write_parts.c-54 : failed to open = [/local/etc/httpd/cgi-lis/txt_templates/compr_reg_crumb.txt]

Committee Reports

108th Congress (2003-2004)

House Report 108-662 - Part 1

Committee Reports for the 108th Congress
House Report 108-662 - Part 1 1 of 1
Search Results  > House Report 108-662 - Part 1
New Search Help  |  Contact Us
This Report: To Accompany H.R.3551     Printer Friendly: HTML  |  PDF


{link: 'http://www.congress.gov:80/cgi-bin/cpquery?',title: 'THOMAS - Committee Report - House Report 108-662 - Part 1' }

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

29-006

108TH CONGRESS

REPT. 108-662

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

2d Session

Part 1

--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004- Ordered to be printed

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 3551]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

CONTENTS Page
I. Amendment 2
II. Purpose of the Bill 34
III. Background and Need for the Legislation 34
IV. Summary of Hearings 36
V. Committee Actions 38
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill 39
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section) 40
VIII. Committee Views 46
IX. Cost Estimate 54
X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 54
XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates) 58
XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations 58
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives 58
XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement 58
XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement 59
XVI. Congressional Accountability Act 59
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law 59
XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 59
XIX. Committee Recommendations 125
XX. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup 127
XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup 429

I. AMENDMENT

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Goals, principles, and processes.
Sec. 103. Transportation research and development strategic planning.
Sec. 104. Surface transportation research and development.
Sec. 105. Technology deployment.
Sec. 106. Training and education.
Sec. 107. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Sec. 108. State planning and research.
Sec. 109. Future Strategic Highway Research Program.
Sec. 110. University transportation research.
Sec. 111. Intelligent Transportation Systems.
TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 202. Innovative Practices and Technologies Demonstration and Deployment Program.
Sec. 203. National Transit Institute.
Sec. 204. Human resource programs.
Sec. 205. Highway safety research and development.
Sec. 206. Motor carrier research and development program.
Sec. 207. Transportation, energy, and environment.
Sec. 208. National cooperative freight transportation research and development program.
Sec. 209. Next Generation National Transportation Policy Study Commission.
Sec. 210. Real-time system management information program.
Sec. 211. Planning capacity building initiative.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 102. GOALS, PRINCIPLES, AND PROCESSES.

SEC. 103. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLANNING.

`Sec. 508. Transportation research and development strategic planning

`508. Transportation research and development strategic planning.'.

SEC. 104. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

`Sec. 507. Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program

`507. Surface transportation environment and planning cooperative research program.'.

SEC. 105. TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT.

SEC. 106. TRAINING AND EDUCATION.

SEC. 107. BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS.

`Sec. 111. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

SEC. 108. STATE PLANNING AND RESEARCH.

`Sec. 505. State planning and research

SEC. 109. FUTURE STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM.

`Sec. 509. Future Strategic Highway Research Program

`509. Future strategic highway research program.'.

SEC. 110. UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH.

`Sec. 5505. University transportation research

SEC. 111. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

`Subtitle C--Intelligent Transportation Systems

`SEC. 5201. SHORT TITLE.

`SEC. 5202. GOALS AND PURPOSES.

`SEC. 5203. GENERAL AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS.

`SEC. 5204. USING INFORMATION FROM INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

`SEC. 5205. NATIONAL ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS.

`SEC. 5206. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

`SEC. 5207. USE OF FUNDS.

`SEC. 5208. DEFINITIONS.

`Subtitle C--Intelligent Transportation Systems
`Sec. 5201. Short title.
`Sec. 5202. Goals and purposes.
`Sec. 5203. General authorities and requirements.
`Sec. 5204. Using information from intelligent transportation systems.
`Sec. 5205. National architecture and standards.
`Sec. 5206. Research and development.
`Sec. 5207. Use of funds.
`Sec. 5208. Definitions.'.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 202. INNOVATIVE PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES DEMONSTRATION AND DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM.

SEC. 203. NATIONAL TRANSIT INSTITUTE.

SEC. 204. HUMAN RESOURCE PROGRAMS.

SEC. 205. HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

SEC. 206. MOTOR CARRIER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

`Sec. 31108. Motor carrier research and development program

`31108. Motor carrier research and development program.'.

SEC. 207. TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT.

SEC. 208. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

`Sec. 510. National cooperative freight transportation research and development program

`510. National cooperative freight transportation research and development program.'.

SEC. 209. NEXT GENERATION NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY STUDY COMMISSION.

SEC. 210. REAL-TIME SYSTEM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM.

SEC. 211. PLANNING CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE.

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations to the Department of Transportation for surface transportation research and development.

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The U.S. transportation system faces tremendous challenges. Tens of thousands of lives are lost each year on the Nation's highways. More drivers are driving more miles, causing severe congestion. An aging infrastructure is putting a strain on State and local transportation budgets. Constructing and using transportation infrastructure can damage air and water quality and strain natural resources. Changing patterns of where people live and work demand an innovative response to ensure that we meet future needs and limit environmental impacts.

Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation system depend on solid research. Research on pavements can lead to materials that are more durable and last significantly longer than current materials. Research on operations can lead to the design of better road configurations to avoid dangerous intersections or highway merges. Research on information technologies, specifically Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), can lead to the development of technologies to manage the transportation system in real time, making it possible to respond to incidents and alter traffic signals instantaneously. Research on the linkages between transportation and the environment can help discover ways to increase mobility while minimizing the impact on the environment and human health. Finally, research in the social sciences, such as on transportation trends, is vital to planners who must make informed decisions to ensure that we meet future transportation needs.

Since passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991 (P.L. 102-240), research and development (R&D) has had a prominent place in the surface transportation authorization bill. Both ISTEA and the subsequent Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which was passed in 1998 (P.L. 105-178), contained significant funding for surface transportation research and development. The Science Committee has jurisdiction over surface transportation R&D, and in the 105th Congress the Science Committee reported out the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act, H.R. 860. This year, in the 108th Congress, the Science Committee passed H.R. 3551, intended to be a blue print for surface transportation R&D in the larger authorization bill, H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU).

Over the six-year life of TEA-21 (1998-2003), the Federal government invested approximately $2.9 billion (or about $500 million per year) in surface transportation R&D (primarily highway R&D) under Title V. The funding for these activities came from gas tax receipts deposited in the Highway Trust Fund. Although this is a significant R&D investment, the Federal transportation R&D investment under TEA-21 represented less than 1 percent of Federal spending on surface transportation. Many experts see this level of investment as too low. By comparison, the Federal government invests approximately 10 percent of total health care spending on R&D. While Congress increased funding for overall transportation programs by about 40 percent in TEA-21, funding for transportation R&D remained relatively flat.

In addition, transportation R&D is highly decentralized, with the Federal government, States, universities, the National Academy of Sciences, and the private sector each playing an important role. In TEA-21, Congress further decentralized R&D by increasing the proportion of R&D funds that went directly to States, while decreasing the Federal share of R&D dollars. This decentralization, coupled with inadequate investment, has created significant gaps in the R&D agenda.

H.R. 3551 takes specific steps to increase surface transportation research spending, tie research spending to overall transportation spending, and fill many critical gaps. These gaps include environmental R&D, long-term fundamental research, policy research (addressing such things as changing demographic, economic and social trends), performance measurement and evaluation R&D, and research addressing institutional barriers to deployment (particularly for ITS technologies).

H.R. 3551 authorizes programs to fill these gaps. These include: authorizing the Surface Transportation Environment Cooperative Research Program (STECRP) and ensuring that the program carries out the agenda developed by the Transportation Research Board; authorizing the Future Strategic Highway Research Program (also laid out in a report by the Transportation Research Board) to address renewal, safety, reliability and capacity; authorizing greater funding for exploratory advanced research; authorizing a trends research program to look at the impact of changing demographics and a changing economy on the surface transportation system; and authorizing research into the institutional barriers to the deployment of intelligent transportation systems.

H.R. 3551 also strives to ensure the highest quality research by requiring that all research and development grants, contracts and cooperative agreements be peer reviewed and awarded on a competitive basis. It also requires that all research and development activities include a component of performance evaluation to ensure that our dollars are well spent. Finally, H.R. 3551 strengthens the strategic planning requirements to ensure that research is focused on helping to achieve the overall goals of the surface transportation system, such as reducing congestion and increasing safety.

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

On April 10, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards of the House Science Committee held a hearing on research and development priorities for the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The hearing examined the state of current R&D programs, how well they are meeting the goals laid out in TEA-21, and significant gaps in the R&D programs. In addition, the hearing investigated how the Department of Transportation

(DOT) could improve the quality of the R&D it funds and measure the success of individual R&D projects, R&D programs, and the transportation system as a whole.

The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Emil Frankel, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation; (2) Mr. Eric Harm, Deputy Director, Division of Highways, Illinois Department of Transportation; (3) Dr. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair, University of Texas at Austin Department of Civil Engineering; (4) Ms. Kate Siggerud, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, General Accounting Office; (5) Ms. Anne Canby, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project and (6) Dr. Michael Meyer, Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Mr. Frankel opened the hearing with a summary of the achievements of the Department of Transportation's R&D programs under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and TEA-21, including Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), pavement improvements and safety-related behavioral research. He stated that the development of new technologies is a key to developing a safer, simpler, smarter transportation system and alleviating many of the problems facing the transportation system. He stated that while most of DOT's R&D is short-term, it is important to use some of today's scarce resources to search for long-term solutions.

Mr. Harm began by discussing the enormous challenges that the State of Illinois faces in its transportation system. Illinois will have to figure out how to move more people and more freight on aging facilities that are already near or at capacity, while taking into account environmental, social, and economic impacts. He said that only with a strong Federal R&D program can Illinois accomplish this. He stressed the importance of long-term research that will provide results in a 10- to 20-year timeframe, and stated that this is a Federal responsibility, as States do not have the incentive to do this research. He also pointed to the need for R&D to look at alternative ways of moving people and goods. He stated that we can't build our way out of congestion and need to research how to increase intermodal efficiency.

Dr. Walton discussed the Future Strategic Highway Research Program (F-SHRP), and the need for this focused, time-limited R&D program that will address renewal of our highways, safety, reliability of travel times, and providing capacity. He stated that his Transportation Research Board (TRB) committee recommended that advanced research (the results of which usually take several years to reach an implementable stage) should become a stronger part of the Federal research program. He asserted that the Federal R&D program should be more responsive to major stakeholders. To advance deployment of ITS technologies, Dr. Walton recommended a study to address the non-technical barriers to technology deployment. Finally, he suggested that Congress should consider the creation of a national strategic plan for transportation R&D.

Ms. Siggerud discussed a General Accounting Office (GAO) report that evaluated the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) implementation of research management practices issued in 2002. The report recommended that FHWA increase stakeholder participation by consulting with external parties when developing R&D agendas, thereby ensuring that funded R&D is relevant to those who will implement the results. The report also called on FHWA to use a systematic approach to evaluate ongoing and completed R&D to ensure that FHWA is selecting the research projects with the greatest value.

Ms. Canby stated that one of the challenges in transportation is targeting the R&D efforts to help deliver what the public wants--more trip choices, a balanced investment in the transportation system, and greater responsiveness to community, public health, and environmental concerns. She said that the basic principles outlined in ISTEA including intermodalism, economic efficiency and environmental quality should guide the research agenda, and be used to set performance measures to track progress in achieving these goals. In terms of specific needs, she pointed to data deficits at the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), particularly in bicycle and pedestrian data; the need to expand the knowledge on key issues such as social equity, public health and the environment; and the need to look at key trends that will affect the transportation system such as an aging population and the growing costs of transportation. In addition, she called for funding the Surface Transportation Environment Cooperative Research Program created in TEA-21.

Dr. Meyer outlined several demographic and social trends that will affect the transportation system. These trends include the concentration of people within metropolitan areas, greater utilization of public transportation and non-peak travel by an aging population, and globalization. He stated that research is necessary to plan for these emerging trends, and outlined a potential trends research program that would be implemented by the Transportation Research Board. He also identified criteria for evaluating research programs. Finally, he recommended that BTS look carefully at the goals established in ISTEA and TEA-21 and identify measures to determine the effectiveness of the transportation system in meeting those goals.

Chairman Ehlers asked a series of specific questions to the panel: Do we invest enough in surface transportation R&D? Should we increase R&D funding relative to total transportation funding? Is the current funding balanced between different areas of R&D?

All of the witnesses, with the exception of Mr. Frankel, stated that R&D is under-funded and that R&D funding should increase proportionately to the total transportation funding pool. Ms. Canby and Dr. Meyer stressed that the efficiencies and products that result from the program pay for themselves.

As to the question of balance, the witnesses agreed that improvements could be made. Dr. Meyer, Ms. Canby and Dr. Harm all stressed the need for more funding for policy, intermodal and human factors research. Mr. Harm said that while transportation R&D has been very good at developing new materials, he would like to see more multidisciplinary research in order to develop more innovative transportation policies. Dr. Walton and Mr. Frankel stated that DOT needed a more strategic vision for research and that out of that vision, a better balance in R&D funding would emerge.

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On April 10, 2003 the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards of the House Science Committee held a hearing on Research and Development (R&D) priorities for the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).

On November 20, 2003, Mr. Ehlers introduced H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2003.

On January 28, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards of the House Science Committee met to consider H.R. 3551, and considered the following amendments:

1. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that removed funding levels from the bill. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.

2. Mr. Udall offered an amendment that would add bicycle and pedestrian research (including within National Parks) to the contents of the research program under section 502(c) of title 23 of the United States Code. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.

3. Mr. Miller offered an amendment to add to the list of priority research and development areas in the Intelligent Transportation Systems Program the development of interdisciplinary strategies and tools to address the multiple impacts of congestion concurrently. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.

4. Ms. Lofgren offered an amendment to create four National Transportation Security Centers at universities to conduct research on transportation security. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.

The Subcommittee favorably reported the bill by a voice vote.

On February 4, 2004, the Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 3551, and considered the following amendments:

1. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment created a new funding mechanism for surface transportation research, which set research spending at the higher of 1.08 percent of total surface transportation spending or $500,000,000 per year. The amendment made several drafting changes to clarify and focus the contents of each program to better align with the overall strategic plan. The amendment also reduced the number of reports and reviews required by the bill. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.

2. Mr. Ehlers offered an en bloc amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment authorized a road weather research and development program and the Garrett Morgan Technology and Transportation Program, and made several other technical changes. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.

The legislation was agreed to by a voice vote. Mr. Gordon moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 3551, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass, and that the staff be instructed to make technical and conforming changes to the bill as amended and prepare the legislative report and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to by a voice vote.

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

TITLE I: SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Section 101 authorizes appropriations for the surface transportation research and development (R&D) activities included in title I of the bill and in chapter 5 of title 23 of the United States Code. It authorizes the greater of 1.08 percent of the amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund, or $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004-2009.

Section 102 lays out the goals, principles and processes for surface transportation research and development, including stakeholder input, competition and peer review, and performance review and evaluation.

Section 103 reauthorizes and streamlines strategic planning requirements, and ties research planning to the goals of the surface transportation system.

Section 104 reauthorizes the surface transportation research program. It adds R&D areas to the contents section to fill R&D gaps, such as policy research. It requires exploratory advanced research, research on geospatial information systems, environmental research (as laid out in the Transportation Research Board's Special Report 268, the Surface Transportation-Environment Cooperative Research Program), trends policy research, and road weather research. It also reauthorizes the Long-Term Pavement Program, and authorizes the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program.

Section 105 reauthorizes the technology deployment program, and authorizes new programs for innovative pavement research and deployment and safety innovation deployment.

Section 106 reauthorizes the training and education program and authorizes the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education program to improve transportation education.

Section 107 reauthorizes the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and authorizes the development of a needs assessment to ensure that the statistics that are collected are most useful to users.

Section 108 reauthorizes the State Planning and Research (SPR) Program, and requires that 25 percent of SPR funds be used for research, and 10 percent be used for data collection.

Section 109 authorizes the Future Strategic Highway Research Program (F-SHRP), to be carried out by the Transportation Research Board, to fund R&D on renewal, safety, reliability and capacity.

Section 110 reauthorizes the University Transportation Research Program, and authorizes two new programs. The first is the Transportation Education Development Pilot Program to revise transportation curricula. The second is the National Transportation Security Centers to conduct R&D on the links between transportation and security.

Section 111 reauthorizes Intelligent Transportation Systems R&D. It adds new R&D areas in addressing non-technical barriers to deployment, human factors research, weather research, and efficiency in goods movement, and requires a report on using data collected by intelligent transportation systems.

TITLE II: MISCELLANEOUS

Sections 201, 203, 204, 205 and 206 authorize, and authorize appropriations for, transit, highway safety, and motor carrier safety R&D.

Section 202 authorizes a new innovative transit practices and technologies demonstration and deployment program. Section 207 authorizes a transportation, energy and environment R&D program. Section 208 authorizes a freight R&D program.

Section 209 authorizes a commission to study transportation policy. Section 210 authorizes a real-time system management information program. Section 211 authorizes a planning capacity building initiative.

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION)

Section 1. Short title

`Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2004.'

Section 2. Findings

Finds that research and development (R&D) is critical to developing and maintaining an effective transportation system, and that Federal R&D has produced a number of successes, but is under-funded. Finds that the Federal investment in R&D should be properly balanced between short-term applied R&D and long-term fundamental research, and should cover a wide range of R&D areas including materials and structures, operations, and human factors and policy.

TITLE I: SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Section 101. Authorization of appropriations

Authorizes for core surface transportation R&D programs the greater of 1.08 percent of funds made available in each fiscal year from the Highway Trust Fund or $500 million for each of fiscal years 2004-2009. Of these sums:

Section 102. Goals, principles and processes

Sets out goals, principles and processes to guide transportation R&D. The bill explicitly links the R&D goals to the overall goals of the surface transportation system set out in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), such as improving safety and promoting efficiency. It sets forth principles to guide the Federal role in surface transportation R&D. It also establishes requirements for stakeholder involvement, competition and peer review, and performance review and evaluation for transportation R&D.

Section 103. Strategic planning

Reauthorizes and amends the Department of Transportation's (DOT) R&D strategic planning requirements. The bill requires a five-year strategic plan that includes and integrates R&D programs across the Department's operating administrations and ensures consistency with other plans. It strengthens the contents of the plan by: (1) requiring the Department to link the plan to the goals of TEA-21; and (2) requiring the plan to specify the Department's key R&D priorities, anticipated funding levels, and the expected outcomes of the R&D. The bill also increases accountability by requiring input from a range of interests in the transportation community, and requiring an annual report as part of the President's annual budget request that describes previous and proposed fiscal year funding levels for R&D.

Section 104. Surface transportation research and development

Reauthorizes and amends the R&D program carried out by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The bill largely maintains the existing R&D program requirements of Section 502 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code, but fills a variety of research gaps and clarifies the legislative language. The section sets out the overall contents of the surface transportation R&D program, including R&D on structures and materials, operations and management, safety, performance analysis, the links between social systems and transportation, and the links between transportation and the environment. The bill includes authorizations for a Long-Term Bridge

Performance Program, a Long-Term Pavement Performance Program, and a Geospatial Information Systems program.

Authorizes a new Exploratory Advanced Research program to address recommendations of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and others who say that the Federal investment in highway R&D should contain advanced, long-term research that may result in breakthroughs. The bill requires the Secretary of Transportation (henceforth referred to as the Secretary) to hold a workshop to gather input into the areas of advanced R&D that should be funded. To ensure accountability, the bill requires the Secretary to report annually on the amount of funding spent on exploratory advanced research.

Reauthorizes the `Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program' (STECRP) and requires implementation of the recommendations contained in the TRB Special Report 268, a report that Congress requested in TEA-21. The report calls for six areas of research: (1) human health; (2) ecology and natural systems; (3) environmental and social justice; (4) emerging technologies; (5) land use; and (6) planning and performance measures. The bill requires the Secretary to contract with either the National Research Council or another non-profit research organization, such as the Health Effects Institute, to administer the program and to fulfill annual reporting requirements. The selected organization must create an independent advisory board that would have broad interest group membership and be open to stakeholder input. The Advisory Board would develop an annual research agenda, solicit project proposals through open competition, and submit an annual report.

Creates a new national multimodal research program on demographic, economic and social trends that affect, and are affected by, the transportation system. This program fills a gap in current research. It requires the Secretary to establish the program through the National Research Council, and describes, in general terms, the economic, demographic, social, and other issues to be addressed by the program. It specifically requires the Council to create an independent advisory committee drawn from social science experts and key stakeholder groups, to develop a research agenda and review and evaluate project proposals.

Section 105. Technology deployment

Reauthorizes FHWA's technology deployment program, including the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program (authorized in TEA-21). Adds two new technology deployment programs, the Innovative Pavement Research and Deployment Program, and the Safety Innovation Deployment Program. The goals of these programs include the deployment of new, cost-effective designs, materials and practices to extend pavement life and performance; the reduction of maintenance costs and life-cycle costs of bridges; and the deployment and evaluation of safety technologies and innovations at the State and local level.

The legislation establishes new requirements for the Secretary to ensure that the information and technology resulting from R&D conducted in this program is made available to State and local transportation departments, metropolitan planning organizations and other interested parties.

Section 106. Training and education

Increases the number of Federal funding sources from which States may draw for surface transportation workforce development, training and education. The section eliminates the matching requirement, allowing states to use Federal sources to pay for 100 percent of these activities. These changes should provide States an additional incentive to fund these programs. The section also allows for the development of new courses at the National Highway Institute to better address challenges faced by today's transportation professionals, and requires the National Highway Institute to review, revise, and terminate courses periodically.

Authorizes $500,000 per year for the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education program in DOT to improve K-12 math and science education through the use of transportation topics. The program should focus on female and minority students.

Section 107. Bureau of Transportation statistics

Increases the responsiveness of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to the needs of the transportation community by: (1) clarifying that BTS is to serve decision makers in the transportation community at large in addition to the Secretary; (2) expanding membership of the Director's Advisory Committee on Statistics to make it more representative of the transportation community; (3) requiring a national transportation statistics needs assessment to be carried out by the National Research Council within two years of enactment (in consultation with key constituencies and the DOT's Advisory Committee on Statistics); and (4) requiring the Secretary to report to Congress within six months of receiving the assessment on how the Department plans to address the recommendations in the assessment. The Director is encouraged to harmonize data collection and management, through demonstration grants to States, local governments, and metropolitan planning organizations. The section also reauthorizes a variety of programs in Section 111 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, including the National Transportation Library.

Section 108. State planning and research

Authorizes for State Planning and Research (SPR) 2.5 percent of funds apportioned to States for each of fiscal years 2004-2009. This 0.5 percent increase recognizes a growing need to ensure adequate funding for planning and research. The bill maintains the current requirement that 25 percent of SPR funds be spent on research, development and technology transfer activities. It adds a new provision requiring that 10 percent of SPR funds be used to improve the collection and reporting of strategic surface transportation data on the extent, condition, use, performance and financing of the surface transportation system. The section clarifies that studies, research and training on engineering standards and construction materials should be multimodal, and that research should also focus on design standards for intermodal coordination.

Section 109. Future Strategic Highway Research Program (F-SHRP)

Authorizes $75 million for each of fiscal years 2004-2009 from the Highway Trust Fund for the Future Strategic Highway Research Program (F-SHRP) to be carried out by the National Research Council in consultation with the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials and other stakeholders. The program would implement the recommendations of the TRB Special Report 260, a report called for by Congress in TEA-21.

Congress asked the TRB to develop a research program that cuts across disciplines and addresses short- to medium-term R&D gaps. F-SHRP addresses R&D gaps in four areas: (1) renewal, which will focus on R&D to minimize disruptions as we renovate existing highway infrastructure; (2) safety, which will focus on reducing crashes; (3) reliability, which will focus on R&D to improve the reliability of travel times by reducing the frequency and effects of events that cause delay; and (4) capacity, which will look holistically at the relationship between highways, the economy, communities and the environment. It also includes requirements that: projects be selected through open competition and peer review; stakeholders be involved in the committees and panels set up to implement the program; the National Research Council publish annual progress and performance reports; and the Comptroller General review the program within three years of the start of research to assess the degree to which the program is addressing the research topics identified in Special Report 260.

Section 110. University transportation research

Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to nonprofit institutions of higher learning to establish and operate 10 regional transportation centers, and 16 other university transportation centers. All centers shall be selected through a competitive, peer-reviewed process and the Federal share of the costs of activities for the regional centers shall increase from the current level of 50 percent to 80 percent, while the Federal share for all other university transportation centers shall remain 50 percent. This section creates two new grant programs. One allows universities, in partnerships with State DOTs, to develop new transportation-related curricula. The other would establish no more than four National Transportation Security Centers at universities. The National Transportation Security Centers shall be chosen based on an open competition.

Section 111. Intelligent transportation systems

Reauthorizes the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Research Program. The bill creates an advisory committee with broad representation from the transportation community, and charges it to advise DOT on whether areas of ITS R&D are likely to lead to technologies that will be deployed and on the appropriate roles for government and the private sector in ITS R&D. It requires the development of an assessment, with input from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, of how data collected from current and anticipated ITS technologies can and should be used for real-time system management, planning and assessment. It also requires testing and validation of ITS standards whenever appropriate.

The bill authorizes the ITS program to focus on technologies to improve transportation security, and to develop traffic management strategies and tools that concurrently address multiple impacts of congestion. In addition, research is authorized into the non-technical barriers to the deployment of ITS technologies. Experts have identified non-technical barriers as more significant than technical ones in the deployment of innovative technologies. The bill also requires that at least one-third of ITS R&D funding be used for projects that aim to reduce congestion.

TITLE II: MISCELLANEOUS

Section 201. Authorization of appropriations

Authorizes appropriation of such sums as necessary from the Highway Trust Fund for transit R&D, highway safety R&D, and motor carrier safety R&D for each of fiscal years 2004-2009.

Section 202. Transit research

Creates a new Innovative Practices and Technologies Demonstration and Deployment Program that would demonstrate promising new transit practices and technologies, evaluate and document the performance, benefits and costs of innovative technologies, and disseminate information to accelerate deployment of innovations. To this end, the Secretary is authorized to make grants to a variety of public, private and non-profit entities. The Secretary shall select projects based on: their ability to meet the goals of the program; a peer-review process; and the likelihood that a project will result in widespread deployment. The Secretary shall also ensure that innovations are made available to transit agencies and State and local transportation departments.

Section 203. National Transit Institute

Reauthorizes the National Transit Institute, which develops and conducts training programs for Federal, State and local public transportation officials.

Section 204. Human resource programs

Maintains the human resources programs at the Federal Transit Administration.

Section 205. Highway safety research and development

Maintains the Highway Safety R&D Program and adds new provisions addressing emergency medical services, international cooperation, and a national motor vehicle crash causation survey.

Section 206. Motor carrier research and development program

Authorizes a comprehensive Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminstration R&D program to reduce accidents and injuries involving commercial motor vehicles, and to train safety personnel. Encourages cooperative research.

Section 207. Transportation energy and environment

Creates an energy and climate change program at DOT to study the relationships between transportation, energy and climate change.

Section 208. National cooperative freight transportation research program

Authorizes a cooperative freight research program, administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. Creates an advisory committee to run the program. Requires open competition and peer review of research proposals, evaluation of research results, and dissemination of research findings.

Section 209. Establishment of a next generation national transportation policy study commission

Establishes a Presidential Commission to investigate and study transportation needs, and the resources, requirements and policies necessary to meet expected needs.

Section 210. Real-time system management information program

Requires States to establish statewide incident reporting systems, a first step in establishing a nationwide system of basic real-time information for managing and operating the surface transportation system.

Section 211. Planning capacity building initiative

Establishes a planning capacity building initiative at the U.S. DOT to strengthen metropolitan and statewide transportation planning, and to enhance capacity to conduct joint transportation planning.

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

It is the Committee's view that surface transportation research and development (R&D) was under-funded in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and that transportation R&D spending should be tied to overall transportation spending.

It is the Committee's view that DOT should conduct more R&D in under-studied areas including environmental, human factors, and social science R&D.

Section 101--Authorization of appropriations

The Committee believes strongly that surface transportation R&D funding needs to be increased and should be tied to overall transportation spending. At a minimum, the programs authorized in this title should be funded at $500 million per year, but as overall transportation spending grows, so should transportation R&D spending. The Committee believes that improvements in the transportation system to meet the needs of the future depend on adequate funding for R&D.

Section 102--Goals, principles, and processes

It is the Committee's view that surface transportation research and development activities should be explicitly tied to the goals of the surface transportation system including improving safety and security, increasing mobility, and protecting and enhancing the environment. In addition, the Committee believes that DOT needs to do a better job of addressing the needs of stakeholders in determining in what areas research is needed. The Committee also believes strongly that DOT should be funding the highest quality research, and therefore the bill requires that all grants, contracts and cooperative agreements (except as otherwise provided in the Act) be peer reviewed and awarded on a competitive basis. It is the view of the Committee that R&D activities must be more accountable, and so the bill requires that all R&D activities include a component of performance evaluation. The Committee believes that ideally, these performance measurements would be based on specific outcomes, such as reduced travel times or accidents avoided, but recognizes that particularly with advanced research, it is difficult to link research results directly to outcomes.

Section 103--Transportation research and development strategic planning

The Committee is aware of shortcomings in the current transportation R&D strategic planning process whereby individual modal offices develop separate plans, which are then stapled together into a single document called the Department's R&D strategic plan. To address this problem, the Committee directs the Secretary to develop an integrated, Department-wide R&D strategic plan, and to solicit input during its development from a wide range of stakeholders.

The Committee is also concerned that present strategic planning and performance reporting does not clearly link specific R&D activities to each of the Nation's agreed upon transportation goals. Tighter linkage will focus R&D investments more effectively and help determine whether the R&D portfolio is appropriately balanced across these goals. The Committee, therefore, included provisions in this section to require the Department to make this linkage explicit.

Section 104--Surface transportation research and development

It is the Committee's view that there have been several important gaps in previous surface transportation R&D, and therefore the bill adds several new areas into the contents of the R&D program. These include research to support evaluation of the surface transportation system, research on trends that affect and are affected by the transportation system, and research and development on the linkages between transportation and the environment.

However, the Committee also recognizes that DOT has been constrained in the past from planning strategically because of the number of required research areas. Because of this, the bill lists several critical overall research areas, with more specific research areas listed under each to be conducted as appropriate.

The Committee calls attention to several new areas of research that fill gaps. The Committee believes that the transportation research and development portfolio should include research on operation and management of the surface transportation system. This includes research on pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel. An important example of the need for this research is the National Parks, where an assessment of the need for pedestrian and bicycle paths could identify promising areas for experimenting with alternative traffic management to reduce congestion. Another important area is research on non-technical barriers to technology deployment. Often non-technical barriers (such as fragmented local authority or rigid procurement rules) are more difficult to surmount than technical barriers. A third area in which the bill fills an important research gap is in research to assess how the transportation system affects and is affected by emerging demographic, economic and social trends, as well as the relationship between land use and the transportation system. The committee has also identified a need to develop methods for evaluating the performance of transportation systems across a variety of goals, such as mobility, safety, reduced congestion, and improved air quality. The development of life cycle cost analysis tools will promote better evaluation, and help State DOTs set budget priorities and manage equipment repair and replacement decisions more effectively.

It is the Committee's view that DOT should invest significantly more funding in exploratory advanced research. This is research that may not yield practical applications in the short term, but could lead to fundamental breakthroughs in the long term. The Committee believes that this

should be considered a core Federal role. The Committee also believes that DOT should consult widely with outside researchers in determining exploratory advanced research areas, and that such areas may be wide ranging and include materials research, operations research and social science research. In addition, it is the Committee's view that if this program is well funded, DOT should consider making investigator-driven grants, in the style of the National Science Foundation, to academic researchers to leverage creativity outside of the Department.

The Committee originally authored the Surface Transportation Environment and Cooperative Research Program (STECRP) in TEA-21 and has been very concerned about DOT's delay in implementing the program. The Committee directs DOT to implement STECRP expeditiously and requires management and governance provisions to help ensure the highest quality, peer reviewed, scientific research and development.

The Committee expects the Secretary to carry out the program expeditiously by implementing the comprehensive research agenda contained in TRB Special Report 268, which was completed in 2002. The Committee strongly supports this agenda because it was thoughtfully developed by a panel with diverse expertise and interests, and reflects delicate compromises among the panel members. Reopening the debate over the program's agenda would only further delay the program.

The agenda includes six critical research areas: (1) human health, (2) ecology and natural systems, (3) environmental and social justice, (4) emerging technologies, (5) land use, and (6) planning and performance measures. This broad research agenda calls for interdisciplinary research on the environmental impact of transportation, technologies to mitigate impacts, and the development of tools to improve planning, evaluate alternative project design, and consider the impact of projects on different members and groups of society.

To further encourage high quality scientific research, the bill provides the Secretary with the flexibility to choose either the National Research Council or another non-profit group, such as the Health Effects Institute (HEI), to manage the program. The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize a group such as HEI because it is a well respected scientific organization, which has effectively balanced environmental and business interests as it has carried out high quality environmental scientific research.

The bill requires a balanced and diverse membership on the Advisory Board charged with soliciting, evaluating and recommending projects for funding under this program. Although the Committee intends for no single interest group to control the Advisory Board, the Committee also recognizes the important role of state transportation agencies. The Committee intends to encourage the development of fundamental knowledge, interdisciplinary research and partnerships by requiring the Advisory Board to give priority to projects with these attributes. The Committee recognizes that not all projects would be required meet these criteria, but the Advisory Board should encourage such proposals.

The Committee recognizes, as do many leading transportation researchers, that the billions of dollars we spend on transportation infrastructure affect and are affected by important economic, demographic and social trends in our society. The Committee is also aware that this area of research receives little funding, despite the fact that knowledge of these trends is critical for investing transportation funds wisely and maintaining strong local communities. For these reasons, the Committee creates a new `National Multi-modal Research and Development Program.'

This new, modestly funded, competitive, research program would be housed at the Transportation Research Board and managed by an advisory board. The Committee believes strongly that members of the Advisory Board should be appointed from a wide array of social science fields, many of which have not been traditionally connected with transportation research, and should include members with expertise in socioeconomic factors that influence transportation needs, including researchers familiar with issues related to racial and economic equity. To ensure high quality research, the Committee expects the Advisory Board to use a transparent, stakeholder driven process for developing the research agenda and project selection criteria. The Committee also expects the Advisory Board, the TRB and DOT to make every effort to disseminate research findings widely.

Section 105--Technology deployment

The Committee believes that while States, localities and the Federal government fund a large number of technology deployments, there is little information about the performance of these deployments. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether such deployments meet their stated goals or are cost-effective. It is the Committee's view that technology deployment projects funded by this bill should incorporate performance measurements, and that this performance information should be made widely available. This would enable state and local governments to better evaluate the utility of a particular technique or technology for their use.

The bill lists many important areas of research and development relating to the deployment of pavement, bridge and safety technologies. One area is the development of innovative pavement materials (such as rapid-set pavement) to increase safety and reduce construction time and related congestion.

Section 106--Training and education

As noted in TRB's Special Report 275, `The Workforce Challenge,' and in many discussions with State and local officials, training and education are the key to a competent workforce. However, when states reduce their budgets, one of the first activities to be cut is training. Therefore, the Committee expands the number of Federal funding categories from which States can draw to fund the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and allows 100 percent of the cost to be covered by Federal dollars. While the Committee did not place in statute the specific levels of funding for the National Highway Institute, the Local Technical Assistance Program, or the Eisenhower Fellowship program, the Committee expects that LTAP will receive at least 50 percent of the total for Training and Education under Sec. 101.

The Committee urges the National Highway Institutes to make their course materials available to universities so this information can be incorporated into undergraduate and graduate curricula.

The Committee continues to be concerned about K-12 math and science education. The purpose of the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education Program is to improve the preparation of students, particularly women and minorities, in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics through curriculum development, and other activities related to transportation. The Committee expects DOT to work with organizations that have experience in education grant programs, such as the American Association of State Highway and Transit Operators and its Transportation and Civil Engineering (TRAC) Program, to ensure that the goals of the program are met.

Section 107--Bureau of Transportation statistics

Although BTS has accomplished a great deal, the Committee, like many people in the transportation community and in DOT, believes that BTS has not lived up to its potential. The Committee believes it is critical to redouble efforts to strengthen BTS. For these reasons, the Committee included a variety of provisions in Section 107 to revitalize the Bureau over the next few years.

The Committee intends to strengthen the independence of the director by extending his term of appointment to five years. The Committee also recognizes that a vibrant BTS can exist only if it also is viewed as serving the needs of both the Secretary of Transportation and transportation decision-makers throughout the public and private sectors.

It is the Committee's view that the best way to strengthen BTS is to create a consensus on BTS's priorities, ensure that those priorities are implemented, and secure adequate funding to meet those agreed upon goals. The Committee, therefore, requires BTS to enter an arrangement with the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct an `information needs assessment' to identify data gaps and unneeded data, suggest changes in data collection methods and surveys to improve standardization and accuracy of data, and identify needed resources. The NRC should ensure that the views of a representative cross-section of the transportation community are incorporated into the final assessment. The Committee believes that the assessment would be jeopardized if any single constituency group is viewed as controlling the process.

The bill also directs the Secretary to report to Congress no later than six months after completion of the assessment on the Department's plans for filling the gaps, stopping the collection of unneeded data, and estimating expected implementation costs, and on any needed statutory changes to implement the needs assessment.

One of the weaknesses in current transportation statistics is the lack of standardization across federal, state and local governments for the collection and management of transportation data. The Committee believes that BTS should serve as a national leader to encourage data standardization inside and outside the department. To enable states, local governments and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to participate in such efforts, the Committee authorizes $5 million annually for Research and Development demonstration grants.

The Committee recognizes the importance of BTS's Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics, and explicitly calls for it to provide input to, and review the Report to Congress called for in subsection (d)(4). The Committee also broadens the expertise on the Advisory Committee by increasing membership from six to no fewer than 15 members. Although the Committee wants to ensure that a majority of members continue to have expertise in economics and statistics (including transportation statistics), the Committee recognizes a need for bringing other transportation community expertise to ensure that the Advisory Committee's work is grounded in the needs of the broader transportation community.

It is also the Committee's view that BTS should maintain and support the National Transportation Library.

Section 108--State planning and research

The Committee recognizes the importance of planning and research by increasing funding for this section from 2 percent to 2.5 percent of sums apportioned to the states. The Committee clarifies that planning funds may be used to plan for freight, land use, transportation-related growth management, as well as to support capacity building for planning. The committee maintains the current share (25 percent) of these funds that must be set aside for research, which would increase the total funds available to the states for research. It also calls for research into all modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian travel, as well as into standards for intermodal coordination. The committee also believes that research should address innovative technologies (such as deliberative polling) for improving public input early in the planning process, which may reduce project delays and cost overruns.

The bill also requires States to spend a minimum of 10 percent of their SPR funds on improving the quality of data. This new provision reflects the Committee's recognition that there are significant gaps in the data available to characterize the extent, condition, use, performance and financing of the transportation system for passenger and freight movement. These data are critical to more effective planning and decision-making.

Section 109--Future strategic highway research program

The Committee recognizes the importance of carrying out the research called for the Transportation Research Board Report 260, `Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving the Quality of Life.' It also recognizes that Congress is turning over management of the program, which is authorized at nearly $400 million dollars over six years, to the National Research Council (NRC).

Because of this unusual arrangement and the unprecedented funding levels involved, the bill requires that NRC implement the report as written. In particular, the Committee's view is that research conducted on highway capacity in support of the Nation's economic, environmental and

multi-modal transportation and social goals be balanced equally between the development of new capacity and squeezing more capacity out of our existing transportation infrastructure.

To enhance the credibility of the research results, the Committee believes strongly that all NRC committees and panels established to implement the program include a balanced group of transportation stakeholders, with no one interest group having a controlling majority of votes.

The bill also calls for a mid-term evaluation of the program by the Government Accounting Office to (1) ensure that the projects funded have addressed the R&D topics in the TRB report, and (2) identify research topics that have not yet been addressed.

Section 110--University transportation research

The Committee understands the import role served by universities in transportation research and workforce development. However, the Committee is concerned that there was a lack of competition for most of the University Transportation Centers designations in TEA-21. Therefore, the bill requires that all 26 centers (the 10 regional and 16 other centers) be designated through an open competition, peer-reviewed process. The Committee seeks to ensure that University Transportation Centers are competed fairly and openly and that new applicants are not disadvantaged in the competition. The Committee also expects greater oversight by DOT to ensure that the research carried out by the centers is aligned with DOT's strategic plans.

The Nation's transportation systems are evolving in ways that require new skills for workers at all levels. The Committee creates a Transportation Education Development Pilot Program for universities to partner with State Departments of Transportation or industry to develop, test, and revise new curricula and education programs to meet these new challenges.

The Committee also recognizes a need for research and development focused on identifying and addressing security issues related to transportation. The bill authorizes funding for up to four university transportation centers that will focus on transportation security needs.

Section 111--Intelligent transportation systems

It is the Committee's view that R&D investments in intelligent transportation systems (ITS) must be made deliberatively, and that DOT should consider, before investing, the likely market for a new system or technology, as well as the appropriate funding roles for the Federal government and the private sector. For this reason, the bill establishes an ITS Advisory Committee that is broadly representative of transportation stakeholders, and charges it with evaluating new ITS technologies.

The Committee also believes that ITS technologies must be evaluated based on outcomes. ITS technologies should have clear and measurable goals, such as reducing congestion or improving safety. Demonstration projects should be designed with outcome-based performance measurement in mind.

It is the Committee's view that there may be great value in using information collected by current and future ITS technologies in real-time traffic management, planning, performance monitoring, program assessment, and policy applications. However, the Committee believes that DOT needs to assess the potential use of this data before investing in a new information infrastructure. The assessment should ensure that the infrastructure will be developed in a deliberative fashion, including assessing the need for new standards, and that the infrastructure will provide real value in reaching our transportation goals, and will be cost-effective.

The Committee believes that greater focus must be put on interoperability of ITS systems, and that interoperability should be a fundamental goal of the national architecture. In addition, the Committee has heard that it is often difficult for States and other entities to implement new standards because these standards have not been validated. Therefore, the Committee requires that DOT validate new standards whenever it is appropriate.

The Committee believes that there are many new areas in which ITS R&D should be conducted. Experts in the ITS community have identified non-technical barriers as more critical than technical barriers in slowing the deployment of ITS technologies. Therefore, it is the Committee's view that DOT should fund R&D aimed at finding ways to overcome these non-technical barriers. The Committee also believes that ITS technologies can be utilized to develop integrated traffic management strategies and tools to reduce the multiple impacts of congestion (such as travel delays, vehicle emissions, safety concerns and fuel consumption) concurrently. These projects should be multi-disciplinary, and should incorporate stakeholders and end-use communities into the design and planning phases. ITS technologies should also be used to promote efficiency in goods movement through use of real-time tracking and management. Another important area of research is in-vehicle crash protection technologies to promote safety. This research should be done in a way that links the design of automotive technologies with realistic situations of vehicle use. Finally, research on the use of photonic and optic technologies to improve nighttime visibility, and increase the effectiveness of message signs and in-vehicle displays, should be conducted.

It is the Committee's view that the ITS program should have a greater focus on congestion reduction. ITS technologies should be aimed at getting greater capacity out of the existing transportation system. For this reason, the bill calls for at least one-third of ITS R&D funds to be used to develop technologies aimed at reducing congestion.

Section 208--National cooperative freight transportation research

The Committee recognizes the economic importance of freight movement throughout the transportation system. The increases in freight and passenger traffic in some areas has led to congestion and travel delays. The disparity in size and weight of trucks and passenger vehicles creates safety concerns along heavily traveled routes. The Committee believes that this cooperative research program should include research on alternative means of freight movement including railroads and freight pipelines.

IX. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has timely submitted to the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section X of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).

H.R. 3551 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 3551 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, August 18, 2004.

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2004.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel Milberg.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Robinson

(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 3551--Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2004

Summary: CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3551 would cost $2.7 billion over the 2005-2009 period and about $1 billion after 2009. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues.

H.R. 3551 would extend the authority for transportation research programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). For those programs, CBO estimates that the bill would authorize the appropriation of $2.8 billion and provide $865 million in contract authority (the authority to incur obligations in advance of appropriations) over the 2005-2009 period.

Consistent with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, CBO assumes that the contract authority for those research programs would continue at the same rate provided immediately before the authority for the programs would expire in 2010. Hence, this estimate includes an additional $177 million in contract authority in each year over the 2010-2014 period.

H.R. 3551 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). As conditions for receiving federal assistance, state and local governments would have to provide matching funds and comply with various planning and reporting requirements.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact is shown in Table 1. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400 (transportation). 

TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 3551
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--                     
                                                                                   2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                                                
Ongoing Highway Programs:                                                                                   
Authorization Level                                                                 500  500  500  500  500 
Estimated Outlays                                                                    75  300  450  500  500 
New Highway Grant Program 1 :                                                                               
Authorization Level                                                                   0    0    0    0    0 
Estimated Outlays                                                                    11   45   68   75   75 
Transit Programs:                                                                                           
Estimated Authorization Level                                                        54   55   56   57   58 
Estimated Outlays                                                                     8   33   49   55   56 
Highway Safety Programs 1                                                                                   
Estimated Authorization Level                                                         0    0    0    0    0 
Estimated                                                                            13   57   86   97   99 
Motor Carrier Safety Programs:                                                                              
Estimated Authorization Level                                                        10   10   10   11   11 
Estimated Outlays                                                                     2    6    9   10   10 
Commission on National Transportation Needs:                                                                
Estimated Authorization Level                                                         2    0    0    0    0 
Estimated Outlays                                                                     1    1    0    0    0 
Total Proposed Changes:                                                                                     
Estimated Authorization Level                                                       566  565  566  567  569 
Estimated Outlays                                                                   110  442  662  737  741 
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 1                                                                                
New Highway Grant and Highway Safety Programs:                                                              
Estimated Budget Authority                                                           97   99  101  103  105 
Estimated Outlays                                                                     0    0    0    0    0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 3551 will be enacted near the end of 2004. Estimates of outlays are based on historical spending patterns of transportation research programs. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3551 would cost $2.7 billion over the 2005-2009 period. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues or outlays from direct spending; however, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3551 would increase contract authority by $505 million over the 2005-2009 period and by over $1 billion over the 2005-2014 period in comparison to CBO's baselines levels.

Spending subject to appropriation

Highway Programs. H.R. 3551 would extend the authorization for research programs administered by FHWA. Some of those programs include conducting research and developing technology to improve highways, operating the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and grants to universities to conduct transportation-related research. To conduct those activities in each year over the 2004-2009 period, the bill would authorize the appropriation of either 1.08 percent of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund or $500 million, whichever is greater. Because CBO cannot anticipate the amounts that will be made available from the trust fund over this period, CBO assumes the appropriation of $500 million in each year over the 2005-2009 period. CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would cost about $1.8 billion over the 2005-2009 period and another $675 million after 2009.

In addition to extending the authority to continue FHWA's ongoing research programs, H.R. 3551 would establish a new grant program that would fund research into improving highways. For this program, the bill would provide $75 million of contract authority each year over the 2004-2009 period. Under current law, spending from contract authority provided for highway research programs is considered discretionary because it is controlled by annual limitations on obligations set in appropriation acts. For this estimate, CBO assumes that appropriation actions will limit spending on the new grant program. CBO estimates that implementing the new program would cost $274 million over the 2005-2009 period and another $101 million after 2009.

Transit Programs. H.R. 3551 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary over the 2004-2009 period for FTA to conduct research on public transportation. These activities received $53 million for the current fiscal year. For this estimate, CBO adjusted that figure for anticipated inflation over the 2005-2009 period. We estimate that implementing this provision would cost $201 million over the 2005-2009 period and another $79 million after 2009.

High Safety Programs. H.R. 3551 would provide an indefinite amount of contract authority over the 2004-2009 period for NHTSA to conduct research on highway safety. CBO's current baseline assumes $360 million of contract authority for highway safety research over the 2004-2009 period; however, based on information from the agency, CBO estimates that NHTSA would require an additional $130 million over the 2005-2009 period to conduct that research. Under current law, spending from contract authority provided for highway safety programs is considered discretionary because it is controlled by annual limitation on obligations set in appropriation acts. For this estimate, CBO assumes that appropriation actions will continue to limit spending on those programs. We estimate that implementing this provision would cost $352 million over the 2004-2009 period and another $138 million after 2009.

Motor Carrier Safety Programs. H.R. 3551 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary over the 2004-2009 period for FMCSA to conduct research and develop technology for improving truck safety. The Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2005 includes about $10 million for those activities. For this estimate, CBO assumes appropriation of $10 million in 2005 and adjusts this figure for anticipated inflation over the 2006-2009 period. We estimate that implementing that provision would cost $38 million over the 2005-2009 period and another $14 million after 2009.

Commission on National Transportation Needs. H.R. 3551 would establish a commission to study transportation needs in the United States, recommend changes to current policy that would help meet those needs, and issue a report before the end of 2005. For that commission, the bill would authorize the appropriation of such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Based on historical spending patterns of similar organizations and information from the Department of Transportation, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $2 million over the 2005-2006 period.

Contract authority (direct spending)

Enacting the bill would not affect outlays from direct spending but would increase contact authority (a form of direct spending). Those effects are detailed in Table 2. 

TABLE 2- ESTIMATED EFFECTS ON CONTRACT AUTHORITY UNDER H.R. 3551
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--                                                   
                                                                                                                             2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Contract Authority for Highway Safety Programs                                                                        72   72   72   72   72   72   72   72   72   72   72 
Proposed Changes:                                                                                                                                                                   
Highway Grant Program                                                                                                           0   75   75   75   75   75   75   75   75   75   75 
Highway Safety Program                                                                                                          0   22   24   26   28   30   30   30   30   30   30 
Total Changes                                                                                                                   0   97   99  101  103  105  105  105  105  105  105 
Contract Authority for Highway Safety Programs and Highway Grant Program Under H.R. 3551                                       72  169  171  173  175  177  177  177  177  177  177 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highway Programs. H.R. 3551 would provide $75 million of contract authority each year over the 2004-2009 period for a new grant program to fund highway-related research. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act specifies that an expiring mandatory program with current-year outlays in excess of $50 million be assumed to continue at the program level in place when it is scheduled to expire. Following that rule, under H.R. 3551, CBO projects $75 milllion in additional contract authority for the new grant program beginning in 2010.

CBO assumes that spending on highway research programs would continue to be controlled by annual limitations on obligations in appropriation acts and that the outlays would therefore be discretionary.

Highway Safety Programs. For research in highway safety, H.R. 3551 would provide an indefinite amount of contract authority over the 2004-2009 period. CBO estimates that NHTSA would require $490 million over the 2005-2009 period to conduct that research, and CBO projects another $102 million for that program each year beginning in 2010. CBO assumes, however, that spending on research on highway safety would continue to be controlled by annual limitations on obligations in appropriation acts and would therefore be discretionary.

CBO's current baseline projects an annual level of contract authority for research on highway safety of $72 million and a total level of contract authority for this program of $360 million over the 2005-2009 period. Thus, for that research, H.R. 3551 would provide $280 million in contract authority above the baseline level over the 2005-2014 period.

Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact: H.R. 3551 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. As conditions for receiving federal assistance, state and local governments would have to provide matching funds and comply with various planning and reporting requirements.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Rachel Milberg; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Gregory Waring; and Impact on the Private Sector: Jean Talarico.

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

H.R. 3551 contains no unfunded mandates.

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee on Science's oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the House of Representatives, the general performance goals and objectives of H.R. 3970 are to authorize appropriations to the Department of Transportation for surface transportation research and development.

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 3551.

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The functions of the advisory committee reauthorized in H.R. 3551 are not currently being nor could they be performed by one or more agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another existing advisory committee.

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 3551 does relate to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

XVII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

XVIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Sec. 101. Definitions and declaration of policy

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 104. Apportionment

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 4- HIGHWAY SAFETY

* * * * * * *

Sec. 403. Highway safety research and development

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 5--RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Sec.
501. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
[Struck out->][ 507. Surface transportation-environment cooperative research program. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ 508. Surface transportation research strategic planning. ][<-Struck out]
507. Surface transportation environment and planning cooperative research program.
508. Transportation research and development strategic planning.
509. Future strategic highway research program.
510. National cooperative freight transportation research and development program.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 502. Surface transportation research

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 503. Technology deployment

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 504. Training and education

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[Struck out->][ Sec. 505. State planning and research ][<-Struck out]

Sec. 505. State planning and research

* * * * * * *

[Struck out->][ Sec. 507. Surface transportation-environment cooperative research program ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ Sec. 508. Surface transportation research strategic planning ][<-Struck out]

Sec. 507. Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program

Sec. 508. Transportation research and development strategic planning

Sec. 509. Future Strategic Highway Research Program

Sec. 510. National cooperative freight transportation research and development program

-

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
* * * * * * *
[Struck out->][ Subtitle C--Intelligent Transportation Systems ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5201. Short title. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5202. Findings. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5203. Goals and purposes. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5204. General authorities and requirements. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5205. National ITS program plan. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5206. National architecture and standards. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5207. Research and development. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5208. Intelligent transportation system integration program. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5209. Commercial vehicle intelligent transportation system infrastructure deployment. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5210. Use of funds. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5211. Definitions. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5212. Project funding. ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ Sec. 5213. Repeal. ][<-Struck out]
Subtitle C--Intelligent Transportation Systems
Sec. 5201. Short title.
Sec. 5202. Goals and purposes.
Sec. 5203. General authorities and requirements.
Sec. 5204. Using information from intelligent transportation systems.
Sec. 5205. National architecture and standards.
Sec. 5206. Research and development.
Sec. 5207. Use of funds.
Sec. 5208. Definitions.

* * * * * * *

TITLE V--TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B--Research and Technology

* * * * * * *

SEC. 5113. COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING PRODUCTS AND SPATIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES.

* * * * * * *

[Struck out->][ Subtitle C--Intelligent Transportation Systems ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5201. SHORT TITLE. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5202. FINDINGS. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5203. GOALS AND PURPOSES. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5204. GENERAL AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5205. NATIONAL ITS PROGRAM PLAN. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5206. NATIONAL ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5207. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5208. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INTEGRATION PROGRAM. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5209. COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5210. USE OF FUNDS. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5211. DEFINITIONS. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ SEC. 5212. PROJECT FUNDING. ][<-Struck out]

Subtitle C--Intelligent Transportation Systems

SEC. 5201. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 5202. GOALS AND PURPOSES.

SEC. 5203. GENERAL AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS.

SEC. 5204. USING INFORMATION FROM INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

SEC. 5205. NATIONAL ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS.

SEC. 5206. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

SEC. 5207. USE OF FUNDS.

SEC. 5208. DEFINITIONS.

* * * * * * *

-

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1--ORGANIZATION

* * * * * * *

[Struck out->][ Sec. 111. Bureau of Transportation Statistics ][<-Struck out]

Sec. 111. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE III--GENERAL AND INTERMODAL PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 53--MASS TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

Sec. 5315. National transit institute

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 5322. Human resource programs

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 55--INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL

* * * * * * *

[Struck out->][ Sec. 5505. University transportation research ][<-Struck out]

Sec. 5505. University transportation research

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE VI--MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

PART B--COMMERCIAL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 311--COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

SUBCHAPTER I--STATE GRANTS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS
Sec.
31100. Purpose.
* * * * * * *
[Struck out->][ 31108. Authorization of appropriations. ][<-Struck out]
31108. Motor carrier research and development program.
* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I--STATE GRANTS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

[Struck out->][ Sec. 31108. Authorization of appropriations ][<-Struck out]

Sec. 31108. Motor carrier research and development program

* * * * * * *

XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On February 4, 2004, a quorum being present, the Committee on Science favorably reported the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2004, by a voice vote, and recommended its enactment.

XX: PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS ON H.R. 3551, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2004

House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,

Committee on Science,

--Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. EHLERS. Good morning. It is my pleasure to call the Subcommittee to order. Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards is meeting today to consider the following measure: H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Subcommittee at any point, and without objection, it is so ordered.

I will proceed with my opening statement. I will simply preface it by saying that I thank the staff for all of their very hard work on this bill over the past year. What has made it especially difficult is coordinating this not only with the minority on our committee, which we always try to do, but also the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which has jurisdiction over the new transportation bill. This will be part of that bill eventually. It will be wrapped into it. But we tried very, very hard to make certain that we were meeting our obligations on this subcommittee and in the Science Committee with regards to this matter. And we are determined to have the research done by the Department of Transportation be good research, and so we have put a lot of effort into this bill, and we appreciate the efforts of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to work with us, and we hope they will accept this without too many changes.

I will proceed with my opening statement. Our nation's transportation system faces tremendous challenges. We have more drivers who are driving more miles, causing severe congestion. An aging infrastructure is putting a strain on State and local transportation budgets, which are tied up in maintaining our existing system with little, if any, money left for improving the system and planning for the future. The public demands safer, less congested road, and more public transit options. Considering that we won't have the ability to simply build more roads to address these challenges, especially in urban areas, we must look at new ways to improve the overall system, to make it safer and more efficient, and to ensure that the system meets future needs.

Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation system depend on high-quality surface transportation research. More importantly, research saves lives and saves money. Research extends the life of pavements, provides increased safety measures on roads and in cars, and develops the technologies to increase the efficiency and reduce the cost of transit systems.

The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, which shares jurisdiction over surface transportation research with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, held a hearing last year to hear from experts on the state of the Federal Government's current surface transportation research program. In addition, we heard from a wide array of interests on how to improve and reform the research program, and the levels at which research should be funded. Based on this input, we developed the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2003.

This legislation has three overarching goals: to increase stakeholder input to ensure that the folks who must implement and use the research agree that it is worthwhile and transferable into practice; to create the highest quality research through increased competition and peer-review of all project proposals; and to ensure greater accountability so that our research actually supports the goals of our surface transportation system. I believe this approach will go a long way to help solve the many challenges facing our nation's transportation system.

I will be offering a manager's amendment, which I will explain later, and I know there may be a few other amendments that Members may offer. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and pass the legislation on to the Full Committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

Prepared Statement of Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers

Our nation's transportation system faces tremendous challenges. We have more drivers who are driving more miles causing severe congestion. An aging infrastructure is putting a strain on State and local transportation budgets, which are tied up in maintaining our existing system, with little, if any, money left for improving the system and planning for the future. The public demands safer, less congested roads, and more public transit options. Considering that we won't have the ability to simply build more roads to address these challenges, especially in urban areas, we must look at new ways to improve the overall system, to make it safer and more efficient, and to ensure that the system meets future needs.

Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation system depend on high quality surface transportation research. More importantly, research saves lives and saves money. Research extends the life of pavements, provides increased safety measures on roads and in cars, and develops the technologies to increase the efficiency and reduce the cost of transit systems.

The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, which shares jurisdiction over surface transportation research with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, held a hearing last year to hear from experts on the state of the Federal Government's current surface transportation research program. In addition, we heard from a wide array of interests on how to improve and reform the research program, and the levels at which research should be funded. Based on this input, we developed the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2003.

This legislation has three overarching goals: to increase stakeholder input to ensure that the folks who must implement and use the research agree that it is worthwhile and transferable into practice; to create the highest quality research through increased competition and peer-review of all project proposals; and to ensure greater accountability so that our research actually supports the goals of our surface transportation system. I believe this approach will go a long way to help solve the many challenges facing our nation's transportation system.

I will be offering a manager's amendment, which I will explain later, and I know there may be a few other amendments that Members may offer. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and pass the legislation on to the Full Committee.

Mr. EHLERS. I now recognize Mr. Udall for five minutes to present his opening remarks.

Mr. UDALL. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, in particular for bringing this bill forward for consideration by the Subcommittee.

Transportation is an essential function of our daily lives and our economy. Each day, thousands of people, goods, and services move throughout the country and throughout the world, although not always as efficiently and effectively as we would like. My constituents in Colorado are not alone in their frustration with traffic congestion or in their desire to retain the quality of our environment. While infrastructure improvements are needed, we can not build our way out of all of our transportation problems. As the Chairman suggested, we need better tools to help us use our existing infrastructure more efficiently and to help us better design infrastructure improvement projects to get the most mobility for our money.

Investment in research and development is the fastest way to achieve these goals. I am very pleased that the Committee has reauthorized the diverse portfolio of transportation research. We need to continue to improve the technology and materials used in our highways and public transportation systems. However, we need more than materials and engineering.

We need to incorporate more social science into the design of our transportation system. We need to foster more public involvement in transportation project planning and to better understand the social and economic factors that influence travel demand and travel patterns. We need to expand transportation options, including expanding the ability of citizens to walk and to ride bicycles. These components should be an integral part of any transportation project, just as they should guide our research agenda.

I realize we will be making further changes in this legislation as it moves through this committee and through to the end of the legislative process. I hope we will be able to retain a balanced, diverse portfolio of transportation research as this bill proceeds.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this bill forward for consideration by the Subcommittee.

Transportation is an essential function in our daily lives and our economy. Each day thousands of people, goods and services move throughout the country and throughout the world--although not always as efficiently and effectively as we would like.

My constituents in Colorado are not alone in their frustration with traffic congestion or in their desire to retain the quality of our environment. While infrastructure improvements are needed, we cannot build our way out of all of our transportation problems.

We need better tools to help us to use our existing infrastructure more efficiently and to help us to better design infrastructure improvement projects to get the most mobility for our money. Investment in research and development is the fastest way to achieve these goals.

I am very pleased that the Committee has reauthorized a diverse portfolio of transportation research. We need to continue to improve the technology and materials used in our highways and public transportation systems.

However, we need more than materials and engineering. We need to incorporate more social science into the design of our transportation system. We need to foster more public involvement in transportation project planning and to better understand the social and economic factors that influence travel demand and travel patterns.

We need to expand transportation options, including expanding the ability of citizens to walk and to ride bicycles. These components should be an integral part of any transportation project, just as they should guide our research agenda.

I realize we will be making further changes in this legislation as it moves through this committee and through to the end of the legislative process. I hope we will be able to retain a balanced, diverse portfolio of transportation research as this bill proceeds.

Mr. UDALL. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back any time I have remaining.

Mr. EHLERS. The gentleman's time is expired. Without objection, all Members may place opening statements in the record at this point in time. Without objection, so ordered.

We will now consider H.R. 3551. The bill is open for discussion, and the first reading of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that--go ahead.

Ms. TESSIERI. H.R. 3551, to authorize appropriations to the Department of Transportation for surface transportation research and development and for other purposes.

Mr. EHLERS. I ask for unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that the Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster, although I will, out of deference to Congressman Lofgren, who has to go to another markup, we will place her second in line immediately after my manager's amendment. Without objection, so ordered.

[See Appendix for H.R. 3551.]

Mr. EHLERS. The bill is open for amendments.

The first amendment on the roster is an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3551 offered by Mr. Ehlers.

[See Appendix for Amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers.]

Mr. EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered original text. Without objection, so ordered.

I now recognize myself for such time as I may consume.

Let me start by addressing some confusion that has been raised regarding the funding for this bill. States, localities, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other public and private groups all agree that surface transportation research funding must be increased. Current funding is insufficient to meet the challenges of today's transportation system, and it is certainly not enough to meet the needs of the future.

While the Science Committee has jurisdiction over surface transportation research, we do not have jurisdiction over the Highway Trust Fund. We have worked with the Transportation Committee to determine the amount of transportation research funding, about $4 billion, that would be prudent based on the overall level of funding for the comprehensive highway bill, which is proposed to be about $375 billion. And within that level of funding, we allocated it to the programs included in H.R. 3551. This bill and this amendment say nothing about the trust funds, the gas tax, or any changes to the tax. However, since some Members have raised concerns about tying this bill to the overall funding levels in the Transportation Committee's bill, which may be reduced, my amendment removes all references to funding in H.R. 3551.

It is my intention at Full Committee to provide the funding recommendations for transportation research and specific programs. We are working on various ways to accomplish this. We may provide that a certain floor or percentage of the Highway Trust Fund be used for research. Alternatively, if an agreement is reached on the overall level of transportation spending, then we will revisit how much should be used for research and how it should be allocated. This amendment retains all of the other provisions of H.R. 3551. More specifically, it creates the Future Strategic Highway Research Program. This program will focus on reducing congestion, renewing existing roads and bridges, improving safety, and assessing future needs, including those for transit systems. It establishes a public/private cooperative environmental research program to help us understand the link between the environment and the transportation system. It creates a new research program to demonstrate promising transit technologies and practices to improve efficiency and safety, and reduce costs. It requires all research projects funded by this legislation will be competitively awarded and peer-reviewed. And it provides better training and education programs for the transportation workforce.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Is there any further discussion on this amendment? The Chair recognizes Mr. Smith from Michigan.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

Prepared Statement of Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers

Let me start by addressing some confusion that has been raised regarding the funding for this bill. States, localities, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other public and private groups all agree that surface transportation research funding must be increased. Current funding is insufficient to meet the challenges of today's transportation system and is certainly not enough to the meet needs of the future.

While the Science Committee has jurisdiction over surface transportation research, we do not have jurisdiction over the Highway Trust Fund. We have worked with the Transportation Committee to determine the amount of transportation research funding (about $4 billion) that would be prudent, based on the overall level of funding for the comprehensive highway bill (about $375 billion). And within that level of funding we allocated it to the programs included in H.R. 3551. This bill and this amendment say nothing about the Trust Funds, the gas tax, or any changes to the tax.

However, since some Members have raised some concerns about tying this bill to the overall funding levels in the Transportation Committee's bill, which may be reduced, my amendment removes all references to funding in H.R. 3551.

It is my intention at Full Committee to provide funding recommendations for transportation research and specific programs. We are working on various ways to accomplish this either by providing that a certain floor or percentage of the Highway Trust Fund should be used for research, or if we know what the overall level of transportation spending will be, then revisiting how much should be used for research and how it should be allocated.

This amendment retains all the other provisions of H.R. 3551; more specifically, it:

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I need to think about what your amendment does in terms of keeping the increase in research money constant, is that what I understand that your substitute does regardless of whether or not the overall funding for the program goes down.

Mr. EHLERS. If the gentleman will yield, the amendment that I'm offering now simply removes all funding levels from the bill and leaves that as an open question to be debated at Full Committee and with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It does not force any funding levels at this time.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Mr. EHLERS. The gentleman's time is expired. Any further comment on the amendment? Hearing none, the vote occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.

Next, we will take the amendments out of order--if it is supported by the Ranking Member, we will next take the amendment offered by Congresswoman Lofgren from California so that she can proceed to her markup in another committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Udall. This amendment, I believe, is an important----

Mr. EHLERS. Can I ask that you first offer the amendment?

Ms. LOFGREN. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent----

Mr. EHLERS. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[See Appendix for Amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren.]

Mr. EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Udall. The amendment, I believe, is an important one and not a controversial one. It clarifies what types of research should be done regarding surface transportation and particularly guides the kind of top quality ongoing research that we need to have from a security point of view, as the Chairman knows. I also serve on the Homeland Security Committee, and I am aware of the needs that have not yet been addressed to have best practices and analysis done to secure the response and recovery of surface transportation. This amendment calls for the creation of four university centers for research on transportation security issues. The centers would conduct best practices, case studies, developing databases of terrorist incidents, and would assist federal and State agencies by conducting research on their behalf, and will help maintain vulnerability checklists that can be used by those in authority on a need-to-know basis. These centers would help develop curriculum that will lead to the awarding of a Master's in science in security administration for those individuals who are willing to pursue this important area of study.

I want to ensure the Members that I am unaware of any similar work being done or being proposed to be done by the Department of Homeland Security at this time. This amendment does not apply to research into maritime security issues, as I believe other committees will pursue this avenue of research. And finally, I believe the adoption of this amendment will help further the integration of intelligent transportation system technologies into an overall transportation security program. The amendment suggests, also, that these--and they would be peer-reviewed--would include partnerships with other institutions of higher education, the federal labs and other nonprofit laboratories, and I believe that this amendment will advance the security of the Nation, and I thank the gentleman for allowing me to offer it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Zoe Lofgren

CREATING FOUR NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CENTERS

Chairman Ehlers, Ranking Member Udall, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to offer an amendment on an issue that I believe is very important as we begin to clarify what types of research should be done regarding surface transportation.

I believe it is more important than ever for the United States to conduct top quality, ongoing research of best practices for deterrence, response and recovery and to teach those best practices to transportation and security professionals to provide secure surface transportation for our nation.

My amendment calls for the creation of four university centers for research on transportation security issues. These Centers will conduct best practices case studies, develop and disseminate an online database of terrorist incidents against surface transportation systems worldwide. These Centers will be available to assist federal and State agencies by conducting research on their behalf and will help maintain vulnerability checklists that can be used by those in authority on a need to know basis. These Centers will help develop curriculum that will lead to the awarding of a `Master in Science in Security Administration for those individuals who are willing to pursue this important area of study.

I want to assure my fellow Subcommittee Members that I am unaware of any similar work being done or being proposed to be done by the Department of Homeland Security at this time. This amendment does not apply to research into maritime security issues as I believe other committees will pursue this avenue of research. And finally, Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Udall, I believe that the adoption of this amendment will help further the integration of intelligent transportation system technologies into an overall transportation security program.

Thank you for allowing me to offer this amendment and I look forward to its adoption.

Mr. EHLERS. The Chair recognizes himself for a question. I simply want to clarify, Congresswoman Lofgren, that your amendment refers strictly to surface transportation security, including cars, trucks, buses, trains, light rail and so forth, and it will not get into issues of port or even aviation?

Ms. LOFGREN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Being none, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

The next amendment on the roster is amendment number two, offered by the Ranking Member, Mr. Udall of Colorado. Are you ready to proceed?

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. EHLERS. The Clerk will read.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[See Appendix for Amendment offered by Mr. Udall.]

Mr. EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. And the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment that I am offering emphasizes the importance of doing more research on bicycle and pedestrian transportation. It particularly provides language to authorize research into the needs and benefits of bicycle and pedestrian transportation modes in the National Park system and the areas adjacent to those parks.

Recent studies indicate that in many communities across the country, people, especially children, are walking and bicycling less than they have in the past. Walking and bicycling, I think we all would agree, are important modes of travel for everyone, particularly for children. These modes of exercise and travel not only provide excellent opportunities to get out and about, but they are essential for connecting with friends and they enable children to participate in community and after-school activities.

The loss of these travel modes places additional time constraints on parents who then must drive their children to all destinations. A significant amount of the growth in vehicle miles traveled, so called VMTs, is attributable to the growth in these personal trips. We need to better understand the barriers to walking and biking and redesign our communities and our transportation system to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel.

This is also true in the case of our national parks. The good news is that the numbers of visitors to our national parks has increased markedly in recent decades, nearly 300 million visitors enjoy our parks every year. But along with these increased numbers, we are seeing increasing damage being done to our parks through air and water pollution, noise intrusion, and other inappropriate uses. Traffic congestion is increasing in the parks, diminishing the visitor experience and adversely affecting the resource values that the parks were established to protect in the first place.

One way to alleviate this burden on the parks is through alternative transportation modes such as bicycle and pedestrian travel. My amendment would authorize the Department of Transportation to conduct research to assess the benefits, opportunities, and infrastructure needs associated with bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel in the National Park system and in areas adjacent to the parks.

I want to thank the Chairman for his willingness to accept the amendment. If I could add just one other comment, Mr. Chairman, I think that the ripple effect of this research could be significant in our communities across the country. And I think if we can understand better how to make National Parks more livable environments and environments that are more friendly towards walkers and bicyclers, then that knowledge would be helpful in our other communities. So I want to thank you for your support of the amendment and ask that the Committee accept it.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The amendment I'm offering today emphasizes the importance of doing more research on bicycle and pedestrian transportation. My amendment also provides language to authorize research into the needs and benefits of bicycle and pedestrian transportation modes in the National Park System and the areas adjacent to them.

Recent studies indicate that in many communities across the country, people--especially children--are walking and bicycling less than they have in the past. Walking and bicycling are important modes of travel for everyone, especially for children. These modes not only provide excellent opportunities for exercise--they are also essential for connecting with friends, and they enable children to participate in community and after-school activities.

The loss of these travel modes places additional time constraints on parents who then must drive their children to all destinations. A significant amount of the growth in vehicle miles traveled is attributable to the growth in these personal trips. We need to better understand the barriers to walking and biking and redesign our communities and our transportation system to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel.

This is also true in the case of our national parks. The numbers of visitors to our national parks has increased markedly in recent decades. Nearly 300 million visitors enjoy our parks every year.

But along with their increased numbers, we are seeing increasing damage being done to our parks through air and water pollution, noise intrusion, and inappropriate use. Traffic congestion is increasing in the parks, diminishing the visitor experience and adversely affecting the resource values that the parks were established to protect in the first place.

One way to alleviate this burden on the parks is through alternative transportation modes, such as bicycle and pedestrian travel. My amendment would authorize the Department of Transportation to conduct research to assess the benefits, opportunities, and infrastructure needs associated with bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel in the National Park System and in areas adjacent to the parks.

I'm pleased that the Chairman will accept my amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

The next amendment on the roster is offered by Mr. Miller who is snowbound in North Carolina. Mr. Ranking Member, are you prepared to proceed with his amendment?

Mr. UDALL. I am, Mr. Chairman. I think there's an amendment at the desk that Mr. Miller has offered.

Mr. EHLERS. The Clerk will read.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of North Carolina to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[See Appendix for Amendment offered by Mr. Miller.]

Mr. EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain Mr. Miller's amendment.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, Mr. Miller has been detained in North Carolina due to the winter storms up and down the East Coast. He wanted to be here to offer amendment number three, and I will offer it on his behalf.

I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Miller be allowed to insert in the record at this point a statement for the record.

Mr. EHLERS. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Brad Miller

ADDING A NEW AREA TO THE LIST OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AREA IN THE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 3551 focuses much-needed attention on improving traffic management strategies to address the multiple impacts of congestion. These impacts include environmental quality in terms of vehicle emissions, fuel consumption, travel delays, safety concerns and so on.

One of the broad goals of the transportation reauthorization legislation is to improve our nation's ability to move its citizens from one place to another. That is becoming increasingly more difficult as more vehicles are on the road due to increased commuting distances, and as overall traffic patterns change.

In my own State of North Carolina, I have seen congestion problems rise dramatically over the past few years, even in areas where traffic had never been an issue. It seems that everyone wants to live in North Carolina--and drive! This situation is not unique to North Carolina. It is developing across the country and we need to take steps to mitigate, if not solve, this problem. Improving our traffic management strategies, at the local, regional and State levels will have enormous benefits to our society. Our air will be cleaner; we will burn less fuel and reduce our dependence on foreign oil; our roads will be safer; and people's access to jobs will be improved.

I would note that the most effective way to accomplish these goals is through a multi-disciplinary approach; one that brings together not only the expert researchers, but - most importantly--brings together the transportation planners, local, regional and State government officials and all of the end users who would actually implement these improved traffic management strategies. In my State, the North Carolina Transportation Consortium, which is comprised of some of the best and brightest transportation policy experts in the country, is designed to do just that. I am convinced that, working with all of the various stakeholders, the NCTC will be able to develop solutions to these difficult problems that could be replicated in jurisdictions across the Nation. I hope that the Department of Transportation will recognize the benefit of drawing on NCTC's expertise when they are looking for the best people to conduct this type of research.

I urge your support for this amendment.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the broad goals of the transportation reauthorization legislation is to improve our nation's ability to move its citizens from one place to another. One way to accomplish this goal is through a multi-disciplinary approach, one that brings together not only the expert researchers but most importantly brings together the transportation planners, local, regional, and State government officials, and all of the end users who would actually implement these improved traffic management strategies.

I believe this amendment would help accomplish the same, and I want to thank the Chairman for his intention to accept the amendment, and I also want to thank you on behalf of Representative Miller and myself for your support, Mr. Chairman.

And with that, I would yield back.

Mr. EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired. Does anyone else seek time to discuss the amendment? Being no request, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Are there any further amendments? Hearing none, the question is on the bill, H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research Act as amended. All those in favor will say aye.

Mr. Smith is recognized.

Mr. SMITH. Can you briefly--and I apologize for not being aware of this. Briefly give me the major changes between the existing law and these changes?

Mr. EHLERS. If the gentleman will yield----

Mr. SMITH. Certainly.

Mr. EHLERS- I will make a few comments and let me call on staff members, too.

Since we have removed the funding issue, that is not an issue, but clearly this bill was underfunded in the last go around. I should say the research was underfunded in the last go around. Everyone fails to recognize that no matter what their interests are in transportation that there are great opportunities to reduce costs and improve performance of our transit systems with appropriate research, whether it be types of concrete or the durability of the asphalt and recognizing that this may be different for every State or even every area of the Union.

In addition, research on traffic flows, how we can relieve traffic flows through mass transit or bicycles, et cetera. These are a host of issues that must be addressed, and everyone agrees it was underfunded before. However, we will debate the funding at the Full Committee.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time. But I was just looking, is there--are there major differences? I understand the amendments that we have discussed. Are there major differences from the existing law?

Mr. EHLERS. I see one major difference. It is that we are insisting on peer-reviewed grants. This part of the transportation bill has traditionally been pork heaven with lots of earmarks made by individual Members for research to be done in their particular area by their own university. And we have tried to, in this bill, ensure that all of the research would be adequately peer-reviewed and will be granted on a merit basis.

I will refer to the staff for any further comments on major differences.

The STAFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill makes a number of changes to existing law, most of them with the goal of integrating and coordinating research between the Federal Government, the State governments, universities, and the Transportation Research Board, ensuring that strategic planning is integrated across the modes: rail, aviation, highways, and trying to fund some of the things that were identified to the Committee in the hearing as research gaps. This includes the Future Strategic Highway Research Program that Chairman Ehlers spoke about in his opening statement looking at renewing existing highways, improving safety, reducing congestion, and increasing capacity, as well as a program recommended by the National Academies, looking at the link between environment and transportation.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. As a senior Member of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Chairman, would you be comfortable in giving us your guess, your prognosis of the future of the full transportation bill?

Mr. EHLERS. Well, yes. That is not really appropriate here, but if the gentleman will yield, I will simply comment. The main issue that the Congress will have to deal with has nothing specifically to do with the transportation issues in the bill, although they will be in play. The big issue is going to be the level of funding. And the Congress, at this moment, appears not to be willing to fund the bill at the level that the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure desires to fund it. And until that issue is resolved, I suspect there probably will not be too much progress on the entire bill. But we are hoping for an agreement on that score some time in the next few months.

Mr. SMITH. Is there a possibility that some of the research provisions might be incorporated in a continuation language?

Mr. EHLERS. If the gentleman would yield, I would certainly welcome that, but I would not be optimistic about it, because it is basically a continuing status, and committees, in general, do not want to raise any issues as they discuss whether to continue another five months or six months on a law that is on the books.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Mr. EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired. The question before us is the passage of H.R. 3551. All of those in favor will say aye. All of those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

I will now recognize Mr. Udall to offer a motion.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would move that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 3551, as amended, to the Full Committee with the recommendation that it be in order for the bill, as amended by the Subcommittee, to be incorporated into an amendment in the nature of a substitute for consideration as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule at Full Committee. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed to make all necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill, as amended, in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.

Mr. EHLERS. The question is on this motion to report the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. And the resolution is favorably reported.

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. I move, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the House of Representatives that the Subcommittee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 3551. Without objection, so ordered.

This concludes our subcommittee markup. I thank you very much for your participation and the rapidity with which we were able to complete this task, and we can all get on to our other work. Thank you very much. This concludes the markup hearing. The meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Appendix 1:

ROSTER, AMENDMENTS, H.R. 3551, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 3551

000

3551a.eps

3551b.eps

3551c.eps

3551d.eps

3551e.eps

3551f.eps

3551g.eps

3551h.eps

3551i.eps

3551j.eps

3551k.eps

3551l.eps

3551m.eps

3551n.eps

3551o.eps

3551p.eps

3551q.eps

3551r.eps

3551s.eps

3551t.eps

3551u.eps

3551v.eps

3551w.eps

3551x.eps

3551y.eps

3551z.eps

3551aa.eps

3551bb.eps

3551cc.eps

3551dd.eps

3551ee.eps

3551ff.eps

3551gg.eps

3551hh.eps

3551ii.eps

3551jj.eps

3551kk.eps

3551ll.eps

3551mm.eps

3551nn.eps

3551oo.eps

3551pp.eps

3551qq.eps

3551rr.eps

3551ss.eps

3551tt.eps

3551uu.eps

3551vv.eps

3551ww.eps

3551xx.eps

3551yy.eps

3551zz.eps

3551a3.eps

3551b3.eps

3551c3.eps

3551d3.eps

3551e3.eps

3551f3.eps

3551g3.eps

3551h3.eps

3551i3.eps

3551j3.eps

3551k3.eps

3551l3.eps

3551m3.eps

3551n3.eps

3551o3.eps

3551p3.eps

3551q3.eps

3551r3.eps

3551s3.eps

3551t3.eps

3551u3.eps

3551v3.eps

3551w3.eps

3551x3.eps

3551y3.eps

3551z3.eps

3551a4.eps

3551b4.eps

3551c4.eps

3551d4.eps

3551e4.eps

3551f4.eps

3551g4.eps

3551h4.eps

3551i4.eps

3551j4.eps

3551k4.eps

3551l4.eps

3551m4.eps

3551n4.eps

3551o4.eps

3551p4.eps

3551q4.eps

3551r4.eps

3551s4.eps

3551t4.eps

3551u4.eps

3551v4.eps

3551w4.eps

3551x4.eps

3551y4.eps

3551z4.eps

3551a5.eps

3551b5.eps

3551c5.eps

3551d5.eps

3551e5.eps

3551f5.eps

3551g5.eps

3551h5.eps

3551i5.eps

3551j5.eps

3551k5.eps

3551l5.eps

3551m5.eps

3551n5.eps

3551o5.eps

3551p5.eps

3551q5.eps

3551r5.eps

3551s5.eps

3551t5.eps

3551u5.eps

3551v5.eps

3551w5.eps

3551x5.eps

3551y5.eps

3551z5.eps

3551a6.eps

3551b6.eps

3551c6.eps

3551d6.eps

3551e6.eps

3551f6.eps

3551g6.eps

3551h6.eps

3551i6.eps

3551.AAB

3551.AAC

3551.AAD

3551.AAE

3551.AAF

3551.AAG

3551.AAH

3551.AAI

3551.AAJ

3551.AAK

3551.AAL

3551.AAM

3551.AAN

3551.AAO

3551.AAP

3551.AAQ

3551.AAR

3551.AAS

3551.AAT

3551.AAU

3551.AAV

3551.AAW

3551.AAX

3551.AAY

3551.AAZ

3551.ABA

3551.ABB

3551.ABC

3551.ABD

3551.ABE

3551.ABF

3551.ABG

3551.ABH

3551.ABI

3551.ABJ

3551.ABK

3551.ABL

3551.ABM

3551.ABN

3551.ABO

3551.ABP

3551.ABQ

3551.ABR

3551.ABS

3551.ABT

3551.ABU

3551.ABV

3551.ABW

3551.ABX

3551.ABY

3551.ABZ

3551.ACA

3551.ACB

3551.ACC

3551.ACD

3551.ACE

3551.ACF

3551.ACG

3551.ACH

3551.ACI

3551.ACJ

3551.ACK

3551.ACL

3551.ACM

3551.ACN

3551.ACO

3551.ACP

3551.ACQ

3551.ACR

3551.ACS

3551.ACT

3551.ACU

3551.ACV

3551.ACW

3551.ACX

3551.ACY

3551.ACZ

3551.ADA

3551.ADB

3551.ADC

3551.ADD

3551.ADE

3551.ADF

3551.ADG

3551.ADH

3551.ADI

3551.ADJ

3551.ADK

3551.ADL

3551.ADM

3551.ADN

3551.ADO

3551.ADP

3551.ADQ

3551.ADR

3551.ADS

3551.ADT

3551.ADU

3551.ADV

3551.ADW

3551.ADX

3551.ADY

3551.ADZ

3551.AEA

3551.AEB

3551.AEC

3551.AED

3551.AEE

3551.AEF

3551.AEG

3551.AEH

3551.AEI

3551.AEJ

3551.AEK

3551.AEL

3551.AEM

3551.AEN

3551.AEO

3551.AEP

3551.AEQ

3551.AER

3551.AES

3551.AET

3551.AEU

3551.AEV

3551.AEW

3551.AEX

3551.AEY

3551.AEZ

3551.AFA

3551.AFB

3551.AFC

3551.AFD

3551.AFE

3551.AFF

3551.AFG

3551.AFH

3551.AFI

3551.AFJ

3551.AFK

3551.AFL

3551.AFM

Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 3551,

the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2003

Section 1: Short Title

`Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2003'

Section 2: Findings

Finds that Research and Development (R&D) is critical to developing and maintaining an effective transportation system, that federal R&D has produced a number of successes, but is underfunded. Finds that federal investment in R&D should be properly balanced between short-term applied research and long-term fundamental research, and should cover a wide range of research areas including materials and structures research, operations research, and human factors and policy research.

Title I: Surface Transportation Research

Section 101: Authorization of Appropriations

Authorizes a total of $4.05 billion for surface transportation research and development in fiscal years 2004 through 2009, a 57 percent increase above R&D funding in TEA-21. Funding for fiscal year 2004 is $500 million; for 2005, $570 million; for 2006, $640 million; for 2007, $710 million; for 2008, $780 million; and for 2009, $850 million. The bill sets aside funds from the Surface Transportation Research, Development and Deployment authorization for `Advanced Research, (23 USC 502 (d)),' the `Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program,' (Section 104 (c) of this Act) and the `Multimodal Trends Research Program' (Section 112 of this Act). The bill also sets aside $5 million in funds authorized for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics for grants to State and local governments, and metropolitan planning organizations to promote the harmonizing of data collection and management (Section 107(k)(2) of this Act).

3551j6.eps

Section 102: Goals, Principles and Processes

Sets out for the first time goals, principles and processes to guide transportation research and development. The bill explicitly links the R&D goals to the overall goals of the surface transportation system set out in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). It sets forth principles to guide the federal role in surface transportation R&D. It also establishes key requirements for stakeholder involvement, competition and peer review, and performance review and evaluation for transportation R&D.

Section 103: Strategic Planning

Reauthorizes and amends the Department of Transportation's (DOT) R&D strategic planning requirements. The bill strengthens the planning process by making it more strategic (i.e., forward looking) and increasing accountability. Specifically, it clarifies that the strategic planning process should encourage planning across all modes. It strengthens the contents of the plans by (1) requiring the department to link the plan to the goals of TEA-21, and (2) requiring the plan to specify strategic goals, the Department's key research priorities, and the full array of authorized research instead of focusing only on process. The bill also increases accountability by (1) soliciting input from a range of interests in the transportation community and the National Academy of Sciences (before the plan is issued), and (2) requiring a detailed annual report that specifies all the research projects and the funding levels of those projects carried out under this title (beyond the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act).

Section 104: Surface Transportation Research and Development

Amends the research and development program carried out by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The bill largely maintains the existing R&D program requirements of Section 502 of Title 23, but fills a variety of research gaps. The amendments ensure that the research addresses operational elements, performance analysis and multimodal assessment. In addition, the bill authorizes new research items in the `contents' section, including (1) exploratory advanced research, (2) environmental research (to implement Transportation Research Board (TRB) recommendations), (3) research on demographic, economic and social trends that affect and are affected by the transportation system, (4) research on the technical impacts and costs imposed in climates facing frequent freeze and thaw cycles, (5) research on how to improve methods of collecting information in order to improve the infrastructure investment needs report (under section (g)), and (6) R&D and technology transfer related to asset management. In addition, the bill reauthorizes the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program, and authorizes a Long-Term Bridge Performance Program, a Geospatial Information Systems program, and the Turner-Fairbanks Highway Research Center, which carries out the bulk of the FHWA's R&D.

Creates a new Exploratory Advanced Research program (Section 502(d)) to address recommendations of the TRB and others that FHWA's R&D program should focus on fundamental, long-term research. It requires the FHWA to develop an advanced research agenda in consultation with outside groups, and requires consultation with the National Science Foundation in reviewing advanced research proposals and peer review protocols. When funds appropriated for this program exceed $5 million, the bill establishes an open solicitation grant program to the research community to spur innovation.

Reauthorizes the `Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program' (STECRP) and creates a collaborative, public-private partnership to implement the recommendations contained in the TRB Special Report 268, a report that Congress requested in TEA-21. This section authorizes for the first time an implementation framework to ensure that DOT fulfills the requirements originally set out in TEA-21. The program is modeled on the Transit Cooperative Research Program, which is run collaboratively by American Public Transit Association, the Federal Transit Administration and the TRB. The amendments require the Secretary to contract with either the National Academy of Sciences or another non-profit research organization to administer the program and to fulfill annual reporting requirements. The selected organization must create an independent advisory board that would have broad interest group membership and be open to stakeholder input, develop the research agenda, periodically modify the strategic plan (originally developed in TRB Special Report 268), solicit project proposals through open competition, and conduct peer review of research products. The National Academy of Public Administration would conduct a program review. DOT could participate in program priorities and funding decisions.

Section 105: Technology Deployment

Reauthorizes FHWA's technology deployment program. Expands the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program (authorized in TEA-21) to a more comprehensive Innovative Research and Deployment Program covering bridges, pavements and safety research and deployment. The goals of this program include the development of new, cost-effective innovative material for surface transportation infrastructure; the deployment and evaluation of safety technologies and innovations; the reduction of life-cycle costs of surface transportation infrastructure; and the development and deployment of construction techniques to increase safety and reduce construction time and traffic congestion.

The legislation establishes new requirements for the Secretary to ensure that the information and technology resulting from research conducted in this program is made available to State and local transportation departments, metropolitan planning organizations and other interested parties. The bill also establishes a new research program to address the non-technical barriers to technology deployment (such as fragmented authority at the local and regional level, and rigid procurement rules) and generate proposals for how to overcome these barriers. Experts have identified non-technical barriers as more significant than technical ones in the deployment of innovative technologies.

Section 106: Training and Education

Increases the number of federal funding sources from which States may draw for surface transportation workforce development, training and education. Makes federal funding for these activities available at 100 percent so no match would be required. This should provide States an additional incentive to fund these programs. It also allows for the development of new courses at the National Highway Institute to better address challenges faced by today's transportation professionals, and requires the National Highway Institute to review, revise, and cease courses periodically.

Section 107: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Increases the responsiveness of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to the needs of the transportation community by (1) clarifying that BTS is to serve decision-makers in the transportation community at large in addition to the Secretary of DOT, (2) strengthening the role of the Director of BTS; (3) expanding membership of the Director's Advisory Committee on Statistics to make it more representative of the transportation community; (4) requiring a national transportation statistics needs assessment to be carried out by the National Academy of Sciences (in consultation with key constituencies and the DOT's Advisory Committee on Statistics), and (5) requiring BTS to create a data strategic plan based on the needs assessment, and to submit an annual report documenting its progress in implementing legislative mandates and the strategic plan. The amendments also call on the Director to implement data modernization efforts and encourage the harmonization of data collection and management, through demonstration grants to States, local governments, and metropolitan planning organizations. The section also reauthorizes a variety of programs in Section 111 of Title 49, including the National Transportation Library. Funding for BTS remains level, through fiscal year 2006, except for the additional resources to fund the State and local government demonstration grant program. Beginning in fiscal year 2007, funding is increased as BTS begins implementing the newly adopted strategic plan.

Section 108: State Planning and Research

Sets State Planning and Research (SPR) funding at $1.073 billion. This amount is equivalent to a 2b percent set aside of funds authorized to be appropriated to States, if the total six-year transportation funding is $375 billion. This increase recognizes a growing need to ensure adequate funding for planning and research. The bill maintains the current requirement for 25 percent of SPR funds to be spent on research, and adds a new provision that requires 10 percent of SPR funds be spent on improving the quality of transportation data. The section clarifies that studies, research and training on engineering standards and construction materials should be multimodal, and that research should also focus on design standards for intermodal coordination.

Section 109. Future Strategic Highway Research Program (F-SHRP)

Authorizes the Future Strategic Highway Research Program (F-SHRP) to be carried out by the National Academy of Sciences in consultation with the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials and other stakeholders. The program implements the recommendations of the TRB Special Report 260, a report called for by Congress in TEA-21 to develop a research program that cuts across disciplines and addresses short- to medium-term R&D gaps. F-SHRP addresses R&D gaps in four areas: (1) Renewal, which will focus on R&D to minimize disruptions as we renovate existing highway infrastructure; (2) Safety, which will focus on reducing crashes; (3) Reliability, which will focus on R&D to improve the reliability of travel times by reducing the frequency and effects of events that cause delay; and (4) Capacity, which will look holistically at the relationship between highways, the economy, communities and the environment. The section authorizes $75 million per year for fiscal years 2004 through 2009. It also includes requirements that (1) projects be selected through open solicitation, (2) research results are peer reviewed, (3) a broad array of stakeholders are involved at all levels of the program, (4) the National Academy of Sciences publish annual progress and performance reports, and (5) the National Academy of Public Administration carry out an independent review two years into the program to assess the degree to which the program is addressing the research topics identified in Special Report 260.

Section 110: University Transportation Research

Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to nonprofit institutions of higher learning to establish and operate 10 regional transportation centers. The Secretary shall also make 16 grants to other nonprofit institutions of higher learning to establish and operate university transportation centers in addition to the 10 regional centers. The 10 regional centers shall be selected through a competitive, peer-reviewed process and the federal share of the costs of activities is increased from the current level of 50 percent to 80 percent. For Fiscal Years 2004, 2005 and 2006, six of the 16 grants for university transportation centers will be competitively awarded and peer-reviewed. For these years, the other 10 grants shall go to the specific universities that won the competition among groups in TEA-21 and received funding for Fiscal Year 2003. For Fiscal Years 2007, 2008 and 2009, all 16 of the grants for the university transportation centers shall be competitively awarded and peer-reviewed. The federal share of the costs for all university transportation centers shall remain 50 percent.

Section 111: Intelligent Transportation Systems

Reauthorizes the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Research Program. Strengthens the program by (1) creating an advisory committee with broad representation from the transportation community, and charging it to advise DOT on whether ITS technologies (for which the DOT is proposing to fund research and development) are likely to be deployed, and what the appropriate roles for government and the private sector are in investing in specific technologies; (2) requiring an update of the ITS Program Plan in 2005 (with input from the advisory committee) to assess how well the ITS program has met the goals set in the 2000 Program Plan, identify barriers to reaching these goals, and set goals, plans and funding needs for the next five years; (3) requiring the development of an information strategy, with input from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, to both identify how data collected currently from ITS technologies can and should be used for planning and assessment, and to outline a vision for future linkages between ITS technologies, data and management; and (4) requiring testing and validation of ITS standards.

In addition, the bill authorizes the ITS program to focus on technologies to improve transportation security, and authorizes a research program on the non-technical barriers to the deployment of ITS technologies. The bill also requires the National Academy of Science to evaluate the ITS program and assess how well the program has achieved the goals laid out in the 2000 Program Plan.

Section 112: National Multimodal Trends Research Program

Creates a new national multimodal research program on demographic, economic and social trends that affect and are affected by the transportation system. This program fills an important gap in current research. It requires the Secretary to establish the program through the National Academy of Sciences, and specifies, in general terms, the economic, demographic, social, evaluation and other issues to be addressed by the program. It specifically requires the Academy to create an independent advisory committee drawn from social science experts and key stakeholder groups, to develop a strategic plan, and to review and evaluate project proposals. At least 75 percent of available funds shall be directed to implementing the strategic plan, while up to 25 percent of the funds shall be available to sponsor-directed projects. $5 million is set aside for this program in each of fiscal years 2004-2009.

Title II: Miscellaneous

Section 201: Authorization of Appropriations

Authorizes appropriations as follows: $75 million for each of fiscal years 2004-2009 for transit R&D; and such sums as necessary for highway safety R&D, and motor carrier safety R&D.

Section 202: Transit Research

Creates a new Innovative Practices and Technologies Demonstration and Deployment Program that would demonstrate promising new transit practices and technologies, evaluate and document the performance, benefits and costs of innovative technologies, and disseminate information to accelerate deployment of innovations. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to a variety of public, private and non-profit entities. The Secretary shall select projects based on whether they meet the goals of the program, whether they pass a merit review, and the likelihood that the project will result in widespread deployment. The Secretary shall also ensure that innovations are made available to transit agencies and State and local transportation departments. The Secretary shall establish the federal share of the grant program.

Section 203: National Transit Institute

Maintains the National Transit Institute.

Section 204: Human Resource Programs

Maintains the human resources programs at the Federal Transit Authority.

Section 205: Highway Safety Research and Development

Maintains the Highway Safety Research and Development Program and adds new provisions addressing emergency medical services, international cooperation, and a national motor vehicle crash causation survey.

Section 206: Motor Carrier Research and Technology Program

Authorizes a comprehensive Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration research and technology program.

Section 207: Transportation Energy and Environment

Creates an energy and climate change program at DOT to study the relationships between transportation, energy, and climate change.

Section 208: National Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Program

Authorizes a cooperative freight research program, administered by the National Academy of Sciences.

Section 209: Establishment of a Next Generation National Transportation Policy Study Commission

Establishes a Presidential Commission to investigate and study transportation needs, and the resources, requirements and policies necessary to meet expected needs.

Section 210: Real-Time System Management Information Program

This section encourages the deployment of systems to monitor the status of condition of key surface transportation (highway and transit) facilities.

Section 211: Planning Capacity Building Initiative

This section establishes a planning capacity building initiative to strengthen metropolitan and statewide transportation planning, and to enhance Tribal capacity to conduct joint transportation planning.

XXI: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 3551, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2004

House of Representatives,

Committee on Science,

--Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Good morning. The Committee on Science will be in order. We will begin with a few brief administrative matters involving the Subcommittee assignments. I ask unanimous consent to change the ratio of the Subcommittee on Energy from ten Republican Members and eight Democrat Members to eleven Republican Members and nine Democrats. Without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas, the Honorable Ralph Hall, be elected to the Subcommittee on Energy and to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Without objection, so ordered.

Let me just say this is--you will notice some adjustments in the chairs up here, in the line up. First of all, it is a pleasure for me to welcome Mr. Hall to our side of the aisle. We have come to expect wonderful things from Mr. Hall. And one of the things that I admire most about him, in addition to his wit, is his good judgment. So Mr. Hall, welcome.

And I also want to welcome my dear friend and colleague of many years, Bart Gordon, to the position as Ranking Member as leader of the Democrats. He is not leader of the opposition; he is leader of our partners in this effort. And I want to particularly note that he has been a most active Member of this committee from the beginning, from his first time here in 1985 as a freshman Member. He is a thoughtful, deliberative guy. He is a guy who pays attention to the issues and one from whom I will expect great things in the future. I would point out that he also has a minor Committee assignment. He is a Member of Energy and Commerce, but this is where he devotes his--so much time and attention to very productive results. So Mr. Gordon, welcome. Mr. Hall, welcome. We are glad to have everyone here.

And now the Chair is pleased to recognize the Ranking Member from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I should just say amen. I don't think I can beat your kind remarks. Thank you very much. I am excited about having the opportunity to serve as the Ranking Member. And I am pleased that our friend, Mr. Hall, is going to stay and be the referee. He has set a very good example for us, as you said, in working in a bipartisan manner. We want to continue that example.

I think today is fitting that we have a full agenda, and so I want to be very brief and--so that we can move forward, but I do want to thank you for allowing Congressman Udall and Congressman Miller to have two bills today. And I hope that you will help us bring these to the Floor as promptly as you have brought them to this committee.

Thank you very much.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member and to the other Members, I thank you very much. I am honored to be back on the Committee.

I want to thank Mr. Gordon for his good judgment and for his kindness in keeping the team in place that we had set in place. They are good people and good folks to work with. I want to thank all of them from either side of the docket who have welcomed me here. Actually, when I decided--made the decision to switch parties, I didn't call anyone. I didn't call the President or anyone. I didn't tell anyone, including my wife, which was a mistake. I announced that I was making the switch and put it on the wire and then called and spoke to the Speaker. All I expected from him was that my seniority would be honored, and he said it would be. You have done that. And to both sides, I am the same guy I was when I came over here. I am probably the Speaker's problem now. So we will just have to wait and see how things go, but I am honored to be back with a group of men and women that I admire, respect, and look forward to working with.

Thank you, and I yield back my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you so much.

As those who have observed the deliberations of this committee would have testified to, it really doesn't matter where you sit in this committee, because we have some very important work and partisanship doesn't rear its ugly head very often here. On occasion it does, and we are all familiar with that. But when all is said and done, we work as a team, this Science Committee, and I am very proud of that. And so no matter where they are sitting, everybody is part of the team, and I thank them for their cooperation and support and vision as we look to the future.

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets today to consider the following measures: H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research Act of 2004; H.R. 3752, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004; H.R. 912, Charles `Pete' Conrad Astronomy Awards Act; H.R. 1292, Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003; H.R. 3389, To amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to permit Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards to be made to nonprofit organizations; and H.Con.Res. 189, Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year and supporting an International Geophysical Year-2 in 2007-08. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Subcommittee at any point, and without objection, it is ordered.

We will now proceed with opening statements. I want to welcome everyone here for this important markup. We want to get done by 11:00 a.m., so we will need to be brief. I am not planning to make any statements this morning other than this one, so I will discuss each of the bills right now. But first let me say that all of the bills, as usual, reflect long hours of bipartisan work on important issues. The smooth markup that we expect today is the result of countless hours of staff work on both sides of the aisle working out the kinks.

The first that we will take up is the Transportation Research and Development Act offered by Dr. Ehlers and the negotiated amendments to it. The bill ensures that we will be devoting more resources to transportation R&D and that those resources will be better targeted. The bill authorizes an organized R&D effort that will focus on questions related to safety, environment, demographics, and getting the most out of the infrastructure that is already in place. It is an eminently sensible approach, and we will work hard to see that it becomes part of the overall highway bill. I know many Members have contributed ideas to the bill and to the amendments, including, in addition to the ones I have to offer, two freshmen Members on our side of the aisle, Mr. Neugebauer and Ms. Burgess--Dr. Burgess. I thank them for their contributions.

The second measure on the roster is Mr. Rohrabacher's bill to amend the Commercial Space Launch Act. I want to thank Chairman Rohrabacher for bringing this important matter to our attention. We need to create a balanced and predictable regulatory regime that can help jump-start a commercial human space flight industry while protecting the public. I think that this bill does just that. I know some have concerns about the provision in the bill extending indemnification for just 3 years. I don't want to have a long debate in this now, but the argument for indemnification has always been that we need to help out an infant industry. Well, no industry can remain infant forever. Indemnification has already been extended many times. Infancy has lasted long enough. In industry's interest, we need to send the signal now that the insurance regime out to be changing in the future. It certainly would not be fair or wise to catch industry off guard.

The third bill is also offered by Chairman Rohrabacher. It would set up awards for amateur astronomers who discover near-Earth asteroids. It is one of those ideas that is so obviously good that it is amazing that it hasn't happened already.

The fourth bill is Mr. Udall's remote sensing bill. This is also a sensible bill that we passed in the last Congress. We ought to be doing more to ensure that the remote sensing data we have is actually being used. Mr. Weldon will be offering a helpful amendment on that to single out one use of the data: locating forest fires. I support that amendment.

The fifth bill would expand the Baldrige Quality Awards to include nonprofits. I helped craft the legislation creating the Baldrige Award years ago. Little did I appreciate then what a major success the award would be. I congratulate Mr. Miller on his bill to expand the award.

The sixth bill by Mr. Udall would call for another International Geophysical Year, 50 years after the first one was so successful in bringing the world together to conduct pioneering research in Antarctica, research several of us got to see firsthand last year. This is another idea that deserves this committee's support.

I congratulate all of my colleagues on their hard work on these bills, and I look forward to their prompt passage here and on the House Floor.

Let me once again restate the deep appreciation all of us have, on both sides, for the outstanding work of the very capable and hardworking professional staff. These are people who are here long after we have gone home, long after we have checked out of the airport to return to our Districts, working day and night and weekends to provide us with the support we need to do the good work we are doing.

I now recognize Mr. Gordon for five minutes to present his opening remarks.

[The prepared statement Chairman Boehlert follows:]

Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood Boehlert

I want to welcome everyone here for this important markup. We want to get done by 11 a.m., so we all need to be brief. I'm not planning to make any statements this morning other than this one, so I will discuss each of the bills right now.

But first let me say that all the bills, as usual, reflect long hours of bipartisan work on important issues. The smooth markup that we expect today is a result of countless hours of staff work on both sides of the aisle working out the kinks.

The first bill we will take up is the transportation research and development (R&D) bill offered by Mr. Ehlers and the negotiated amendments to it. This bill ensures that we will be devoting more resources to transportation R&D and that those resources will be better targeted. The bill authorizes an organized R&D effort that will focus on questions related to safety, environment, demographics, and getting the most out of the infrastructure that is already in place. It's an eminently sensible approach, and we will work hard to see that it becomes part of the overall highway bill.

I know many Members have contributed ideas to the bill and to the amendments, including (in addition to me), two freshmen Members on our side of the aisle, Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Burgess. I thank them for their contributions.

The second measure on the roster is Mr. Rohrabacher's bill to amend the Commercial Space Launch Act.

I want to thank Chairman Rohrabacher for bringing this important matter to our attention. We need to create a balanced and predictable regulatory regime that can help jump-start a commercial human space flight industry while protecting the public. I think this bill does just that.

I know some have concerns about the provision in the bill extending indemnification for just three years. I don't want to have a long debate on this now, but the argument for indemnification has always been that we need to help out an infant industry. Well, no industry can remain an infant forever. Indemnification has already been extended many times. Infancy has lasted long enough. In industry's interest, we need to send the signal now that the insurance regime ought to be changing in the future. It certainly would not be fair or wise to catch industry off guard.

The third bill is also offered by Mr. Rohrabacher. It would set up awards for amateur astronomers who discover near-Earth asteroids. It's one of those ideas that is so obviously good that it's amazing that it isn't happening already.

The fourth bill is Mr. Udall's remote sensing bill. This is also a sensible bill that we passed in the last Congress. We ought to be doing more to ensure that the remote sensing data we have is actually being used. Mr. Weldon will be offering a helpful amendment on that bill to single out one use of the data--locating forest fires. I support that amendment.

The fifth bill would expand the Baldrige Quality Award to include non-profits. I helped craft the legislation creating the Baldrige Award years ago; little did I understand then what a major success the Award would be. I congratulate Mr. Miller on his bill to expand the Award.

The sixth bill, by Mr. Udall, would call for another International Geophysical Year, 50 years after the first one was so successful in bringing the world together to conduct pioneering research in Antarctica--research several of us got to see firsthand last year. This is another idea that deserves this committee's support.

I congratulate all my colleagues on their hard work on these bills, and I look forward to their prompt passage here--and on the House Floor.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report to the Committee that the Democratic Caucus of the Science Committee has elected the Honorable Nick Lampson of Texas as the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Mr. Lampson has been a Member of the Committee and the Subcommittee since his election to Congress in 1996. He represents the Johnson--we will try again here. Okay. He represents the Johnson Space Center in Houston, and he has been out front in his vision for human space flight. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the seniority order for the Democratic membership of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics be changed to reflect the action of our Caucus, placing Mr. Lampson first in the Democratic seniority.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for another request, and that is I am pleased to report to the Committee that the Democratic Caucus of the Science Committee has elected the Honorable John Larson of Connecticut as ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Energy. John has been a Member of the Committee since 1998, also serves as the Ranking Member on the House Administration Committee, and was a leader in developing many of the R&D provisions of the energy bill. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the Honorable John Larson be elected to the Subcommittee on Energy and that rank in seniority is first on the Democratic membership.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, respecting your interest in getting out by 11:00, I will reserve any remarks on the bills as they come forth.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Without objection, all Members may place opening statements in the records at this point--in the record at this point.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

Mr. Chairman,

This is a good bill and I support it, but I have some concerns. As stated in a joint report from the Center for Community Change and the Civil Rights Project at Harvard:

That is the problem I am addressing with my amendment. In the National Multimodal Trends Policy Research and Development Program section of the bill, I add some common sense features that will ensure that our future transportation programs serve the needs of all the American people.

One change will enable us to better understand the needs of low-income minority and transit-dependent populations in urban and rural areas. Another will ensure that we get input from groups with expertise in environmental justice, and from community leaders.

I hope you will support this amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider the bill H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research Act of 2004. I now recognize Mr. Gordon for five minutes to present his opening remarks.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I understand you are going to be introducing a substitute amendment. And let me say to you that I want to thank you and Chairman Ehlers and their staffs for working with us in revising this bill.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Ehlers will be doing that. He will have the substitute amendment.

Mr. GORDON. And so I will address my remarks to that. This amendment takes a common sense approach to dealing with the R&D funding levels. It sets a minimum based R&D funding level that represents a modest increase over the fiscal year 2004 funding. And additionally, funding becomes available. R&D will increase to keep pace with the overall transportation funding based upon a 1.08-cent index. I think this is a common sense way to deal with this problem since we are not sure what that funding level will ultimately arrive at, so again, thank you for your cooperation.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon

Chairman Boehlert has outlined the provisions in the amendment, so I will just make a few comments. The substitute amendment is a significant improvement over the bill as introduced. I want to thank Chairman Boehlert, Chairman Ehlers, and their staff for working with us in revising this bill.

This amendment takes a common sense approach in dealing with R&D funding levels. It sets a minimum based R&D funding level that represents a modest increase over FY04 funding. If additional funding becomes available, R&D will increase to keep pace with overall transportation funding based upon a 1.08 percent index. This approach takes the Committee out of any debate surrounding how to fund increases for overall transportation funding.

I was the Ranking Member on the Technology Subcommittee during the TEA-21 authorization. I learned that while research can help us build and maintain our transportation system, `faster, better, cheaper,' it can also help us do it smarter. We can't build our way out of the congestion problems that affect almost every community. We need to better understand the interaction between our communities, the economy, and our transportation infrastructure. This amendment strengthens and funds the Surface Transportation-Environment Cooperative Research Program that originated in the Science Committee during the TEA-21 authorization process. This amendment also includes provisions to improve the assessment of community needs and of our driving population. Our transportation planning must take into account our aging population and that in many instances most driving hours are no longer due commuting to and from work.

I also want to thank the Chairman for working with me on training and education provisions in the bill and for working with other Members on their particular transportation interests.

This bill represents a good, bipartisan consensus on transportation R&D and I would urge everyone to support this bill.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I would ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that the Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.

I move that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with.

The first amendment on the roster is an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Dr. Ehlers. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered original text for purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule. Without objection, so ordered.

I have an amendment at the desk--Dr. Ehlers has--the Chair recognizes Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk shall report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3551----

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered.

[Amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers is located in the Appendix.]

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentlemen from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers, is recognized for five minutes to offer his amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have done an immense amount of work on this, particularly the staff. We are determined to have this become a major part of the new transportation bill, and the staff has done outstanding work on this.

This amendment does two major things: it reinserts the funding provisions which we removed at the Subcommittee level, and it incorporates the suggestions made by other Members of the Committee as well as the Administration, States, and other interest groups. The amendment retains all of the major programs and provisions from the bill as introduced.

Let me explain how this bill is funded. In the last reauthorization, while overall spending on transportation increased dramatically, by about 40 percent, funding for transportation research remained relatively flat. All parties that we worked with throughout this process, including the States, agreed that research needs more funding.

However, it is difficult to determine the appropriate level of funding for research without knowing what the final overall funding level will be for the larger highway bill. So what we have done is to tie research funding to overall transportation spending as a percentage. In this way, as the overall funding grows, so will the research funding. We set this percentage slightly higher than the percentage spent on these programs under TEA-21.

The increase will go to pay for new programs that focus on environment, congestion, and safety. There are also increases for university transportation centers, which will all be competed. More specifically, the bill creates the Future Strategic Highway Research Program. This program will focus on reducing congestion, renewing existing roads and bridges, improving safety, and assessing future needs. The bill also establishes a public-private cooperative environmental research program to help us understand the link between the environment and the transportation system. It also creates a new research program to demonstrate promising transit technologies and practices to improve efficiency and safety and reduce costs. It also requires all research projects funded by this legislation will be competitively awarded and peer-reviewed. And finally, it provides better training and education programs for the transportation workforce.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the En Bloc amendment, which will be considered next. This bill will put us in a strong position to negotiate with the House Transportation Committee as the process moves forward.

Let me also comment, Mr. Chairman, on the funding level. It will basically be at 1.08 percent of the total transportation bill. I personally recognize this as too low, but I suspect it is the maximum we can obtain from the Transportation Committee and the Congress as a whole. But I would also point out that I don't know of any major corporation in this country or, for that matter, throughout the world which would spend such a small portion of its revenues on research. And I think we should keep this in mind in the future and because the research saves money. If we develop concrete that lasts longer, we save money. And I could give many other examples. So I hope in the future we will be able to increase this percentage and actually get more for our money out of the entire transportation bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

This amendment does two major things: It re-inserts the funding provisions, and it incorporates the suggestions made by other Members of the Committee, as well as the Administration, States, and other interest groups. The amendment retains all the major programs and provisions from the bill as introduced.

Let me explain how this bill is funded. In the last reauthorization, while overall spending on transportation increased dramatically (by about 40 percent), funding for transportation research remained relatively flat. All parties that we worked with throughout this process, including the States, agreed that research needs more funding.

However, it is difficult to determine the appropriate level of funding for research without knowing what the final overall funding level will be for the larger highway bill. So, what I have done is to tie research funding to overall transportation spending as a percentage. In this way, as the overall funding grows, so will the research funding. I set this percentage slightly higher than the percentage spent on these programs under TEA-21.

The increase will go to pay for new programs that focus on environment, congestion, and safety. There are also increases for university transportation centers, which will all be competed.

More specifically, the bill:

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the En Bloc amendment that will be considered next. This bill will put us in a strong position to negotiate with the House Transportation Committee as the process moves forward.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers, for that fine explanation. Is there any further discussion? Ms. Johnson?

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to applaud the Committee leadership for bringing the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2003 up for markup today. This is a very important piece of legislation that deserves our immediate and utmost attention.

Congestion is beginning to cripple our largest cities and primary--the primary engine of our nation's economic growth. 74 percent of Americans agree that America faces a transportation capacity crisis in 75 large metropolitan areas alone. The cost of congestion is $69.5 billion, including 3.5 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel consumption. The average annual delay for every person in these cities has climbed to 26 hours. While these statistics are startling, the average American family does not need them recited. They are stuck in the traffic on their way home from work, picking up the kids at day care, or running the endless errands that seem a part of today's society, and they lose what precious little time they have together.

More importantly, our nation's highways, bridges, transit systems are not as safe as they need to be, and highway death toll is unacceptably high, most especially in my state. Over the past 25 years, 1.2 million have died in our--on our roads. Last year, 42,815 people died and 2.9 million more were injured on our highways. Highway fatalities remain the leading cause of death of our youth, ages 4 to 33. In addition to the personal tragedy of each of these deaths and many of the injuries, the economic cost of these accidents is more than $230 billion per year.

Finally, the Committee's proposal will provide the ailing American economy a needed economic stimulus package. The Federal Highway Administration reports that every $1 billion of federal funds invested in highway infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. When enacted, the Committee's introduced bill will create and sustain up to 3.6 million family-wage construction jobs, including 1.7 million new jobs. This bill would not put people back--would put people back to work, and this is just what the American economy needs. Moreover, a recent study found that the Committee's bipartisan proposal to invest $375 billion in surface transportation over the next 6 years would add $290 billion more to the Nation's gross domestic product than the Administration's proposal to invest only $247 billion.

The Committee's proposal would also lead to an additional $129 billion of household disposable income and an additional $98 billion in consumer spending. Millions of new, good paying jobs, billions of jobs--dollars of new consumer spending, now that is the way to get the economy growing.

I applaud Representative Ehlers for introducing this bill today, and I hope to continue to work together with the Members of this committee on the journey to writing the legacy of our surface transportation future. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to applaud the Committee leadership for bringing the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2004 (H.R. 3551) up for markup today. This is a very important piece of legislation that deserves our immediate and utmost attention.

Congestion is beginning to cripple our largest cities, the primary engines of our nation's economic growth. Seventy-four percent of Americans agreed that America faces a transportation capacity crisis. In 75 large metropolitan areas alone, the cost of congestion is $69.5 billion--including 3.5 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel consumption. The average annual delay for every person in these cities has climbed to 26 hours. While these statistics are startling, the average American family does not need them recited--they are stuck in traffic on their way home from work, picking up the kids at day care, or running the endless errands that seem a part of today's society, and they lose what precious little time they have together.

More importantly, our nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems are not as safe as they need to be and the highway death toll is unacceptably high. Over the past 25 years, 1.2 million have died on our roads. Last year, 42,815 people died and 2.9 million more were injured on our highways. Highway fatalities remain the leading cause of death of our youth (people ages 4 to 33). In addition to the personal tragedy of each of these deaths and many of the injuries, the economic cost of these accidents is more than $230 billion per year.

Finally, the Committee's proposal will provide the ailing American economy a needed economic stimulus package. The Federal Highway Administration reports that every $1 billion of federal funds invested in highway infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. When enacted, the Committee's introduced bill will create and sustain up to 3.6 million family-wage construction jobs, including 1.7 million new jobs. This bill would put people back to work, and this is just what the American economy needs.

Moreover, a recent study found that the Committee's bipartisan proposal to invest $375 billion in surface transportation over the next six years would add $290 billion more to the Nation's Gross Domestic Product than the Administration's proposal to invest only $247 billion. The Committee's proposal would also lead to an additional $129 billion of household disposable income and an additional $98 billion in consumer spending--millions of new, good-paying jobs, billions of dollars of new consumer spending: now that's the way to get the economy growing again!

I applaud Representative Ehlers for introducing this bill today. I hope to continue to work together with the Members of this committee on the journey of writing the legacy of our surface transportation future.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

And for the benefit of our guests at this markup, I want everyone to know that even though we are dealing with a Science Committee amendment pertaining to a transportation bill, we are not railroading anything through. We are going to act with dispatch today because of a very busy schedule, but only after detailed consultation on both sides we have worked these things out together, which is the habit of this committee, and we are acting with the good advice of our parliamentarians, so we are going to follow parliamentarian procedure. We are going to try to act with dispatch, because everyone has 14 other commitments, and at 11 o'clock, we have to be completed, because the President of Spain will be our guest addressing a joint meeting of the Congress.

Is there anyone else who seeks recognition? Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In that spirit, I just want to thank the Committee for accepting my amendment En Bloc in the surface transportation legislation, specifically dealing with the question of ensuring the input of minority communities where sometimes transportation has an inequitable effect on those communities, often restricting their ability to access social economic opportunities, including job opportunities, education, health services, places of worship, and other places such as grocery stores. My amendment will address some of these issues by common sense features that will ensure that they will have a better opportunity to have input but also that we would have a better opportunity to understand the needs of low-income, minority, and transit-dependent populations in urban and rural areas.

And with that, I thank the Committee, and I add my support to the legislation and yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

Mr. Chairman,

I rise in support of the Transportation Research and Development Act. I commend you and my colleague from Michigan, Congressman Ehlers for his leadership on this important issue. Transportation is one of those bread and butter issues that makes such a huge difference in the lives of our constituents. And we spend a lot of money on it. Providing for research and development to make smart transportation systems, is a smart investment.

The budget the President unveiled on Monday definitely confused the issue of how to provide for the transportation needs of this nation. I believe he is advocating under-investment in our critical transportation infrastructure, but obviously, that is a debate for another day. But that budget did throw a bit of a wrench in the progress of the Transportation Bill that the House is working on, and that confused the numbers in the bill before us today. Therefore, I am glad we have worked together in a bipartisan fashion to re-tune the authorizing levels in this bill and set some good minimums. Now, no matter what happens in other committees, programs we determine are valuable, will have a better chance of getting the funding they deserve.

One part of this bill that I am particularly pleased to see is the Garrett Morgan Technology and Transportation Education Program, that is folded into the en bloc amendment, and is the product of good work by my colleague from Texas, Congressman Neugebauer. This Program was initiated by Sec. Rodney Slater in May 1997 in response to the call to action by President Clinton at his Summit for America's Future. This education program was intended to help ensure that America's least advantaged students would have increased opportunities through exposure to mentors in a wide variety of fields.

Today, the program's goals are to `build a bridge between America's youth and the transportation community.' The components of the program are: 1) Math, Science and Technology Literacy Challenge for K-12; 2) Community College Partnership; 3) Undergraduate and Graduate Opportunities; and 4) Life-long Learning.

Mr. Neugebauer is to be congratulated for authorizing this program and for now requiring the program to place a special emphasis on providing opportunities for women and minorities.

Garrett Morgan was an African American inventor who lived in Cleveland, OH. One of his most notable inventions was the traffic signal. Although technology has modernized the traffic signal since he first invented it, we are still using the same simple, but elegant solution to managing traffic flows.

This program has never had funding of its own--it has leveraged funds of other federal and State programs. Rep. Neugebauer's amendment provides $500,000 of new funding to expand the worthy activities of this program. This has been an excellent program since it was created by President Clinton, and now will become even more effective at improving diversity in our transportation industry.

I support the amendment and support the underlying bill.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Dr. Gingrey.

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a real brief inquiry. In regard to the inquiries from '03, if, on the scenario of $300 billion, which is actually less than what the Senate and the House are now proposing for the transportation bill, that would be a 17 percent increase in the amount of spending on research and development from 2003 to 2004. Now what happens in the out years if we--in this--in the 3551 if we go to this and the transportation bill ends up being about $300 billion then we are spending $540 million on R&D? That is a 17 percent increase. What happens then to the--in the out years? How much increase do we get on top of that?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Susannah.

Ms. FOSTER. Sure. In the out years, you would see--under our scenario, you would most likely see flat-funding at that level, at that 540 level if you saw a $300 billion bill. It is linked to the amounts in the Highway Trust Fund. So if the final bill ramps up, our research funding would also ramp up. But if the final bill stayed flat, our bill would also have flat funding.

Dr. GINGREY. Right, so that if it remained flat over a six-year period of time, then basically you are talking about a three-percent increase a year over the life of the reauthorization?

Ms. FOSTER. Yes.

Dr. GINGREY. Three percent. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I, just very briefly, wanted to thank Chairman Ehlers and--for accepting my amendment relative to the establishment of research centers for safety. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee, and I think the willingness to accept that amendment is a very important one, and I appreciate it and wanted to offer my thanks and my support for the bill.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thanks for that observation, and thanks for that input. Very valuable. Anything further?

Let us proceed. The next amendment on the roster, and we are told that we have to proceed this way by the parliamentarian, is amendment number two, an En Bloc amendment offered by Dr. Ehlers to his amendment in the nature of a substitute. Dr. Ehlers, are you ready to proceed?

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. En Bloc amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[En Bloc amendment offered by Dr. Ehlers appears in the Appendix.]

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is now recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will use far less than five minutes. I will be brief.

I am pleased to offered this En Bloc amendment, which has been worked out with both the majority and minority Members and includes amendments by Mr. Burgess to create a road weather research program, Mr. Neugebauer to create a math science education program, Ms. Biggert to clarify that all federally funded laboratories are eligible to participate in the R&D programs, Ms. Jackson Lee to ensure that low-income and minority citizens are included as a category in policy research, and Ms. Johnson to develop innovative technologies to improve public input into planning.

I am willing to yield my time to any of these Members if they wish to make a brief statement, although most of them have already spoken.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I will be brief. I am pleased to offer this En Bloc amendment which has been worked out with the majority and minority Members and includes amendments by Mr. Burgess to create a road weather research program, Mr. Neugebauer to create a math science education program, Ms. Biggert to clarify that all federally funded laboratories are eligible to participate in the R&D programs, Ms. Jackson Lee to ensure that low-income and minorities citizens are included as a category in policy research, and Ms. Johnson to develop innovative technologies to improve public input into planning.

I yield my time to any of these Members if they wish to make a brief statement.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. If there is----

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Burgess. I am pleased to yield two minutes to Mr. Burgess.

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.

My amendment will simply create a federal road weather research program within the Department of Transportation. The concept for this program came from a report by the National Research Council, which was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration. This program would bring together the weather and transportation research communities to maximize the use of available weather information and technologies, and especially to improve safety and efficiency. The amendment calls for the program to be funded at $5 million each year, which would come from the existing major research account for highway research.

I want to thank my Subcommittee Chairman, Dr. Ehlers, and Chairman Boehlert for supporting my amendment.

And just before I yield back my time, I just have to say how good it is to see Mr. Hall on our side of the bench. I will yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Let me tell you, Mr. Burgess, it is good to see Mr. Hall any place.

Is there anything further?

Mr. EHLERS. Reclaiming my time, I now yield two minutes to Mr. Neugebauer.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Ehlers, for working with me on this important amendment. My amendment authorizes the Garret Morgan Technology and Transportation Education Program. While that title is very long, the concept is simple. This program will help improve the preparation of students, particularly females and minorities, in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics throughout their curriculum development and other activities related to transportation.

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Reclaiming my time, I yield two minutes to Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am very grateful to the Committee leadership for agreeing to include my amendment in the Surface Transportation Act, and I have always been a proponent of including public opinion in our governing process. And I believe this amendment is an effective tool to accomplish that.

Government agencies and planning organizations spend a great deal of time and money on obtaining public input into transportation planning and policies yet meaningful public input has proven difficult to obtain. Forums for public discussion tend to draw sparse attendance and are often dominated by vocal and unrepresentative minorities. Conventional surveys, by contrast, measure the opinions of the whole public, but those opinions typically rest on little prior thought or information. The combination of representative, yet informed, opinions remain elusive.

Recognition of these problems has led to the widespread calls, from the Bush Administration and elsewhere, for innovation. Among the priority areas for research funding designated by the Administration's Surface Transportation Reauthorization proposal (SAFETEA) is the development of `improved methods for community involvement, collaborative planning, and conflict resolution.'

Deliberative Polling is such a method. It provides public input that is both informed and representative. Thus the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University and the career--the Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas at Austin propose conducting Deliberative Polls on transportation issues at the national, State, and local levels.

A Deliberative Poll begins by drawing and interviewing a random sample of the public then inviting them to a common site to discuss the issues. And I would like to ask unanimous consent to file the rest of that statement. And I would also like to take----

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful to the Committee leadership for agreeing to include my amendment in the Surface Transportation Act. I have always been a proponent of including public opinion in our governing processes and I believe this amendment is an effective tool to accomplish that.

Government agencies and planning organizations spend a great deal of time and money on obtaining public input into transportation planning and policies. Yet meaningful public input has proven difficult to obtain. Forums for public discussion tend to draw sparse attendance and are often dominated by vocal, unrepresentative minorities. Conventional surveys, by contrast, measure the opinions of the whole public, but those opinions typically rest on little prior thought or information. The combination of representative yet informed opinion remains elusive.

Recognition of these problems has led to widespread calls, from the Bush Administration and elsewhere, for innovation. Among the priority areas for research funding designated by the Administration's Surface Transportation Reauthorization proposal (SAFETEA) is the development of `improved methods for community involvement, collaborative planning, and conflict resolution.'

Deliberative Polling is such a method. It provides public input that is both informed and representative. Thus the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University and the Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas at Austin propose conducting Deliberative Polls on transportation issues at the national, State, and local levels.

A Deliberative Poll begins by drawing and interviewing a random sample of the public, then inviting them to a common site to discuss the issues, usually over a weekend. The participants are sent carefully balanced briefing materials laying out the major arguments for and against a set of policy proposals. Then, during the weekend, they alternate between discussing the issues in randomly assigned small groups led by trained moderators and questioning panels of competing experts or policy-makers in plenary sessions. The 20-plus Deliberative Polls to date have covered such topics as crime policy, America's role in the world, the future of the American family, the state of the American economy, and the best ways of meeting future energy needs.

In the realm of transportation policy, Deliberative Polling could be applied to the question of how to fund future public spending on highways and public transit. Particularly at the federal level, funding has come predominantly from taxes on gasoline and other motor fuels, but the move toward fuel-saving technologies like hybrid engines, along with other factors, may diminish the adequacy of this revenue source.

The method could also be brought to bear on such other transportation issues as streamlining the environmental clearance process, improving highway safety, providing support for the development of alternative fuels, the appropriate level and composition of government spending on surface transportation, land use planning to moderate the growth of roadway traffic, commercial truck standards, variable toll pricing programs, high occupancy toll lanes, intermodal freight transportation facilities, and public private collaboration on transportation infrastructure. The focus could also include proposals for specific projects, for instance of building a given light rail system or of building or improving a given road.

There are two Centers with dedicated personnel that afford a unique combination of expertise. Deliberative Polling was developed by Professor James Fishkin, then at the University of Texas, now heading the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University, in collaboration with Professor Robert Luskin, then and now at the University of Texas. The Center for Transportation Research, closely linked to the University of Texas's highly ranked department of Civil Engineering and staffed by economists and planners, as well as engineers, is an eminent center for transportation research.

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for including my amendment, and I yield back my time.

Ms. JOHNSON- this opportunity to applaud Representative Neugebauer for introducing this very important amendment that he offered. The amendment authorized the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education Program, a program initially established by Secretary Rodney Slater in 1997.

As this is African American History month, it is very appropriate that we recognize Garrett Morgan, an African-American businessman and inventor whose curiosity and innovation led to the development of many useful and helpful products. A practical man of humble beginnings, Morgan devoted his life to creating things that made the lives of other people safer and more efficient. So this program is a continuation of that legacy.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to applaud Representative Neugebauer for introducing this very important amendment. The amendment authorizes the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education Program, a program initially established by Secretary Rodney Slater in 1997.

As this is African American History month, it is very appropriate that we recognize Garret Morgan, an African-American businessman and inventor whose curiosity and innovation led to the development of many useful and helpful products. A practical man of humble beginnings, Morgan devoted his life to creating things that made the lives of other people safer and more convenient.

This program is a continuation of his legacy. While much of the seasoned transportation work force is retiring, the demand for both traditional and new skills is expanding. The Nation's need for technologically literate transportation workers continues to grow. The Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Program bridges this divide by working towards these three goals:

Unfortunately, the Program exists on too few funds. However, this amendment sets the authorization level at $500,000 in FY05 and such sums for the duration of the bill.

I would also like to personally thank Representative Neugebauer for maintaining language in his amendment that directs the Program to emphasize participation of women and minorities, who have been significantly under-represented in the past. For these reasons, I support this amendment and as that my colleagues do the same.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Reclaiming my time. I do not see anyone else----

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Jackson Lee----

Mr. EHLERS. I am sorry.

Chairman BOEHLERT- wants a brief intervention.

Mr. EHLERS. I am pleased to yield two minutes to Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. Ehlers, thank you very much.

Our Committee has spent its time, through several Chairpersons, including you, Mr. Chairperson and Dr. Ehlers, opening up opportunities to minorities and others. And I want to associate myself with the support of Mr. Neugebauer's amendment dealing with Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education Program and finding the monies in this very tight budget era that we are in and particularly applaud the fact that we are joining in a bipartisan way to support Secretary Rodney Slater's initiative, along with the Clinton Administration, to ensure that this program goes forward. So I know that our young people will benefit from a program of this great excellence, and I yield back. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Are there any further amendments? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. And the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, is agreed to.

The question is now on the bill H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research Act, as amended. All of those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

I will now recognize Mr. Gordon for a motion.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee favorably report H.R. 3551, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming changes, that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the motion to report the bill favorably. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. The Clerk--the ayes appear to have it, and the resolution is favorably reported.

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 3551, as amended, and to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 3551, or a similar Senate bill. Without objection, so ordered.

This concludes our committee markup, and I thank my colleagues for their enthusiastic participation. We are now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:33 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Appendix:

AMENDMENT ROSTER, AMENDMENTS

000

3551k6.eps

amenda.eps

amendb.eps

amendc.eps

amendd.eps

amende.eps

amendf.eps

amendg.eps

amendh.eps

amendi.eps

amendj.eps

amendk.eps

amendl.eps

amendm.eps

amendn.eps

amendo.eps

amendp.eps

amendq.eps

amendr.eps

amends.eps

amendt.eps

amendu.eps

amendv.eps

amendw.eps

amendx.eps

amendy.eps

amendz.eps

amendaa.eps

amendbb.eps

amendcc.eps

amenddd.eps

amendee.eps

amendff.eps

amendgg.eps

amendhh.eps

amendii.eps

amendjj.eps

amendkk.eps

amendll.eps

amendmm.eps

amendnn.eps

amendoo.eps

amendpp.eps

amendqq.eps

amendrr.eps

amendss.eps

amendtt.eps

amenduu.eps

amendvv.eps

amendww.eps

amendxx.eps

amendyy.eps

amendzz.eps

amenda3.eps

amendb3.eps

amendc3.eps

amendd3.eps

amende3.eps

amendf3.eps

amendg3.eps

amendh3.eps

amendi3.eps

amendj3.eps

amendk3.eps

amendl3.eps

amendm3.eps

amendn3.eps

amendo3.eps

amendp3.eps

amendq3.eps

amendr3.eps

amends3.eps

amendt3.eps

amendu3.eps

amendv3.eps

amendw3.eps

amendx3.eps

amendy3.eps

amendz3.eps

amenda4.eps

amendb4.eps

amendc4.eps

amendd4.eps

amende4.eps

amendf4.eps

amendg4.eps

amendh4.eps

amendi4.eps

amendj4.eps

amendk4.eps

amendl4.eps

amendm4.eps

amendn4.eps

amendo4.eps

amendp4.eps

amendq4.eps

amendr4.eps

amends4.eps

amendt4.eps

amendu4.eps

amendv4.eps

amendw4.eps

amendx4.eps

amendy4.eps

amendz4.eps

amenda5.eps

amendb5.eps

amendc5.eps

amendd5.eps

amende5.eps

amendf5.eps

amendg5.eps

amendh5.eps

amendi5.eps

amendj5.eps

amendk5.eps

amendl5.eps

amendm5.eps

amendn5.eps

amendo5.eps

amendp5.eps

amendq5.eps

amendr5.eps

amends5.eps

amendt5.eps

amendu5.eps

amendv5.eps

amendw5.eps

amendx5.eps

amendy5.eps

amendz5.eps

amenda6.eps

amendb6.eps

amendc6.eps

This Report:     Printer Friendly: HTML  |  PDF
Search Results  > House Report 108-662 - Part 1
New Search Help  |  Contact Us
1 of 1