James Oberstar

We could provide guidance, direction to DOT to harmonize those requirements among the States.

That is a very important point that you have raised, about the size of contracts.

No, time has not expired. I took some of the time.

the Congressional Budget Office was wrong, Office of Management and Budget was wrong, Larry Summers was wrong.

We have protection for whistleblowers, and a number of programs under the jurisdiction of this Committee.

But the DBE provisions give you access, is that right, Mr. Kim, Mr. Aranza, Mr. Thompson?

We don't want stepchildren in the historic sense of that word. They are sort of unwanted, unappreciated, unloved.

That is an important part. Not only doing this work, they are paying taxes as well.

We just want them to do their jobs. But we need to monitor what they are doing.

You are the experts. You are the practitioners on the front line.

Some more far right-thinking farm group have opposed it as Federal control. I am saying, no, you design the plan, you tell us how you want to manage it; we will support it.

My predecessor, John Blatnik, former Chairman of this Committee, was the author of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956.

My predecessor, John Blatnik, once said we ought to require all sewer and water pipes be built above ground so people could stumble into them and see that we are really doing something for them.

The stimulus provides an opportunity for us. We had $14 billion in this Committee in the stimulus.

This is a very, very important hearing, and I am delighted that you and the staff have undertaken to do this.

We passed the legislation under the leadership of Chairwoman Johnson, with Mr. Boozman's participation, Mr. Mica, to replenish State revolving loan funds.

I have championed for many years non-point source legislation requiring management by watershed and requiring the practitioners--farmers individually, the State Departments of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Service, a host of other…

We need to fix this organizational chart that arrogates unto itself titles that have no meaning and no ability to improve the performance.

I just a moment ago said on the House floor that our patience is running out.

To reduce the funding for the redesign is folly.

the actions of FAA are in contravention of bipartisan judgment on the needs of the future of aviation.

This is an arrogance ascribing to itself authority and corporate, sector-like status that has no foundation law nor authority.

To think that we can just tinker around the edges and shift a plane here and a plane there and an arrival here and a departure there is folly.

the FAA knew very clearly what this Committee's and the full House's position was in H.R. 2881.

They need to get their act together, to put forward their proposals for the future of the revenue stream at FAA.