Link to Hearing

Mr. Kiefer, for himself and Mr. Wisniewski, submits the following to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

For the conservation of energy by limiting the speed of all vehicles


SECTION I: SHORT TITLE

This bill shall be referred to as the "National Highway Speed Limit Act".

SECTION II: FINDINGS OF CONGRESS

Congress finds the following:

1. We are using energy at an unprecedented rate, causing a national energy crisis.

2. In the past, Congress passed a speed limit of 55 miles per hour, designed primarily to increase fuel consumption rates.

3. This speed limit is also responsible for increasing traffic safety.

SECTION III: THE NATIONAL SPEED LIMIT

A. All states shall set their speed limits on any highway to no higher than fifty-five (55) miles per hour.

B. All states shall have the power to set a lower speed limit on any highway in their jurisdiction.

SECTION IV: ENFORCEMENT

1. All states shall have three months to bring their laws into compliance with this law.

2. Any state found not to be in compliance shall be penalized by having their highway transportation funds revoked.

SECTION V: ENABLING SECTION

This law shall be in effect upon appropriate passage and / or the signature of the President or his designate in accordance with the Constitution.

Most Respected Committee Members (Not sure how to address the committee as chair so please bear with me :)),

Allow me to open by addressing Mr. Webb and Mr. Cole's questions from the hearing about what right does the Federal government have to do this and how this does not violate the 10th Amendment.

There are a number of ways that the federal government is permitted to secure the assistance of state authorities in achieving federal legislative goals. The federal government may condition the grant of federal funds on certain actions. This can be illustrated by South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

In South Dakota v. Dole the issue was the drinking age. South Dakota had a drinking age of 19. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of a lower courts decision that the federal government could withhold money for transportation of they did not comply with the federal government's ruling.

Quoting directly from Chief Justice Rehnquist's statement: "The Constitution empowers Congress to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Art. I, 8, cl. 1. Incident to this power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed the power "to futher broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives." The breadth of this power was made clear in the United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936), where the Court, resolving a longstanding debate over teh scope of the Spending Clause, determined that "the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." Thus, not violate the consitutional rights of anyone."

I hope that this is helpful in clearing up some of the confusion.

I respectively yield.

Madame Chair,

I am opposed to federal extortion.

I motion to table this bill.

I yield

Madam Chairwoman,

I still see no need for the passage for this legislation. The sponsors have not provided enough empiracal data or need to reduce the national speed limit. In addition, I am uncomfortable for Congress to dictate a speed limit on the states. Considering the vast open spaces in the West, I alsodon't see a need to pass this legislation which will not be followd by drivers in certain states. If anything, all this legislation does is increase local revenues through speeding tickets.

I encourage the members of this committee to defeat this legislation. We should be addressing other traffic safety measures and energy conservation programs, rather than reducing the speed limit.

Rep. Dave Anderson
Republican
11th District
New Jersey

Madame Chair,

Either I am in error, or the gentleman from New Jersey has just declared himself blind. I'm certain that he did not mean to do that considering that the information we presented during the hearing was there.

I yield.

Madame Chairwoman,

I am of the opinion that this motion is dilatory and was initiated specifically for the purpose of killing legislation without the benefit of either debate or a vote. If the gentleman is so opposed, he should vote against it when the time comes. I am opposed to making motions for undemocratic and anti-American purposes.

I yield.

Madam Chair,

Is the Gentleman from Texas not aware that we could vote on tabling this bill?

This bill is just another expansion of federal control where it shouldn't go.

I yield

Madem Chair,
I concur, the notion to table is dialtory. Not only did our nation have a national speed limit in effect from approx. 1975 to 1986, which was removed not by judicial, but by legilsative means, but the question of constutionality is beyond the purview of this committee. I strongly urge the chair to concur on this matter, and to restrict our debate to the mechanisms and facts of the bill, and to avoid protracted debate of case law, which none of us have standing to rule on.

As to the gentleman who referenced a lack of facts, I am surprised as the hearing on this bill was a deluge of facts that offered strong support for safety and conservation.

I suggest the gentleman use the link to the hearing.

I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

I yield.

Madame Chair,
I will be commenting later in the day as to the merits of this bill.

Further regarding the motion to table:
If the gentleman from Missourri wishes to vote against this bill because he feels it is unconstitutional, then he may do so after the debate.

I again state however, to table the bill on such an assertion is dilatory, and to judge the merits of such an assertion is far beyond the scope of this committee, and undrmines the democratic process of this committe.

I yield.

I am ruling the motion by Mr. Webb to table the bill dilatory. I believe that this motion is simply wasting the committee's time and would be an insult to the authors and sponsors of the bill. We should respect the work and research of the authors and truly debate this bill rather than exhibit obstructionism. Anyone objecting to this bill may show this during the vote and anyone objecting to this ruling had their chance to second the motion made by Mr. Webb.

I yield.

Madame Chair,
I shall summarize the facts from the hearing as the remarks were lengthy, and before I close I shall add some fuel efficiency information.

Safety Considerations of the 55 mph Bill
*Increased speed results in, the reduction in the amount of available time needed to avoid a crash and increases the likelihood and severity of a crash once it occurs.

*The US had a national speed limit enacted approx. 1975, (The law was never held to be unconstitutional). *In 1995, the law was repealed. In a study of 31 states, 24 of which increased their speed limits, and 7 of which remained the same the following results obtained:

*Fatalities on interstate highways increased 15% in states that raised speed limits. After accounting for changes in vehicle miles of travel, fatality rates were actually 17% higher following the speed limit increases. Similar increases were reported on rural interstate highways. These numbers have been replicated by a number of highway safety organizations.

*It needs to be stressed that these increases in fatalities have occured despite the great advances in vehicle safety since the late 1980's, which makes the numbers even more compelling to this observer.

*When speed limits are raised, the number of "speeders" increases significantly. Texas is typical where it was found that:

*When speed limits increased from 55 mph to 70 mph, the average driving speed on urban freeways and interstate highways increased also. Prior to the increase, 15 percent of cars on these roads were exceeding 70 mph and 4 percent were exceeding 75 mph.
After the speed limit increase, 50 percent were exceeding 70 mph and 17 percent were traveling faster than 75 mph. (IIHS, 2003). The same general trend holds in a number of other states.

*Exceeding the posted speed limit or driving too fast for conditions and is a factor in nearly one-third of all fatal crashes.

*The economic costs of crashes that involved excessive speed were $40.4 billion, representing 18 percent of total crash costs and an average cost of $144 for every person in the United States.

FUEL EFFICIENCY and MPH
(From fuel economy.gov and another site I forgot to bookmark)
*Gas mileage decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. Each 5 mph we drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.10 per gallon for gas.

*For a vehicle getting 31mpg, the following results are observed related to speed.
55mph= 31mpg
70mph= 25mpg decreased efficiency of 20%
75mph= 23 mpg decreased efficiency of 26%

Big Picture Energy by the Numbers

Global crude production peaks somewhere between 2004 and 2020.
US production, (ex ANS), peaked 1970.

US imported 40% of energy requirements in 1974, mostly as crude.
US imports 55% of energy requirements in 2003, mostly as refined products.
US is therefore now technologically dependent on foreign sources vs. 30 years ago, damaging our own national security long and short term.

US imports of energy requirements projected in 2020: 70%

324 domestic refineries in 1974.
170 domestic refineries in 2003, running for 12 years at 95% of capacity.

Current global rank of US gas prices from highest to lowest nation: #102
Legally required mpg of passenger autos in Europe, Japan, China: 39mpg
Legally required mpg of passenger autos in US: 27.5mpg
(this figure unchanged since 1990 and 30% less efficient than other nations listed

US share of global population: 4.6%
US share of global crude usage: 25%
US share of global motor gasoline usage: 40%
US share of greenhouse emissions: 25%
US share of total global resource usage: 30%
Proven and projected discoveries of recoverable global crude in years: 100

It is the job of government to plan ahead, and to make the choices that impact the long term security of its people. This bill will save lives and cut gasoline consumption by up to 26%.

Why exactly do we oppose this bill?

I yield.

Madame Chair,

The gentleman from Connecticut raises some valid points.

However, what effect would this legislation have on interstate and intrastate commerce? Would this bill have any effect at all on the time it takes for trucks to transport goods and services within and between states?

Also, the arguments about safety do not carry any weight, yet. In order to accurately calculate the risk of high speed limits, one must control for other factors such as road conditions, weather, traffic density, visbility, and other factors. Once these variables are factored in, it might be possible that these factors have a higher correlation with traffic accidents than the speed limit.

I yield.

Madame Chair,
The gentleman from Nebraska as always raises good points. I shall attempt to address these one by one.

Regarding Inter and Intrastate commerce:
My feling would be that the questions of Fedral law in interstate commerce would be minimal, and well established. Where the bill is admittedly unclear is its intention is over intrastate commerce. I don't think anyone can argue that it should.

Regarding the arguments for safety, the gentleman is speaking to methodology, matters of control, and the elements of design in the studies. About this, I cannot specificaly speak to the guts of the number crunching, but I can draw upon common sense.

I cite the organizations upon whose data I drew first. The Insurance Inst. For Highway saftey, The National Inst. of Health, and NHTSA.

Each of these were "longtitudinal" studies, i.e., they looked at extended periods of time, (as in months to over a year), before and after the speed limit changes. I find it hard to belive that when "control" aspects of a study are taught nowadays in Intro Psychology for example, that such prestigious institutions would not provide such controls. My common sense tells me that to sugest that organizations such as this would conduct such obviously bad methodology as described is unthinkable.

The only variable I can speak to for a fact is an adjustment for miles driven, which is mentioned in the text of my previous remarks.

Given these ideas, I could not agree with the gentleman that the safety facts do not carry any weight. I simply canot belive that any agency, especially the insurance industry, who had no agenda one way or another, would ever construct a study as faulty as the gentleman has described.

I hope this answers the gentleman's concerns.

I yield.

Madame Chair,

I thank the gentleman for his response.

However, I am still not sold on the reporting of the statistics. It is cited that excessive speed was a factor in a certain number of accidents. It does not say that excessive speed was the sole deciding factor in the number of accidents, it merely says it was a factor. I think it is safe to assume that excessive speed combined with several other variables such as driving under the influence, weather, road conditions, traffic density, is a risk to road safety. I fail to see the direct connection between excessive speed and highway accidents. It may contribute to the likelihood of accidents, but I am guessing that another factor or factors weigh in as well. Therefore, it is the responsibility of individual drivers, not the federal government, to ensure safety on our nation's highways. State patrol officers also have a hand in increasing highway safety. I believe that this issue is one best left to individual states to determine.

I yield.

Madme Chair,
Would it not be reasonable to asume that a study of "X" months before the speed limit change, and "X" months after the change, contained in and of itself, controls of the kind the gentleman is speaking about? Things such as weather, rates of DUI, etec., etc.

I yield.