Peter DeFazio

They cannot commit themselves to something for which they cannot reasonably guarantee or foresee revenues.

How is the State going to plan a two or three year major project if they are only guaranteed 18 months of funding?

I am a bit puzzled about the 18-month proposal.

I am proposing a very simple revenue issue and I gave it to Chief of Staff this morning.

The measures are not being followed.

So it doesn't sound like we have a red tape problem here.

We just had a law change regarding the Recovery Act signed by the President yesterday that may serve to retain even more jobs.

Well, 450 is trust funded or General Fund into transit. Of that, because of the way scoring and outlays work, we need to raise an additional $140 billion.

We figure we can go from 14 years average delivery on a major transit project to maybe 3 under our proposal.

I can't agree with you that what the President is proposing is more of the Bush era policy.

We have got to root this out. I mean, we just have to root this out.

Clearly what we need is a Federal regulation to make that a nonquestion of compliance.

I think it is the FAA's duty to establish a higher bar, and then no one is at a competitive disadvantage.

I would say it is a fairly similar circumstance, and I have done a lot of this.

But some--and we had Ms. Slaughter reference one particular outfit that does training in Florida and pushing people through pretty quickly.

That is one of the keys which you pointed to in 1992, if they don't have protection.

We need to have a uniform higher standard.

I guess I have trouble reconciling pilot pushing, intimidation, punitive firing, discipline for pilots who are trying to follow the law and report themselves fatigued and people want to do the right thing.

I hope this is a new beginning with a new administration, a new Administrator, and a very assertive Chairman that we finally get these things done.

This has got to stop. It has to stop. And this hearing has to be the beginning of that change at last.

None of that is right. We need to set a much, much higher minimum bar.

I look forward to working with you and pledge our support.

My personal preference would be strategy three. I am concerned that this is the most likely method of delivery of a weapons of mass destruction to the United States.

There is certainly concern there, and Brian Baird, one of my colleagues from Washington State, has proposals on how we might reconstitute ourselves in the case of a devastating attack and loss of membership.

To the best of my knowledge, the Executive order is still in place and is still classified, and we were denied access.