July 29, 2005

Thanks to a last minute compromise, the conference was able to issue a report on HR 3 and the bill embodied in the report was passed by the House this morning. The bill has not yet been passed by the senate at this time (10.58 a.m. PDT) but is expected to later today. The conference report has been posted and so I thought I would report to you on some of the salient features which are going to affect all of us through the year 2009.

1. The bill authorizes the expediture of $1.061 billion dollars for 23 USC 402, through the year 2009. This section specifies six purposes for which the money may be spent, the second one being, "to encourage the proper use of occupant protection devices (including safety belts and child restraint systems) by occupants of motor vehicles". This sub-paragraph previously contained the additional words: "and to increase public awareness of the benefit of motor vehicles equipped with airbags". The bill amends the sub-paragraph to delete these words. 
This section of the bill does not say how the money is to be apportioned among the six purposes (the others being speeding, drunk driving, motorcycles, school buses and data collection).

2. The bill authorizes the expenditure of $113.34 million dollars for Occupant Protection Incentive Grants under 23 USC 405. This section specifies six criteria, four of which a state must meet in order to be eligible for these grants. The second of these is "primary seatbelt law". Others include "special traffic (seatbelt) enforcement, child passenger protection (i.e., seatbelt seats),  child passenger education (regarding seatblets and airbags), secondary seatbelt law, and minimum penalty points (for not using seatbelts).

3.The bill authorizes the expenditure of $373.5 million dollars for "Seatbelt performance grants" under 23 USC 406. Section 406 previously related to training school bus drivers. However, the bill amends section 406 to specify the criteria which a state must meet in order to qualify for "seatbelt performance grants". There are only two, and a state is required to meet only one of the two. They are: Either the state must have a primary seatbelt law, or, the state must have had a seatbelt use rate of 85% or higher in each of the preceeding two calender years. Notice that this is the language which Chairman Young inserted in the House bill and is similar to the Allen amendment which the Senate voted down 86 to 14.
This section of the bill goes on to state that the seatbelt use rate shall be determined by criteria specified by the secretary (of transportation).

4. The bill authorizes the expenditure of $ 116 million dollars for "high visibility enforcement". This money may be used for "either or both of the following objectives: 1) reduce alcohol or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles; and/or 2) increase use of seatbelts by occupants of motor vehicles". $29,000,000 may be used in each of the years 2006 through 2009. This is higher than was specified by either the House or the Senate bills.

5. Section 2010. Motorcycle safety. This section is noteworthy for the fact that it contains deletes all previous references to motorcycle helmets.

6. Child "safety" and booster seat incentive grants. This section provides $25,000,000 dollars for grants to states that require that "any child which is too large to be secured in a child safety seat shall be secured in a child restraint that meets the requirements prescribed by the secretary under section 3 of Anton's Law  (49 USC 30127 note; 116 Stat. 2772). What does this mean? I have no idea and neither do they. 

7. The bill also provides incentive grants for "states which work to educate and inform prosecutors and judges of the merits of prosecuting and adjudicating defendants who repeatedly commit impaired driving offenses".  This is a clear violation of the constitutional provision of the separation of powers. It is not for the legislative branch to "educate" the judiciary branch.


Note: The bill is noteworthy for the fact that it deletes all references to airbags and motorcycle helmets. This represents movement and shows that congress is not locked in stone. It still includes the seatbelt incentive grants but, in every case, states can now qualify for these grants without passing a primary seatbelt law. Also, states no longer need to use "high visibility enforcement" money for seatbelt campaigns. 
We need to be patient with congress. It is very hard for them to admit that something they have been pushing for forty years was a mistake.