Peter DeFazio

There was a plan for continuity of Government, and one would assume that continuity of Government would include all three branches.

I asked the former--I think you would, unlike the former administration, recognize that the Constitution provides for three branches of Government.

They identified 30 separate projects.

We just don't want to have an offset over here losing our regular program funding and planned projects, which offsets the jobs we created here.

Oh, no, it is a tremendous step forward from historic levels of neglect, in particular.

I said we could cancel sending a man to Mars and invest that money in a 25-year plan to have high speed rail interconnected in the United States of America.

Are you thinking of spending the money across those corridors or concentrating on one corridor to try and have a significant result?

I think it would be useful, because I believe, just from my experience, there are a few skeptics about the job generating capability of transportation infrastructure investments among the President's economic team.

The total need for that one highway in one State is $1 billion. That just underlines how huge the unmet needs are nationally.

I thank the gentleman. Thank you for pointing out the intermodal needs with ferries, the border problems, and freight movement.

We are going to make it a transparent process.

There is room for some designated spending by Members of Congress who better understand the needs of their district.

Does all wisdom reside in the bureaucracy? Should all of the money be allocated either through the political appointee, the Secretary of Transportation, or through the various State departments of transportation?

The government didn't think, 'Well, let us have a market-based system to clean up those rivers.'

Well, here is just the thing. I mean, I am an old, very simplistic kind of guy.

Perhaps after a lengthy session, we can find some consensus on something.

They said, 'Hey, we are going to stop the polluting.'

Shouldn't the U.S. defend its consumers by filing a complaint against OPEC for improper, illegal constraint of supply?

Would 'drill here, drill now' last summer, if implemented as proposed, have made any difference in the retail price of gasoline during last summer?

The Republicans said, 'Drill here, drill now,' like that would provide immediate relief.

I can predict it right here, right now. Consumers are going to be paying well over $3 a gallon by Memorial Day.

I have asked, to be fair, President Clinton, who refused to file a complaint against OPEC, President Bush, who refused to file a complaint against OPEC, and we will soon be asking President Obama to file a complaint against OPEC.

I never understood that position. Are we going to do it overseas?

We would love--and I think the Chairman shares--we would love to discuss this issue further and see if we could help move that along.

Thank you. Just to follow-up with Mr. Asplund, you very definitively said that the current fee structure is causing diversion.