[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 73 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1064-E1065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2400, BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE 
                 TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, May 22 1998

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Science whose 
jurisdictional area of expertise includes transportation research and 
development once again is pleased to have worked closely with the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in efforts to strengthen 
the research program of the Department of Transportation by first 
developing a comprehensive research title for the House version of this 
legislation and later by serving as conferees on the research title.
  I would like to thank Chairmen Shuster and Petri as well as Ranking 
Democratic Members Oberstar and Rahall for their cooperation in 
bringing a research title to the floor which incorporated most of the 
significant provisions reported by the Committee on Science and for 
working with us to ensure that the House comprehensive research program 
prevailed in conference to the extent possible. I

[[Page E1065]]

believe our cooperative efforts in 1992 contributed significantly to 
the strengthening of Department of Transportation surface 
transportation research in the ensuing years; I am equally convinced 
that our efforts during 1997 and 1998 will take these research programs 
to a higher level. While I am deeply disappointed with how a handful of 
provisions turned out, overall I feel this legislation is an 
improvement over existing law.
  Unfortunately, the Statement of Managers for the bill before us 
omitted the explanation of all of the research title except for the 
Intelligent Transportation System. While many of these provisions are 
clear on their face, I feel in other instances, an explanation of 
Congressional intent should be included in the legislative history. 
Therefore, at this point, I would like to discuss a number of these 
provisions for which the Science Committee leadership served as 
conferees and where Science Committee members had concerns.
  Section 5108, entitled Surface Transportation Research Strategic 
Planning, makes it clear that the Secretary is to oversee an integrated 
planning process in consultation with all other Federal agencies 
involved in surface transportation research, State and Local 
governments, and private sector organizations involved in surface 
transportation research to make sure that the Department's efforts have 
a strategic focus, clear goals, and measurable results. This section 
builds on the work the Department has begun under the guidance of the 
Deputy Secretary. The language retains other important features from 
our Committee's work product including tie-ins to the Government 
Performance and Results Act, outside review of Department plans, 
emphasis on merit review, and tying in the plans, research and results 
of each Departmental research program to this planning effort.
  Section 5102, Surface Transportation Research, ended up containing 
programs which originated in Committee-passed sections dealing with 
research, technology development, and technology transfer. Among the 
items of importance to the Committee on Science are the new 23 USC 
502(c)(2) and (f) which provide for research, development, and 
technology transfer related to surface transportation infrastructure 
such as enhancing emphasis on seismic research an on demonstrating 
innovative recycled materials, especially the use of paper and plastics 
to replace metal mesh in reinforced highway concrete. The Committee 
also placed strong emphasis on increasing the knowledge base necessary 
for state and local governments to do contracting based on life cycle 
cost analysis including the development of standardized estimates for 
the useful life of advanced highway and infrastructure materials. The 
Committee is well aware that if the useful life of the average highway 
could be extended by just one year, that the entire surface 
transportation research program of the Federal government could be paid 
for many times over and is interested in stopping the phenomenon of the 
products of advanced research sitting on the shelf because local 
contracting officers are either unfamiliar with them or do not know how 
to evaluate their usefulness.

  Section 5104, Training and Education, continues a variety of training 
and scholarship programs of the Department. The Committee through 
language now included at 23 USC 504(b)(2)(A)(i) had interest in 
strengthening undergraduate training and technical assistance to local 
transportation agencies through programs such as the Middle Tennessee 
Graduate 2000 program which was designed in conjunction with the 
concrete industry and state officials to assure an adequate supply of 
bachelor level professionals who are knowledgeable about the concrete 
industry and capable of making decisions related to the adoption of new 
technologies. We feel this is a necessary complement to our changes in 
Section 5102. Even if we are successful in getting the Department to 
fund research on life cycle costing and to develop standardized 
estimates of useful lives for new technologies, these are unlikely to 
be utilized in the absence of a technologically educated workforce.
  Section 5107, the Surface Transportation-Environment Cooperative 
Research Program, is an idea promoted both by the Senate and by the 
Committee on Science. Its goal is to promote an increased awareness of 
the environmental and social impacts of transportation decisions 
through research to better understand factors related to transportation 
demand, by developing indicators of economic, social, and environmental 
performance of transportation systems, and by establishing an Advisory 
Board to recommend environmental and energy conservation research, 
technology and technology transfer activities related to surface 
transportation.
  Section 5110, is one section with a disappointing final form. While 
we appreciate the Conference Committee's retention of our emphasis on 
merit selection of University Transportation Research Centers, we feel 
it is a mistake to list 21 recipients of earmarks and to mandate those 
earmarks in specific amounts for six years. This defeats both the 
principle of awarding contracts to the most qualified institutions and 
of continuing funding only for those institutions which perform 
satisfactorily under the grants. The House version of this legislation 
listed a number of other locations which Members of Congress considered 
to have meritorious programs and required the Secretary to consider 
applications for these institutions while not requiring actual rewards. 
For instance, under the House provision, which we considered to 
be preferable, the Secretary would have considered applications from 
schools like Middle Tennessee State University, Tennessee Technological 
University, and the University of Maryland which our membership 
considers to have sophisticated transportation programs, but the 
Secretary would only have awarded and renewed grants to these 
institutions if the applications from the school was meritorious and 
its performance under existing grants was satisfactory.

  We are in agreement with the Statement of Managers language on the 
Intelligent Transportation System Subtitle and were pleased to be able 
to make a contribution to it. Our Committee's main emphases were 
expedited standards development for the intelligent transportation 
systems (ITS) program to decrease the chance of deployment of 
incompatible systems, increased data collection and information sharing 
responsibilities for recipients of grants for ITS operational tests or 
deployment, making sure that adequate attention is paid to the basic 
and human factors research related to ITS, and making sure that the 
special needs of ITS in cold climates were addressed.
  I would like to close by commenting on the bill's removal of the 
deadline for conversion of highway construction to the metric system of 
measurement and its deferring to the states in this matter. This 
modification does not change the basic underlying facts that metric is 
still by law the preferred system of measurement in the United States, 
that U.S. government procurement and business related activities are to 
be conducted in metric, and that the rest of the world is moving to 
metric at a very rapid clip. Metric is the official system of 
measurement throughout Asia; all regulations in the European Union are 
being written in metric. Metric measurement is the standard throughout 
the Americas including Mexico and Canada. Metric measurement is rapidly 
becoming predominant in U.S. highway construction. Fortunately, this 
provision is not expected to bring much change. A quick survey of the 
states has shown that 90 percent of them do not plan to exercise this 
option and revert to the English system of measurement.

                          ____________________