenged. they refuse to consider a fair distribution of our tax obligations. they even refused to close special interest tax loopholes. the bill if not amended chooses to shield an extraordinarily well off from any fair share of taxes over sustaining pell grants. student assistance promising opportunity to families. they choose allowing hedge fund managers the benefit of a especially low tax rates over meals on wheels for seniors. and they choose special tax credits for the mature, extremely profitable oil and gas companies over providing security of housing for homeless veterans returning from duty in i