PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.For Further Action See H.R.4385.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 6, 1993
Value Engineering Better Transportation Act of 1993 - Amends Federal transportation law and the Federal Transit Act to increase by five percent increments (up to 100 percent) the Federal share for transportation projects costing over $2 million for which "value engineering" results in certain minimum project cost savings. Prohibits the use of Federal funds for "value engineering" training. Defines "value engineering" as the process of review and analysis of a project during its design phase by a multidisciplined team of persons not originally involved in the project in order to provide suggestions for reducing total project costs and providing better quality.
People & committees
Rep. Byrne, Leslie L. [D-VA-11] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
For Further Action See H.R.4385.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2014 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2014 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2014 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2014 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.