James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Con. Res. 145 to recognize May as National Bike Month and to acknowledge efforts of bicycling advocates to promote the limitless benefits of cycling, including reduced congestion, healthier lifestyles, and an environmentally friendly and efficient mode of transportation. May has officially been celebrated as National Bike Month by the cycling community since 1956 to educate Americans about bike safety and the benefits of cycling. H. Con. Res. 145 provides an opportunity to salute the more than 100 million people of all ages who cycle each year, and the national and community-based volunteers and professionals associated with cycling for promoting bicycle safety and the benefits of cycling. Bicycling is the most efficient form of urban transportation in history. This transportation choice helps ease congestion on our roads and reduce environmental pollution while allowing cyclists to incorporate exercise into their everyday lives. National Bike Month has inspired countless bike rides, safety inspections, commuter challenges, ribbon cuttings, share the road promotions, and other varied celebrations of bicycling in communities throughout the Nation. Bicycling became popular in the 1880s, when cyclists formed the League of American Wheelman--still in existence and now called the League of American Bicyclists. The league began the first organized lobby for better roads, literally paving the road for the automobile. This body has had a major hand in encouraging greater use of human- powered travel modes, increasingly recognizing the importance of bicycling as an alternative to travel by motorized vehicles by providing unprecedented funding opportunities in the Nation's surface transportation bill. Funding provided in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users, SAFETEA-LU, will further help communities change transportation habits by building bike lanes and paths, adding sidewalks, installing crosswalks and organizing safer, more efficient ways for children to get to school. I want to thank my colleague from Oregon for introducing this important resolution, and I want to thank this body for continuing to recognize the important role that cycling plays in our Nation's transportation system. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 145.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the principal problem with this bill is that it didn't have any hearings. The bill was introduced and moved through the committee without deliberation, without consideration. Many of the issues that have been discussed this afternoon on the floor were issues that could and should have been raised in the course of hearings, and that would have been resolved, as they have been resolved in the bill now under consideration, but not in the bill introduced nor in the bill reported from committee. Now, the appropriate order of business in our committee is we, unless there is overwhelming consensus, we have a hearing on a bill. And even on bills in which there is overwhelming consensus on both sides, we have hearings on the legislation, because there is always something that may come up that we hadn't thought about. And there were things that came up in this bill that the drafters hadn't thought about, and those were issues of law enforcement, public safety officials, specifically the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is mobilized to deal with a disaster when it has to evacuate persons stricken by disaster, hurricanes, floods, at sea under tempestuous circumstances, as we see on the Weather Channel the Coast Guard nobly rescuing people under extraordinary adverse circumstances. The bill, as introduced, would have prohibited a Coast Guard officer from requiring a person boarding a rescue helicopter, boarding a rescue vessel, a search and rescue ship, would have prohibited those persons from surrendering their firearm. Not to seize the firearm, not to take it away permanently, but to say we will keep this for you until you are safely onshore. There is no law that gives the Coast Guard the authority to do that. Now, we should have had the bill under consideration in the committee, and we should have provided that authority to the Coast Guard, and that authority would be perfectly acceptable to advocates of firearm ownership. I have been, for 32 years, an advocate for firearm ownership. I have supported the right to keep and bear arms for all my service in the Congress and long before that, as a young lad growing up in northern Minnesota going out hunting before school and after school and on the weekends. But this is a different situation, and we needed that authority for the Coast Guard. So now we have it in this language that is on page 5, line 19 of the bill before us. Subsection (b) Limitation: nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used to rescue or evacuate during a major disaster or emergency. That is sensible. That is reasonable. It is not confiscation. The Coast Guard in this case, the agency that we have in mind, will hold the firearm and, after the rescue is completed, the person gets the firearm back. Now, we should have had that in the bill before it even came to the House floor. The other problem was that, on the face of it, it would prohibit operators of shelters from requiring the surrender of a weapon as a condition for entry into the shelter. Now, this same, similar language, operates to protect those who operate shelters, such as the Super Dome or the Convention Center. Now, the principal author of the bill, the gentleman from Louisiana, spoke with accuracy about the circumstances in New Orleans and with some detail. I know of circumstances myself. My brother-in-law, who still lives in New Orleans, in fact, both my brother-in-laws live in New Orleans were affected by the flood. I have a very close friend whose home was broken into. They were on the second floor. They heard the people looting the place. His gun was on the first floor. He had no access to the gun. He couldn't protect the house, so to save themselves, they fled into the attic while the looters were stripping their house. They might have been able to do something if they had had the gun on the second floor and had more access to it. There are many circumstances of this kind, where the person, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, should be able to protect him or herself in their own home. But you don't need a gun to go into the Superdome. You don't need a gun when you are in the Convention Center. If you have one and you are there, this legislation permits, under and in accordance with State and local law, the surrender of that firearm for the time of keeping or refuge in the center. That is what it does. So we have a good balance between the second amendment rights of our fellow citizens, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard, protection of the Coast Guard against frivolous actions, and protection of fellow citizens who operate in all good faith, shelters for victims of disaster. In that spirit, this legislation ought to be enacted, and we ought to support the bill and it ought to pass handily in this House. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 235, expressing the Sense of Congress that States adopt procedures for driver's lioense education or I certification that improve driver awareness of the white cane or guide dog used by vision- impaired pedestrians. There are 1.5 million visually impaired Americans, who seek to gain and maintain their mobility independence. Through the agile use of the white cane, or a guide dog, our visually impaired citizens move about independently in their sight-limited world. Unfortunately, America's drivers do not always recognize the white cane or guide dog as a warning that the user is visually impaired or blind. Many States do not require driver license candidates to associate the use of the white cane or guide dog with visually impaired individuals. The visually impaired report they have had their white canes and guide dogs run over by motor vehicles, have been struck by sideview mirrors, and have suffered serious personal injury as a result of being hit by cars. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) reports that 4,827 pedestrians were killed in 2003, and approximately 70,000 were injured. People who are blind and visually impaired face an increased risk of serious personal injury and death while maneuvering America's streets and intersections. A heightened awareness by our Nation's drivers of what a white cane or guide dog indicates will remove a potential obstacle from the safe mobility of the visually impaired. H. Con. Res. 235 is supported by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), the American Council for the Blind (ACB), and the Blinded Veterans Association (BVA). H. Con. Res. 235 will help the blind find their way to the greater freedoms associated with safer mobility. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for introducing this Concurrent Resolution. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 235.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the formation of Rural Planning Organizations of America, RPO America, a new national organization dedicated to improving the planning and development of America's rural transportation network. Under the sponsorship of the National Association of Development Organizations, NADO, RPO America is serving as the first and only national forum and professional peer network for the emerging field of rural transportation planning. This new group is important not only for the coordination, management and planning of our Nation's rural transportation infrastructure and systems, but also for linking our rural communities' economic development initiatives with State and local transportation programs. As I have stated for the record countless times, the development and maintenance of our Nation's public transportation infrastructure-- including highways and bridges, transit services, ports, airports and intermodal facilities--is fundamental and at the core of our Nation's long-term economic competitiveness strategy. Since the passage of the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, nearly 30 States now voluntarily support, fund and partner with a growing network of multicounty rural planning organizations. These locally governed regional transportation planning agencies are working to enhance State and local coordination, project prioritization, roadway safety and comprehensive transportation planning in our Nation's non-metropolitan regions. While our Nation's metropolitan areas have enjoyed special Federal status and funding for transportation planning during the past half century, our rural regions are just getting started. Through training, research, peer information exchanges and other professional development services, the members of RPO America are striving to enhance the safety, mobility and economic competitiveness of small town and rural America. I commend NADO for providing the leadership and vision in forming RPO America.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, strengthening and enhancing the safety and security of our Nation's public transportation network is an urgent and critical need. Worldwide public transportation systems have been shown to be vulnerable targets for terrorist attacks, as exhibited by yesterday's horrific train bombing in India, which claimed at least 200 lives and injured at least 700 more. I believe passenger rail and public transportation providers face a difficult challenge: To provide affordable, efficient, and safe transportation services in an open and readily accessible environment. Our Nation's public transportation systems provide more than 9.5 billion transit trips annually on all modes of transit service. In addition, Amtrak provides service to more than 25 million passengers annually on 21,000 miles of routes. The extensiveness of these systems and the sheer volume of passengers who rely on public transportation make these systems an attractive target for terrorists. Yet since September 11, 2001, the Nation has focused its attention primarily on aviation security. As a result, we have made a great deal of progress in aviation, but much still needs to be done for other modes of transportation. I am aware of the many initiatives taken by public transportation providers and Amtrak to enhance the safety and security of their passengers. I am also well aware of the security initiatives that the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, have embarked upon, but those efforts are not enough. This year, the United States will spend $4.7 billion on aviation security. In contrast, the TSA has spent only $387.5 million in grants on public transportation security over the last four years, even though five times as many people take trains as planes every day. This House just passed legislation that will provide $200 million for rail and transit security. Thanks to the efforts of the Gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and other Members, that's more than we have done in the past, but more funding is needed to ensure our Nation's passenger rail and public transportation systems are safe and secure. Amtrak alone has requested more than $100 million in security upgrades and nearly $600 million for fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on the Northeast Corridor in New York, Maryland, and Washington, DC. The American Public Transit Association, which represents transit agencies and commuter railroads, has identified an estimated $6 billion in security needs to fully modernize and maintain the security of public transit systems. The lack of funding for safety and security measures endangers the Nation's critical public transportation infrastructure. The incapacity or destruction of the Nation's transportation systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on our security, national economic stability, national public health, and safety. Our transportation stakeholders, State and local governments and private providers of public transportation, and the traveling public are depending on us to help provide significant safety and security improvements for public transportation. I therefore urge the House's immediate consideration of H.R. 2351, which will protect the safety and security of our Nation's rail and transit systems and the passengers, workers, and communities that are served by them.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the markup session of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, there was a great debate over whether the seaman's wage penalty law should be changed. These changes have been sought by the foreign-flag cruise industry which has had to payout millions of dollars in damages for not paying thousands of their workers the overtime they had accrued for working more than 70 hours per week. The Members of this body may be unaware of the types of worker abuses that have occurred in the cruise industry. I am submitting for the record the testimony of Luis Bolanos in support of his claim in U.S. District Court that shows the type of fear and intimidation that cruise ship workers live under if they ask for the overtime pay they have earned. Declaration of Luis Bolanos Pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1746, Luis Bolanos, hereby declares, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the following is true and correct. 1. I am a class representative in this litigation seeking unpaid overtime wages for me and my co-workers who worked in the catering departments of Norwegian Cruise Lines vessels. We were required by NCL to regularly work more than 70 hours per week but NCL never were paid wages for this overtime work. 2. I was born in Penon Kundinamarca, Colombia on March 2, 1943. I currently am 61 years old. I have a fifth grade education from schools in Colombia. I read and write Spanish. I understand very little English, and I can only read a little English. I have a wife, a son and a daughter. I presently live at 14323 S.W. 180th Terrace, Miami, FL 33177. My son is a veterinary doctor and my daughter works for the United States government. 3. I worked for NCL for over 20 years. The following is my service history, since 1998, with the Norwegian Cruise Line company, as best as I can recall: Vessel, Dates of Employment, Job Position: Norway, 10/97--mid August 1998, 2d Pastryman. Norway, 11/7/98-8/28/99, 2d Pastryman. Norway, 11/99-8/12/00, 2d Pastryman and 1st Pastryman. Norway, Approx. 11/00-2/17/01, 1st Pastryman. 4. While employed for NCL as a Pastryman, I was responsible for making cakes, cookies, pastries and other baked goods. I worked in the galley of the ship. The jobs of a Pastryman include serving on the main food lines in the galley, cleaning; working at outdoor restaurant buffet once a week at midnight, making pastries and serving the pastries to the waiters who then served it to passengers in the dining room; making breads and cakes and pies and cookies. This work is done in a designated area of the main galley. Approximately twice per week, our department had to do what the company calls ``Deep Cleaning'' before the ship would come into a U.S. Port. Deep cleaning made the works especially hard because the cleaning we had to do had to make our department absolutely spotless. We had to clean every little space and clean up every speck of dirt. This would sometimes make our work days a little longer. In addition, all of the workers in the Pastry Department had to attend Department Meetings that lasted from 20-30 minutes every morning, and we had to attend another meeting at night once a week or once every two weeks. As a member of the crew, I also had to attend and participate in Fire and Life Boat Drills approximately once per week which would take approximately 1-1\1/2\ hours. 5. The itinerary of the Norway was almost always from Miami to various islands in the Caribbean and back to Miami. When I signed on and off the ship, I always signed on and off in Miami, which is where my voyages ended and I was paid my salary. I do recall the ship sailing some of the time in Europe, but mostly we sailed to and from Miami. When we sailed out of Miami, the voyages were normally 7 day voyages from Miami to the Caribbean and back. 6. During the period from October 1997 through February 17, 2001, in every week I worked I always worked about 100 hours per week. My standard work hours were as follows: Sunday thru Friday: 1:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m.; 1:00 p.m.- 3:00 p.m.; 4:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Thus, I worked approximately 14\1/ 2\ hours per day Sunday through Friday. Saturday: 4:00 a.m.-8:00 a.m.; 11:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. plus 2 additional hours during which I was required to work at the midnight buffet. Thus, on Saturday, I worked a 15 hour day. 7. I observed the hours worked by the other pastry chefs on the ship. They worked usually from 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. every day. Thus, they worked approximately a 12 hour work day. 8. In the course of a 10 month tour of duty, I would work with approximately 14-15 different workers. These would include the workers who were on the ship when I started my contract, and the individuals who replaced these workers as their contract periods finished. 9. During the twenty years that I worked for NCL, on the S/ S Norway, I had daily opportunities to observe the hours of work of other people in the food preparation and handling departments, as well as the pantry and utility workers. There are close to 150 people who worked at any one time in the ship's galley. In the Pastry Department, I observed that the other workers all would work more than 70 hours per week. As I recall, the following is the number of Pastrymen I worked with: between 1998 and 2001, we had four (4) 2d Pastrymen, one (1) 1st Pastryman, and two (2) Assistant Pastrymen, except that there were some periods of time that we would carry only three (3) 2d Pastrymen. Based on my personal observation, these NCL employees, on the vessel on which I was employed, all worked 12 or more hours a day, at least six and sometimes seven days a week. All worked in excess of 70 hours a week. The workers, when we had some free time, would talk about our long hours. 10. I learned what my schedule was by what I was told by the Chef, by observing the other workers, and knowing all of the work I had to accomplish each day. The volume of the work I had to do required me to work the long hours I described. There was no written schedule of my hours. It did not matter who my supervisor was. My supervisors, the Executive Chefs on the ship, often changed. When a new Executive Chef came aboard the ship, my hours would remain the same, and so did the other Pastry Chef's hours remain the same. 11. During the entire time that I worked from October 1997 through February 17, 2001, I was never paid extra overtime pay for the hours that I worked in excess of 70 hours per week, as was called for by the contract between Norwegian Cruise Lines and the Norwegian Seaman's Union. 12. Sometime during my service with NCL I became aware that there was a union that had a contract which affected my employment with NCL. This union is known as the Norwegian Seafarer's Union. I learned about it by seeing a copy of the agreement between the company and the union which was in a little red booklet. In 1998, I was given a copy of the contract. In the booklet it states that the pay scale is attached as ``Annex 1''. However, the pay scale was not attached to the contract, and while I worked for the company, I never saw the pay scale which supposedly set my base pay and monthly total guaranteed wage, and overtime rates. Trial exhibit ``8'' is a copy of the little red book I was given on the ship. 13. I never saw any union employees or workers come aboard the Norway to discuss the contract it had with NCL. I never met a union representative, and none ever came on the ship while I worked on it. I know of no officers or other employees of the union. 14. Workers on the ship are very much afraid of losing their jobs. Many of them, like me, come from poor families in poor countries. The union cannot prevent people from being fired for trivial things, and there is no guaranty that you will be rehired at the end of your contract. For these reasons, people on the ship do not complain about conditions or the lack of payment of overtime because they are afraid they will be called a troublemaker by supervisors and soon be fired. For people from poor countries, such as from where I came, working on a cruise ship is a good paying job even though the working conditions are terrible. I did not complain about not being paid overtime because I could not afford to lose my job. I had a family to support and they depended on the money I earned. 15. I heard from about 2 people I knew on the ship that said that they complained to an Executive Chef or one of the Sous Chefs about not being paid for overtime hours worked and they were told that the company did not have the money to pay overtime, that is why we were not paid overtime. 16. I worked 7 days a week for as many as 10 months consecutively during my contract periods. I would not see my family for long periods of time which was very sad, however, I had to work, otherwise, my family would have suffered. 17. As a Pastryman, I was given $15 per week for my special skills in preparing items for what is known as the Chocaholic buffet, which was a midnight buffet with many deserts and pastries. The money I was paid was not for overtime, even though at times on my monthly pay check the weekly $15 payment was listed in a category called ``Overtime''. This was paid to me and the other Pastrymen as bonus pay for doing the work for the special function, a side job, and it was not for the time we spent preparing it. In late 1997 and early 1998, I was being paid around $180 per month in bonus money for preparing the Chocaholic Buffet. In mid-1998, this bonus was reduced to around $60 per month. 18. I was very diligent about how I did my job, and I tried to make sure that everything I and my co-workers made was of good quality. In January 2001, I was reprimanded for throwing out a sponge cake that did not come out well. It was baked with frozen eggs because the galley had run out of fresh eggs. The frozen eggs did not work well in the batter, so the cake did not rise well. I knew that this cake could not be served to the passengers. I was reprimanded for throwing it out. Then, in February 2001, I was again reprimanded for having taken some tin bake pans that had been washed to my station. I did not know it, but some of the pans were not washed well and were still somewhat dirty. During an inspection, the pans were seen by a supervisor and he blamed me for having dirty pans in my station. I had not used the pans yet, and did not know that they were not perfectly clean. I would not have used them when it came time to bake with them. Still, I was blamed and was told to sign the warning they tried to give me or be fired. As I felt I was not at fault, I told them I would not sign the warning, so I was fired. 19. I never was told that a supervisor had to give me a special order or I had to ask for approval to work the hours necessary to get the work done. There were no time clocks or time sheets or other methods, of which I am aware, by which NCL recorded the working hours of the crew members in my department. However, my supervisors knew the long hours I was working, and those of the other workers in my department, because it was the supervisors who directed me to get the work done. They would come and observe the work, and required it to be completed to their satisfaction. 20. On my pay envelope and the payroll register there never was a listing of the number of hours I worked multiplied by an hourly rate showing extra overtime pay. 21. After I was fired by NCL, I took a job in a ``Publix'' supermarket, bagging groceries.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This legislation simply corrects a number of oversights and drafting errors, technical mistakes made in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. It does a number of things, clarifying the sense of Congress concerning Buy America requirements and the Federal aid bridge program. It addresses errors made in the research program funding calculations, the Future Strategic Highway Research Program, University Transportation Center Program and the biennial Conditions and Performance Report, and it modifies the Repeat Intoxicated Driver Law to allow for use of ignition interlock devices. These are technical matters that we have both agreed on, need to be adjusted. They do not result in any increase of cost over the original bill as passed. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In my remaining time, I just want to refute what the distinguished gentleman from Florida said, that domestic aviation will not be affected. It will be affected. Foreign owners will decide routes, fleet size, type of aircraft, service in domestic markets and international markets. We will lose an international trade aviation sector.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. For 65 years, aviation trade has been governed by a fundamental principle and a statute which requires that only an airline that qualifies as a citizen of the United States may provide service between citizens in the U.S. or on international routes. The international trade bureaucrats at the Departments of Transportation and State have decided to change that law by rule. That should not be changed by the bureaucrats. It should be done by act of Congress. We ought to have more than just a couple of hours of hearings. We ought to have in-depth hearings in the House and the Senate and decide whether or not we are going to change that statute to something else. Secondly, why would we, in the context of an international trade negotiation, trade away the one sector of economics where the United States has a positive balance of trade? Aviation. We have a $9 billion surplus balance of payments with the European Community. If we allow U.S. airlines to be sold to foreign interests, that positive balance of payments will disappear. Gone. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns and reservations about a particular matter included in the House Report (H. Rpt. 109-495) accompanying the bill, H.R. 5576, the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for fiscal year 2007. Under the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Congress specifically authorized funding to be made available for the execution of the Federal commitment for transit new start projects. Currently, 18 transit new starts have Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The FFGAs provide a commitment for the Federal share of the project and serve as a basis for local transit recipients to plan and advance badly needed transit projects that help serve the transportation needs of local and regional communities. Without the Federal commitment, many of these transit projects would not be built. Unfortunately, the House Report directs the FTA to retain the final payment under the FFGA for one particular transit new start project, the Tren Urbano project in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, until the Commonwealth and the project construction contractor resolve outstanding issues and reach a closeout agreement. Mr. Chairman, the language directing FTA to retain funds authorized in SAFETEA-LU until a contract dispute is resolved by all parties is highly unusual and interjects the Federal Transit Administration in the midst of on-going judicial proceedings. The Committee direction would have the effect of withholding a Federal commitment of funds that are not related to the amounts under dispute with the contractor of the system and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Federal funds are not at risk. The amounts under discussion are related to the amounts contracted with local funds. Therefore, the FTA should release the amounts agreed to for the Tren Urbano project. Based upon FTA's oversight and management reviews, Tren Urbano has received the support of FTA for the release of the remaining amounts that the project is entitled to receive. Unfortunately, the report language would preclude FTA from awarding the final payment for the Tren Urbano project. Although the Tren Urbano project has encountered a number of construction and management missteps in constructing the project, the government has responded by correcting its management problems, overcoming delays, and safety concerns. To the credit of the Governor of Puerto Rico, our former colleague Anibal Acevedo-Villa, and his Secretary of Transportation, the concerns raised in an audit by the Inspector General and the requirements made by FTA have been fully addressed to the Administration's satisfaction. As a result, the project has recently celebrated its first anniversary with a passenger ridership of more than 17 million passengers, 35 percent over the estimated ridership levels. The turnaround of the project has resulted in an overwhelming transit success. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the unprecedented language that directs FT A to withhold the final full funding grant payment until both sides reach a close out agreement. Such direction may have the effect of further delaying the resolution of contract disputes. I believe this direction should be rejected by the Federal Transit Administration so that the Tren Urbano project may receive the full funding grant amounts that it is entitled to receive under its agreement with the Federal Transit Administration.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. First of all, the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Arizona are dead wrong. Our offset does not touch the border stations. In fact, the Nogales is registered in the bill at $9.8 million; San Luis has $42 million. We do not touch any of the border stations. In fact, the offsets are minor repair and alteration, $375 million. Minor construction, $10 million. Building operations, that is cleaning, $119 million; and the DC Old Executive Office Building at $56 million to cover the offsets for Amtrak. None of this is border stations, none of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).