leg2010

Loony tunes in Colorado: SB 110. The Colorado state senate has concurred in the House amendments, meaning that the bill will likely become law. The Colorado House of Representatives passed SB 110 on April 20, 2010 by a vote of 51 to 13.   Of course the bill is unenforceable since it would require a police officer to be able to tell the age and weight of a child in a passing car.

The bill reads like something out of Alice in Wonderland. It is basically Anton's Law, but also specifies with great complexity that, depending on the age and weight of the child, the child would have to sit facing this way but not that way, in the front but not in the back, or in the back but not in the front, or vice versa, facing forward or backward, if less than this age but more than that age, except if it weighs more than 20 pounds or less than forty pounds, except if it less than one year old or more than four years old, and on and on. The bill also states that a police officer who stops a vehicle  under the provisions of this bill shall only issue warning and not a citation prior to August 1, 2011.

The Colorado senate  passed SB 110 on 3/18/2010 and sent it to the House where it was assigned to the transportation committee.   The vote in the senate was 21 to 11 with 3 abstentions, but the bill  was first amended to take out  primary enforcement of the seatbelt law, but make the booster seat law primary and  impose "Anton's law" on Colorado, meaning that children up to eight years of age would have to be strapped into a death-trap seat. The fine would be raised from $65 to $75 dollars. The revised fiscal statement makes no mention of a federal grant, but the emergency clause is still in the bill.

West Virginia: The West Virginia state legislature adjourned on March 20 without passing either SB 130 or HB 4005. (These bills would have made West Virginia's seatbelt law primary.) SB 130  was introduced in the House on March 4, 2010 and assigned to the transportation committee. The West Virginia state senate passed SB 130 by a vote of 27 to 5 on 3/3/2010. Two senators were absent. The five senators who stood up for  the people of West Virginia and voted no were: Boley, Bowman, Chafin,  Deem and Sypolt.

Wyoming: HJ0002 has been reported out of committee and placed on the general file for consideration by the committee of the whole. This is one of the states' rights resolutions which have been introduced in a number of states this year. (See below for similar resolutions or bills introduced in Arizona, Missouri and Rhode Island).  HJ0002, section 3, reads:
        "That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed".
        The resolution thus seems to address only stick legislation, not carrot legislation; it does not seem to bar federal legislation offering states rewards to pass certain bills as long as it does not threaten to withhold funds if a state legislature does not comply. This is not entirely clear, however, because if a state legislature does not pass a bill for which a reward is offered, then it would lose the federal funding it would otherwise get. The problem is that states are now so financially dependent on the federal government that they are in a poor position to refuse federal funding, even if onerous conditions are attached. The rest of the resolution, however, uses some pretty strong language to assert state sovereignty. At any rate, it seems to be a step in the right direction.
        For the entire resolution, visit:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2010/Introduced/HJ0002.pdf

Missouri: The following bill has been introduced in Missouri:

Utah: The Utah state legislature has adjourned without considering a primary seatbelt law.

Wyoming: On the last day for third reading, the Wyoming House defeated SF 0064 by a vote of 17 to 41. A revised version of SF 0064 was passed by the Wyoming state senate on 2/18/2010 by a vote of 21 to 9. The bill would have raised the seatbelt fine from $25 to $75, but lowered other traffic fines by $10 if the person was wearing a seatbelt.  Enforcement remains secondary. No word on how much, if anything, NHTSA offered Wyoming to pass this bill.

Oregon: SB 579, which went into effect in January, holds the driver of a vehicle and/or the guardian of a child under 16 years of age responsible if the child "is not properly restrained by a seatbelt or booster seat". A child up to 40 pounds and up to 4 feet 9 inches tall must be restrained in a death-trap seat. Beyond that, a seatbelt is required. The penalty is not stated.  The beauty of the word "properly" is that the police can always allege that the child was not "properly" restrained.

Minnesota: We forgot to mention  that Anton's law, SF 99, was also passed by the Minnesota state legislature last year. They probably got another million from NHTSA for that.  It was a bad year for Minnesota, as they passed both the primary seatbelt law and Anton's law.   We shall never know how many men, women and children are going to drown, burn to death or be crushed to death as a result, because the police are required by law to promote seatbelts and booster seats.

Arizona: The Arizona state legislature has adjourned without passing SB 1010. The bill was "held in the House" (i.e., not considered by the House).The bill was referred to the House transportation and rules committees on 3/08/2010. The bill refers to CFR 49, Section 571.208. The sponsors have no idea what this section means and neither does anyone else because it is meaningless gibberish. SB 1010 would impose Anton's law on Arizona. This bill would have required motorists to strap children up to nine years of age into a death trap seat! This was the age limit in the original NHTSA bill (all these bills are written by NHTSA in Washington D.C.) but in every other state where this bill has been introduced they lowered the age limit to 8 years of age. The bill would also make it illegal for hospitals to release new born infants to their parents without first informing the parents of all the provisions of this law. This bill was reported out by the Public Safety and Human Services Committee on 1/13/2010 by a vote of 6 to 0. Passed by rules committee, 1/19/10. The bill was amended on the floor with two major changes: The first would make the law secondary, and the second lowers the age limit from 9 to 8. The bill was then approved by the committee of the whole by voice vote (no roll call) on 1/21/10. Passed by senate, 20 to 8, and sent to House

Virginia: SB 219. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was reported out by the senate transportation committee on 1/28/2010. All this does, basically, is to raise the age below which a person is considered a child, for the purposes of the seatbelt requirement, from 17 to 19. However, it retains the secondary enforcement provision. Passed by the senate on 2/3/2010 by 39 to 1. A motion to reconsider passed by 40 to 0. The vote was then retaken and the bill once again passed by 39 to 1. Sent House  on 2/8/2010 and referred to the Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety.

Arizona: A similar resolution was introduced in Arizona. Broadly interpreted, these resolutions would require the repeal of all seatbelt laws, since all such laws were passed by states only under intense pressure from, and offers of federal funds by, the federal government. Some of the earlier seatbelt laws are in direct violation of the resolutions, since initially the congress threatened states with massive loss of federal highway funds if they did not pass laws forcing motorists to use seatbelts. For the full text of the Arizona resolution, visit:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hcr2001p.htm

Colorado: The Colorado state legislature has adjourned after the governor signed SB 110, the loony tunes Anton's law bill. The bill was so absurd  we made no effort to fight it. It is unlikely that the police will try to enforce it since there is no money in it for them and from a practical point of view, the bill is uneforceable. It would require a police officer to be able to tell the age and weight of a child in a passing car. One has the feeling that these bills are not  are not serious, practical legislation, but merely emotional exercises by neurotic women.

Missouri: The Missouri state legislature has adjourned without passing, or even considering, HB 1877, the primary seatbelt law bill. Introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 28, 2010 and read the second time on February 1. However, notice of this bill only appeared in the public record on February 17, 2010, which is probably a violation of Missouri law. Apparently, the sponsors hoped to keep the word from getting out. The bill  was not   assigned to any committee and was not put on any calendar.

Rhode Island: Rhode Island  joined other states introducing a bill or resolution asserting state sovereignty against the federal government. H 7030 states, in part,

RESOLVED, That this House of Representatives hereby respectfully requests the  President and Congress of the United States to refrain from enacting or imposing any law or  regulation that is beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers or that would  diminish the rights of the people of Rhode Island to govern themselves as a free, sovereign, and  independent state;

For the full text, visit:

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext10/housetext10/h7030.pdf

This bill was considered by the House Corporations Committee on 1/19/2010 and "held for further study" which, in Rhode Island, usually means the bill is dead.

Legislative updates:

Vermont: The Vermont state legislature has adjourned without passing H147. This bill, which was passed by the Vermont House last year, was revived by senator Shumlin and assigned to the senate transportation committee of which senator Shumlin is a member. This bill would, among other things, make Vermont's seatbelt law primary. We fought this bill as hard as we could last year. The high point of the debate came when representative Rodgers introduced an amendment which would have made wearing a seatbelt illegal in Vermont. Unfortunately, the amendment failed, but it was nevertheless a notable first in this long war against madness. The House subsequently passed the bill, but it was not taken up by the senate. The bill is a classic production of the NHTSA lobbying machine, filled with false and misleading statements, made up statistics, and non sequiturs.

Vermont: Vermont did pass S-280. This bill is mainly about texting, but it did raise the age limit for primary enforcement of the seatbelt law from 16 to 18 and enact Anton's law up to age 8.  Gradualism at work, but only a very small victory for NHTSA. The rest of the bill is a loony tunes discussion of texting while driving, including a requirement that the commissioner of motor vehicles plan a campaign to educate (motor vehicle) operators of the dangers of texting while driving. No evidence is presented that anyone in Vermont (or anywhere else) has ever engaged in texting while driving or is planning to do so.

Rhode Island: Update on H 7085. The notice on the latest judiciary committee action on this bill, on 5/19/2010, has now been revised from "recommended for passage" to "held for further study".

7085 was postponed again on April 15, 2010.   Theoretically this means the bill is dead since April 15 was the last for House bills to be considered in a House committee.   H 7085 was originally scheduled for a hearing in the House judiciary committee on March 24, 2010 but was  postponed at the request of the sponsor. H 7085 would  make Rhode Island's seatbelt law primary.   Introduced January 12, 2010 and asssigned to the judiciary committee. The sponsors of this bill are representatives Roberto DaSilva, Raymond E. Gallison, Douglas Gablinski and Peter Kilmartin. DaSilva and Kilmartin are police officers. What a surprise.

A (not so) small victory in California: Ordinary citizens have successfully challenged the police on two issues: 1. The right of citizens to video record traffic stops by police and 2. The right of citizens to wear motorcyle helmets of their choice (but not yet not to wear helmets). For the full story, click on this link: Folsom. For a related video, see California Motorcycle Helmet Stop further down on this page.

Pennsylvania: SB1220 would make Pennsylvania's seatbelt law primary up to 18 years of age. The bill sets a fine of $10 for a violation. This "gradualism" at work. If this bill passes they will come back next year and try to raise the fine and the age. The bill also sets a fine of $100 for failure to strap a child into a death-trap seat. No word on how much NHTSA offered Pennsylvania to pass this bill. Introduced 2/1/2010 and sent to the transportaton committee.

Wisconsin: On June 30, 2009. Governor Doyle signed AB-75,  the Wisconsin state budget bill, as submitted by the governor and passed by the legislature. It turns out that buried deep inside this huge bill, in small print,  was a provision to make Wisconsin's seatbelt law primary. Even finding the bill number containing this provision was a challenge, because Wisconsin's legislative website is unique in making it almost impossible to find anything. Here is what the notice said, when we finally found it:

Safety belt law primary enforcement authorized, forfeiture increased [Sec. 2991, 2992, 9350 (4), 9450 (6); Enrolled AB-75: forfeiture increase removed, specified as being mandatory, federal incentive grant provision, efective date, 9150 (5c), (14q), 9450 (6q), (7q)]............AB-75

The fine was set at $10. The key to this is the phrase "federal incentive grant provision". Because the fine is set so low, it is clear that the reason the provision was included in the budget was to get whatever bribe NHTSA offered Wisconsin to include this provision. No doubt the actual amount is buried somewhere deep inside the budget, but so far we have not been able to find it. (Notice "efective date". They can't even spell.)

More legislation: The "Event Data Recorder Enhancement Act", HR 5169, was introduced in the House on April 28, 2010 by representataive Green of Texas. Actually it doesn't enhance anything. It would simply require cars to be equipped with event data recorders.

The "Consumer Auto Safety Enhancement Act", HR 5345, was introduced by representatives Speier, Eshoo, and Quigley on May 19, 2010. Like the previous bill, this one does not enhance anything either. Instead, it  requires that cars be equipped with event data recorders.

On October 27 of 2009, senator Rockefeller introduced S. 1938, the Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2009. The purpose of this bill is stated to be "to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from the use of cell phones and texting while driving". No evidence is presented as to how many, if any, persons have been killed or injured as a result of these activites. The bill would offer bribes to states for passing draconian laws against using cell phones or texting while driving. Co-sponsors were senators Hutchison, Lautenberg, Shumer, Thune and Klobuchar. While this bill did not pass, it is likely that the bribes were included in one of the many appropriations bills, because it is unlikely that every state legislature would have introduced "distracted driving" bills at the same time without some inducement from the federal government. Few of these bills actually passed.

S. 3302 was introduced on May 4, 2010 by senator Rockefeller and co-sponsored by senators Pryor, Boxer, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Klobuchar, Begich, Snowe, and Udall. This is the corresponding senate bill to the House bill H.R. 5381 (see above ).  A hearing on this bill was held in the Commerce Committee on May 19, 2010. You can read all about it by going to www.senate.gov  and by going to "legislation" and typing the bill number into Thomas, and by going to "committees" and then "Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee" to read the testimony of the witnesses, none of whom  have the vaguest idea what they are talking about. 

Like the House bill, this bill would give another $720 million dollars to NHTSA, over and above the $805 million a year they are getting now, and further increase their size and authority. Like S. 3271, this bill would require event data recorders to be installed in all motor vehicles. The worst provisions of this bill, however, are that it would give Ray theHood the authority to stop the manufacture and sale of any automobile he feels like stopping, and fine the auto companies any amount he feels like fining them, on any pretext he may dream up. Given what LaHood did to Toyota, the prospect is not encouraging. The bill would remove the limit on civil penalties that NHTSA (i.e., Ray LaHood) could assess an automobile company on any false and trumped up charge.   It sets a temporary limit on the penalty of $250,000,000 (two hundred fifty million dollars) per violation. But it also removes the statutory limit on such penalties in 49 USC subsection 30165, which means they can raise that limit at any time.

Readers will understand that  these bills are introduced as a result of bribes paid to members of congress by the insurance industry. The shift from "distracted driving" to "event data recorders" shows that the insurance industry lobbyists have received new marching orders, and are passing the word to the members of the senate and House.

Kansas: The Kansas state legislature has adjourned without passing SB 483.

SB 483: In an uparalleled act of cynicism and hypocrisy, the Kansas state senate, on February 16, 2010, by a vote of 26 to 14, voted to sell out the people of Kansas for a federal grant.   The bill was sent to the House and assigned to the transportation committee.

SB 483 would have made the Kansas seatbelt law primary, extend the seatbelt requirement to all passenger car occupants, raise the fine from $30 to $60 and make seatbelt evidence admissible in court in certain cases. Introduced in, and by, the senate transportation committee. To no one's great surprise, the committee recommended passage of their bill on 2/10/2010. Members of the committee are: Senator Dwayne Umberger, Chairman, Senator Bob Marshall, Vice Chairman, and Senators Apple, Donovan, Huntington, Peterson, V. Schmidt, Kultala and Hensley. Kultala and Hensley are the only democrats on the committee.

NHTSA  offered Kansas $11.2 million dollars to pass this bill under 23 USC 406 and $465,000 a year under 23 USC 405. The amount under 23 USC 406 was the same as last year, which is surprising because NHTSA usually ups their bid in case of failure. The $465,000 a year under 23 USC 405 is new. NHTSA was promising Kansas money in perpertuity, which they have no authority to do, since money for 405 has only been appropriated by congress for this year. NHTSA has told Kansas they must enact this legislation by June 30, 2010. As a result, the Kansas state senate   "declared an emergency" to rush this bill through.
The hearing on this bill was orchestrated by NHTSA through the Kansas Deparmtent of Transportation. Testifying were representatives from the Kansas Department of Transportation, the  Kansas Health Department, the Kansas Highway Patrol, the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, the Kansas Peace Officers Association, the Kansas Sheriffs Association, and the Kansas State Nurses Association. Notice the heavy police presence, and the fact that all of these people are on the public payroll. Not a single private citizen testified for this bill. The people of Kansas were not represented.
    In addition, the "supplementary statement" on the bill also stated that written testimony was received  from AAA Kansas, "Safe Kids Kansas" the "Alliance of Auto Manufacturers" and the State Farm Insurance Companies. Both "SafeKids (insert name of state)" and the "Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers" are phony front organizations created by NHTSA and their "written testimony" came straight out of NHTSA headquarters in Washington, D.C. The insurance companies have been bamboozled by NHTSA into believing that this kind of legislation will save them money.
Most of the money for passing this bill, as well as some of the fine money, would have gone  to the police, which explains the heavy police presence at the hearing. It is greed for money and power. In testifying for this bill, the police are not telling the truth.   They  know full well what seatbelts do to motorists in automobile accidents.  The second largest amount of the money would have gone to the health department. Not mentioned in the fiscal or supplemental note is that fact that Kansas DOT would receive additional money under 23 USC 402, which  exceeds the money Kansas is getting under 23 USC 405 and 406.  This is a long, complicated story, but Kansas DOT has a major fiscal interest in this and is responsible for orchestrating this in Kansas under both federal and state law.
The only other noteworthy development to report here is that the delegation NHTSA through DOT managed to round up to testify at the hearing was somewhat lower level than last year, when the heads of the department themselves showed up at the hearing. Two members of the committee, senators Marshall (the vice chairman) and Peterson, voted against the bill.

Congress passes H.R. 3288. In an extraordinary Sunday session, the United States Senate  passed H. R. 3288, the omnibus appropriation bill for fiscal 2010.  This is the biggest pork barrel bill in all of recorded history. We are trying to get a clarification because some of the appropriations, specifically those relating to 23 USC 402, 405 and 406 were not authorized.  It probably won't make much difference because in the atmosphere of total cynicism and corruption which prevails in Washington today, no senator is likely to object on a legal technicality and thus delay getting billions of dollars of pork barrel money.

Specifically, the bill appropriates $235,000,000 for 23 USC 402, $25,000,000 for 23 USC 405 and $124,500,000 for 23 USC 406. In addition , it appropriates $29,000,000 for "high visibility enforcement" (police harassment) and $7,000,000 for "Anton's Law". NHTSA will use this money in January to bribe states to force motorists to wear seatbelts and strap their kids into death-trap seats. Many will die as a result.

H.R. 3288 was expanded from merely including HUD and DOT to including all agencies and departments for which money for fiscal 2010 has not yet been appropriated.  The conference report made no change in the money appropriated for 23 USC 402, 405 and 406. Thus. while Americans, especially women and children, continue to die in the most horrible ways as a result of government interference in highway safety,   congress continues to appropriate money to fund this interference. We are, basically, being ruled by a gang of murderers.

For the legislative background on this bill go to leg2009