UTILIZATION AND IMPACTS OF 

AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 

(111–125) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 30, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

UTILIZATION AND IMPACTS OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENTY 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–250 PDF 2010

UTILIZATION AND IMPACTS OF 

AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 

(111–125) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

June 30, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

VACANCY 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Danila, Dan, Virginia State Activist, National Motorists Association ................ 3 

Geraci, Michael, Director, Office of Safety Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ..................................................................................... 3 

Hansen, Captain Glenn, Captain, Howard County, Maryland, Police Department ...................................................................................................................... 3 

Kelly, David, Executive Director, Partnership for Advancing Road Safety ........ 3 

Loudermilk, Hon. Barry, Georgia State Representative ...................................... 3 

McCartt, Dr. Anne, Senior Vice President for Research, Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety .............................................................................................. 3 

Reagan, Hon. Ron, Florida State Representative ................................................. 3 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., of Oregon ......................................................................... 26 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 27 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 31 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Danila, Dan .............................................................................................................. 35 

Geraci, Michael ........................................................................................................ 45 

Hansen, Captain Glenn ........................................................................................... 60 

Kelly, David .............................................................................................................. 66 

Loudermilk, Hon. Barry .......................................................................................... 217 

Mccartt, Dr. Anne .................................................................................................... 226 

Reagan, Hon. Ron .................................................................................................... 238 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Danila, Dan, Virginia State Activist, National Motorists Association, response 

to request for information from the Subcommittee ........................................... 41 

Geraci, Michael, Director, Office of Safety Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, response to request for information from the 

Subcommittee ....................................................................................................... 48 

Kelly, David, Executive Director, Partnership for Advancing Road Safety, 

response to request for information from the Subcommittee ........................... 68 

Loudermilk, Hon. Barry, Georgia State Representative, response to request 

for information from the Subcommittee ............................................................. 223 

McCartt, Dr. Anne, Senior Vice President for Research, Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety, response to request for information from the Subcommittee .............................................................................................................. 233 

Reagan, Hon. Ron, Florida State Representative, response to request for 

information from the Subcommittee ................................................................... 322 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Governors Highway Safety Association, Vernon F. Betkey Jr., Chairman, 

letter to Chairman DeFazio ................................................................................ 325 

National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, Leslie Blakey, Executive 

Director, written testimony ................................................................................. 328 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 57250.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 57250.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 57250.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 57250.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 57250.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 57250.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 57250.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 57250.008
xiv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 57250.009
(1) 

UTILIZATION AND IMPACTS OF AUTOMATED 

TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter A. 

DeFazio [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The Highways and Transit Subcommittee will 

come to order. 

Today we are engaging in a hearing at the request of the Ranking Member, to which I am fully in agreement, to take a good, hard 

look at what is called automated traffic enforcement—some of us 

know it as speed cameras and red light cameras—and to examine 

the proper and improper utilization of such devices; what role the 

Federal Government should play, if any, in regulating the use of 

these devices or the use of Federal highway safety funds to acquire 

such devices; and to better understand how these tools can be utilized and targeted at what is their legitimate purpose, which is to 

make our roads and intersections a safer place for the traveling 

public. 

So I look forward to the testimony. I have read the testimony, 

but will look forward to individuals summarizing their best points 

and/or responding to other members of the panel, and we will have 

an opportunity for questions. 

With that, I turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Chairman DeFazio, for 

holding this hearing on utilization and impacts of automated traffic 

enforcement. Specifically, as you said, we are talking about the use 

of red light and speed cameras to enforce traffic laws. 

I can assure you, you can never satisfy a government’s appetite 

for money or land; they always want more, and the last decade has 

seen a technology boom that has awarded government new ways to 

take more money from the taxpayer. Already, government at all 

levels is taking at least about 40 percent of the average citizen’s 

income, and government will continue to look for new ways to nickel-and-dime the taxpayer to death. Red light and speed cameras 

are popping up all over the Country. In 2008, $3.1 million in red light camera violations were issued 

in the city of Knoxville. Knoxville received $1.1 million, while the 

vendor received $2 million. Redflex, the company that operates the 

red light cameras in Knoxville, is an Australian company, so most 

2 

of this revenue is going to foreign markets. Three of the largest 

photo enforcement vendors declined to testify, but I understand 

that we have a witness from the Partnership for Advancing Road 

Safety, Mr. Kelly; that is an organization that is funded by the industry, so we will hear his testimony. 

Recently, the State of Florida passed legislation allowing the use 

of red light cameras, and they expect annual revenue generated by 

these cameras to be $200 million by 2013. 

These large dollar amounts tell me that this issue is more about 

raising revenue than making our Nation’s roads safer. 

While there have been a variety of studies that tout photo enforcement as a cost-effective way of improving safety, there are 

other studies that show an increase in vehicle crashes after red 

light cameras were installed. The Washington Post analyzed the 

District of Columbia database generated from accident reports filed 

by police. Since the cameras were installed, the analysis shows that 

the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 in 2004. Injury and fatal 

crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. 

Another such study conducted by the Virginia Transportation Research Council found a reduction in red light running crashes after 

red light cameras were installed, but an overall increase in crashes 

and injuries due to more rear-end crashes. 

Some States and localities may be too quick to install photo enforcement techniques without first exhausting other techniques 

that can reduce red light running and improve safety. Improving 

sign visibility, installing advanced warning flashers, and adjusting 

yellow light intervals can have a positive impact. Numerous studies 

have found that longer yellow signal timing can reduce the frequency of red light running violations by as much as 50 percent. 

While these solutions may not fill government coffers as much as 

photo enforcement could, we owe it to our taxpayers to explore 

these engineering improvements that make our roads and highways safer. 

If these cameras were really about safety, then I think we should 

donate those fines to private charities. I have never forgotten a column written by William Raspberry, a columnist for The Washington Post, a very liberal columnist, who wrote that private charities, on average, spent 85 percent of their funds going to the beneficiaries and only 15 percent going to the cost of administration, 

while government welfare programs were exactly opposite, spending 85 percent on their administrative and salary costs, and only 

about 15 percent going to the beneficiaries. 

I thank the witnesses for attending this hearing and I look forward to their testimony and then the opportunity to ask some 

questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

Are there any Members on my side who wish to have an opening 

statement? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, then we will go right to testimony, Mr. Michael Geraci, Director, Office of Safety Programs, National Traffic 

Safety Administration. 

3 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL GERACI, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

SAFETY PROGRAMS, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION; HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, GEORGIA 

STATE REPRESENTATIVE; HON. RON REAGAN, FLORIDA 

STATE REPRESENTATIVE; CAPTAIN GLENN HANSEN, CAPTAIN, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

DR. ANNE MCCARTT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY; 

DAVID KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARTNERSHIP FOR 

ADVANCING ROAD SAFETY; AND DAN DANILA, VIRGINIA 

STATE ACTIVIST, NATIONAL MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GERACI. Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Duncan 

and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today 

to represent the Department of Transportation on the very important safety issue of automated traffic enforcement. 

While the number and rate of traffic deaths have decreased significantly in recent years, motor vehicle crashes remain a serious 

national health problem and a leading cause of death in particular 

for young Americans. Under the leadership of Secretary LaHood, 

the Department of Transportation is committed to reducing the 

motor vehicle crash toll that considers every available evidencebased strategy for reducing roadway risk. Automated traffic enforcement technology is one such strategy, with evidence of effectiveness in reducing risk from speeding and red light running. 

Speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes. In 2008, NHTSA data showed that speeding was a contributing factor in 31 percent of all fatal crashes and was associated with more than 11,000 fatalities. NHTSA estimates that 

speeding-related crashes cost more than $40 billion each year. 

A NHTSA study of fatal intersection crashes indicates that an 

average of about 38 percent of such events at signal-controlled 

intersections involved at least one driver who ran a red light. On 

average, intersection crashes involving red light running result in 

just about 1,000 deaths per year. 

A significant body of evidence that is further discussed in my 

written testimony reveals that when appropriately used as one 

component of an overall traffic safety and law enforcement system, 

automated enforcement programs can be an effective countermeasure for reducing crashes at high-risk locations. 

Automated enforcement systems do not replace the need for traditional enforcement operations, but provide an effective supplement when used as part of a comprehensive strategy for reducing 

traffic crashes. 

NHTSA and the Federal Highway Administration have developed operational guidelines to assist States and communities in designing and implementing effective automated speeding and red 

light running systems. These guidelines are based on program evaluations and documented successful practices in communities all 

across the Nation. The guidelines stress the importance of integrating automated enforcement in a comprehensive system that is 

based on problem identification. 

NHTSA encourages adoption of these automated enforcement 

guidelines through speed management workshops. These workshops suggest a comprehensive approach to community speed manVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57250.0 KAYLA
4 

agement, including incorporation of automated enforcement where 

appropriate. The workshops involve the active participation of the 

full range of local partners, including highway engineers, law enforcement officials, prosecutors, judges, and safety advocates. The 

agency has conducted nine of these workshops, reaching practitioners from 46 States. 

Speeding and red light running are serious safety problems, and 

NHTSA is committed to identifying and advancing effective solutions to reduce the tragic toll from these unsafe driving practices. 

We will continue to examine the potential safety benefits of promising countermeasures, including automated enforcement systems, 

and work closely with States to encourage the adoption of effective 

programs to help improve safety for all road users. 

I thank you for today’s invitation and I am pleased to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

The Honorable Barry Loudermilk, State Representative of Georgia. Representative Loudermilk. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen and 

ladies of the Committee. 

Georgia, in 2001, passed legislation that allows red light cameras 

to be operated by local, municipal, and county governments. After 

that legislation passed, the Georgia legislature had growing concerns over the operation of red light cameras in the State. Primarily, those concerns were constitutional; the effectiveness of red 

light cameras, were they actually affecting safety, improving safety; 

concerns also of abuse of the red light cameras by local governments; and also a lack of regulation and standardization. 

We began looking into the red light camera issue. We don’t have 

speeding cameras in Georgia, but we do have the red light cameras. We started realizing that there was questionable effectiveness 

on safety, especially numerous media reports coming out that accident rates had increased at several of the key intersections within 

the State. Even more recently, Ross McLaughlin, an investigative 

reporter with Channel 11 News, reported that some of the highest 

revenue-generating intersections had actually increased all types of 

accidents, including the right-angle or T-bone collisions that the 

red light cameras were supposed to eliminate or reduce. 

As we started looking at effective ways to improve safety, we 

started realizing that there was more than likely a financial incentive created by the use of red light cameras that local governments 

were no longer induced or inspired to seek out proven engineering 

methods to improve intersection safety. As a result, we passed 

House Bill 77, which the results of that bill has reduced violations 

of 50 percent in red light camera intersections. 

The key component of House Bill 77, there were really three components, but the key was requiring an additional second be added 

to the yellow light time of every intersection that operated photo 

enforcement. That additional time requirement was to go to the 

minimum Federal standard time plus an additional second. Within 

30 days of the additional second being added, reduction in violations in some cities were reported as much as 81 percent. 

Statewide we have seen a 50 percent reduction in red light camera running. Along with that is a 50 percent reduction in revenue. 

5 

As a result, many of the cities that had installed the red light cameras as a safety tool have thus removed those cameras because 

they were no longer profitable. 

The other aspect of House Bill 77 was more State oversight and 

standardization. The Department of Transportation is now a permitting agency for local governments. Before a local government 

can get a permit to operate a red light camera, there are procedures they have to go through which, first of all, is they have to 

show that the intersection in question is a dangerous intersection, 

that there is a compelling reason to put a red light camera there. 

Second, they have to impose and they have to go through steps to 

improve the safety of the intersection through engineering standards. 

So the focus of House Bill 77 was to focus the State back on safety through engineering, and that photo enforcement would be a 

means of last resort. The results have been phenomenal. Georgia’s 

intersections are safer. We have now about 20 percent less red 

light cameras, but we have safer intersections throughout the State 

of Georgia. 

So I think our success in Georgia is a little different than a lot 

of others that you will hear is that our success has been in refocusing on safety through engineering, and that the red light cameras are going to be a means of last resort. 

So I would be glad to answer any questions as we go through the 

hearing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Representative Loudermilk. 

With that, we now turn to the Honorable Ron Reagan, State Representative from Florida. Mr. Reagan. 

Mr. REAGAN. Good morning. Thank you very much. It is an honor 

and a pleasure to be here. 

Recently, in the State of Florida, we did pass a bill, House Bill 

325, that allows the use of cameras at intersections. When we did 

this, we focused on two things: number one is public safety and 

number two is uniformity. State of Florida cities had already been 

installing cameras on their own, using local ordinances to do so. 

My bill focused at this point in time for uniform standards 

throughout the entire State. 

We passed this bill on May 14th. We called it the Mark Wandall 

Traffic Safety Act, named after a young man who was killed about 

a mile from my house by a vicious red light runner. It was signed 

into law. This piece of legislation was passed overwhelmingly by 

the Florida House of Representatives and the Florida Senate. 

Thousands of Floridians have been killed by drivers who run red 

lights as part of their normal behavior. Since 2001, Florida has 

been among the top three States for pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities, with the latest numbers showing that 502 pedestrians and 118 

bicyclists were killed by driving behavior, primarily people running 

red lights. 

In Florida, a recent public opinion showed that 72 percent of Floridians support the use of automated traffic enforcement at intersections. The Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, House Bill 325, provides critical funding for medical study in the form of spinal cord 

research, makes available funding for Florida trauma centers, and 

6 

it assists local municipalities that implement this lifesaving technology. 

Intersection camera programs are designed to use technology as 

a tool for traffic safety on local roads. Camera programs can effectively and efficiently modify drivers’ behavior by increasing enforcement. These programs encourage all drivers to follow Federal, 

State, and local traffic laws. The cameras are a proactive solution 

to reduce preventable deaths, avert serious injuries, and reduce 

output of funds to respond to accident scenes. Automated enforcement programs mitigate a host of problems that arise on Florida 

roads when drivers fail to stop at red lights. 

This bill requires signage at intersections using traffic infraction 

detectors and provides that traffic infraction detectors may not be 

used to enforce violations when the driver is making a right turn 

in a careful and prudent manner. We tried to do our best to address those issues regarding financial aspects of the bill and the 

use of these automated systems. The bill provides processes regarding required modifications, the issuance of citations to registered 

owners of motor vehicles, and defenses available to vehicle owners. 

Notifications and citations must include the images indicating 

that the motor vehicle violated a traffic control device and must 

offer a physical location or an internet address where images or 

video may be seen. When a citation is issued, it may be challenged 

in a judicial proceeding in the same manner as other traffic violations. A contested citation upheld by the court may result in additional costs and fees. 

In the State of Florida, one of the things we did was points may 

not be assessed against a driver’s license for infractions enforced by 

the use of traffic infraction detectors, and violations may not be 

used for purposes of setting motor vehicle insurance rates. Each 

governmental entity that operates a traffic infraction detector must 

submit an annual report to the Department of Highway Safety and 

Motor Vehicles which details the results of detectors and the procedures for enforcement. 

I would like to say, in closing, that I believe that Florida House 

Bill 325 will keep Florida’s first responders from having to go to 

accident scenes that never needed to occur in the first place. This 

bill will keep Florida’s trauma centers from having to perform lifesaving measures caused by thoughtless drivers who may run red 

lights as their normal driving pattern. The program will prevent 

habitual and reckless driving patterns across Florida. This piece of 

legislation is a good public policy. It brings consistency, it mandates uniformity, it encourages public safety, and it is a tool for 

over-utilized law enforcement officials. 

Thank you for your time, and I appreciate the honor to be here. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Representative. 

With that, we turn to Captain Glenn Hansen, a captain with the 

Howard County, Maryland Police Department. Captain? 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak to you 

today. 

Howard County, Maryland is midway between Baltimore and 

Washington. We have had our share of safety concerns, just as you 

have seen nationally. In 2008, 102 people died every day on our 

7 

streets, and that is really not acceptable. Transportation is a wonderful thing, it gets you from A to B, but we need to find ways to 

do it in a safer manner. 

We talk a lot about a comprehensive approach. We call it a 4E 

approach: engineering, enforcement, education, and EMS, all working together comprehensively to make it safer for our community. 

That is something that we instituted in Howard County, where we 

were experiencing problems with intersection crashes. We looked at 

it holistically: we did traditional enforcement; we expanded that to 

team enforcement; we did a lot of public relations; we tried to get 

the community with us in understanding that there was a problem; 

and eventually we were able to get U.S. Department of Transportation grants to do a pilot study to test red light camera technology 

in the United States. 

Starting in the late 1990’s, we were able to test that technology. 

The community was very supportive. We issued warnings. We were 

eventually able to get legislation passed. That legislation passed in 

Maryland. It has been extremely successful. We have had crash reductions. We have had several studies showing that the socioeconomic cost of crashes in Maryland have gone down where we 

put cameras in place. 

Since that time, the system in the United States has matured a 

great deal. The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued 

data-driven guidance on best practices; what works well from problem identification to defining how best to address the solution; 

looking at engineering countermeasures and deciding when and if 

automated enforcement is successful and can help you with your 

issue. 

Automated enforcement is a tool; it is not a silver bullet, it is not 

a solution to all your problems. Automated enforcement makes enforcement much more efficient, much more rapid. But if you do it 

in a noncomprehensive way, it doesn’t necessarily make traffic any 

safer. We recommend doing it in a comprehensive way with a safety focus. That is what the USDOT guidance is pointing out. We believe strongly that as long as people stick to modern programs that 

are being instituted today, stick to the guidance and best practices, 

use automated enforcement as one part of a holistic traffic safety 

solution, that it will continue to be successful in reducing crashes 

and injuries. 

With that, I thank you for your time, and I would be happy to 

answer questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Captain. 

With that, we would turn to Dr. Anne McCartt, Senior Vice 

President for Research, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 

Doctor. 

Ms. MCCARTT. Thank you for the opportunity to share research 

findings about automated traffic enforcement. It is a special honor 

to testify today before Ranking Member Duncan. My parents were 

among the first settlers of East Tennessee. I graduated from Fulton 

High School when your father was mayor. My parents now live in 

Kingsport. 

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and communications organization that identifies ways to reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57250.0 KAYLA
8 

duce deaths, injuries, and property damage on our Nation’s highways. We are funded by auto insurers. 

Running red lights and speeding may be common in some communities, but they are illegal and dangerous behaviors. In debates 

about automated enforcement, traffic law violators are often portrayed as victims, but the true victims are the people injured and 

killed in crashes. Each year, about 800 people die in crashes caused 

by red light runners, and another 137,000 are injured. Speeding 

was a factor in about 12,000 crash deaths in 2008, a third of all 

deaths. 

A high likelihood of apprehension is what convinces motorists to 

obey traffic laws, and automated enforcement achieves this. Studies have found that red light cameras reduce red light running violations 40 to 50 percent, and these reductions in a community spill 

over to intersections without cameras. 

Institute research in three communities with speed cameras 

found dramatic declines in the proportions of drivers traveling 

more than 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. In Montgomery 

County, Maryland, where cameras are used on residential streets 

and in school zones, reductions were 70 percent. On a high speed 

freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona, the odds of speeding fell 95 percent. 

The key question is whether automated enforcement improves 

safety, and it does. Reviews of the international literature show 

that red light camera enforcement reduces injury crashes 25 to 30 

percent. Speed camera enforcement reduces crashes with deaths 

and serious injuries 40 to 45 percent. Surveys of the public have 

consistently shown acceptance of red light cameras and speed cameras. 

Although automated traffic enforcement is not a panacea, it is a 

proven way to reduce traffic violations and prevent crashes, especially serious crashes that result in injury or death. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. David Kelly, Executive Director, Partnership for Advancing 

Road Safety. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. 

PARS represents communities, safety organizations, and law enforcement agencies that use automated road enforcement to calm 

traffic and make their community safer. There will be a healthy debate this morning about the role that automated enforcement plays 

in a traffic safety community. 

We know that research tells us that safety cameras work. You 

have heard the statistics, and communities across the Country are 

affirming these successes. From Aurora to Pensacola to New Orleans to the District of Columbia to Arizona and Maryland, just to 

cite a few, cameras are keeping the public safe. 

We also know that automated enforcement is constitutional. Several cases throughout the Country have gone to court and been appealed, including many favorable decisions in various U.S. circuit 

courts across the Country. Many of these cases are dismissed at 

the summary judgment level and the programs are consistently 

held constitutionally valid. Not once, when faced with the constituVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57250.0 KAYLA
9 

tionality of cameras, has photo enforcement been found unconstitutional. 

There are those that will debate the merits of the technology. 

However, we should all agree that it is not appropriate to speed, 

run red lights, drive while distracted or impaired, or in any other 

way endanger the lives of others on the road. Why should the time 

of an offender be more valuable than that of their victim? 

Photo enforcement saves lives. We have seen it in cities, towns, 

and States across the Country. Independent third-party organizations have confirmed that. 

I appreciate your time and interest in this lifesaving technology 

and welcome any questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you for your succinct testimony. 

Mr. Dan Danila, you are listed as a Virginia State Activist with 

the National Motorists Association. 

Mr. DANILA. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. DANILA. Thank you for inviting me here to provide testimony 

on this very important topic for our Nation’s motorists. 

The National Motorists Association basically is a driver’s rights 

organization with members in all 50 States and also in Canada. 

The NMA is opposed to the use of automatic traffic enforcement. 

Our objections to such programs can be categorized into three 

major points, and all based on objective data, over which I am 

going to go briefly: one, ticket cameras are usually about revenue 

generation, not about improving safety; number two, an individual’s right to due process is subverted; three, there are less expensive and more effective ways of enhancing safety for motorists. 

In the written testimony that you guys have in front of you, you 

will see examples of investigative reports that document an increase in accident rates after red light cameras have been installed. 

Typically what happens is the instinctive reaction of the drivers 

when they see a red light camera is to hit their brakes, which increases the risk of rear-end collisions. Also, on page 7 of my testimony you will see examples of counties and cities which have shut 

down their automatic enforcement programs when those programs 

seemed to be profitable money-wise. 

In regards to the individual’s rights to due process, usually the 

registered owner of the vehicle is notified by regular mail about the 

alleged violation. First of all, there is no proof that he actually got 

the violation in the mail. Second, the owner is presumed guilty 

until proven otherwise, even if he was not driving the vehicle. 

On the third point, there are less expensive and more effective 

ways to increase safety; as an example, I want to cite the studies 

on pages 5 and 6 of my testimony from Loma Linda and San Carlos, California, and also a 2003 Texas Transportation Institute 

study which basically concluded, after extensive research, that just 

by increasing yellow lights from .5 to 1.5 seconds, it decreases the 

frequency of red light running by at least 50 percent. 

Therefore, the NMA is strongly opposed to the use of automatic 

traffic enforcement. We understand the counties and cities may 

have financial difficulties with their revenues, but I think they 

should use alternative means to raise their revenues, and not at 

the expense of the safety of the motorists. Thank you. 

10 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, sir. 

We will now go to questions. 

First, Mr. Geraci, we had several people mention the Federal 

guidelines. A two-part question. We had one reference, I believe it 

was from Howard County, to having begun the program with some 

Federal funds. If people are going to utilize Federal funds to establish these programs, should there just be guidelines or should there 

be standards that they have to meet in order to use Federal highway safety funds? 

Mr. GERACI. The funding actually goes through the States 

through highway safety grants, various sections of the highway 

safety grants. So, really, it is the States that look at what those 

requests come in from their local communities and make a decision 

based on need. 

Our guidelines are best practices from around the Country where 

we have assembled really what we think is the appropriate measures to look at; number one: problem identification, before you put 

any of these systems in place. 

So while there may be funding available, again, it is not directly 

from USDOT, but, rather, to the States, and it is for the States to 

make some rational decisions on what those needs are in local communities. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If you have been following our attempts, thus far 

thwarted by the Obama Administration, to rewrite Federal surface 

transportation policy and implement an overdue reauthorization, 

you might have noted that we are proposing to require more accountability by the States, in exchange for flexibility. 

Now, what you are describing gives flexibility; the States have 

the Federal funds. But the question would be about accountability; 

that is, did the State require local jurisdictions to have a comprehensive plan to look at all of the solutions that might mitigate 

the problems? Did they appropriately choose intersections that 

have problems, that are dangerous, with these comprehensive 

plans, or are the cameras revenue-generating? 

Did they meet the Federal guidelines in terms of the period of 

the yellow light? I think that is pretty compelling testimony we 

heard from Representative Loudermilk about the impacts of the 

yellow period, the impacts when it was adjusted upward as opposed 

to having been adjusted downward, which seems to maximize revenues. 

Wouldn’t these be concerns that you would have? 

Mr. GERACI. Well, they are concerns. We have actually implemented some performance measures for various forms of highway 

safety funding that is in place right now, so I think these are discussions, certainly, that we will have in the future as more of these 

systems become in place, as more States become involved in their 

interest in them. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Do you think there would be an appropriate role 

for the Federal Government to require these sorts of best practices 

by the State, the State then having flexibility with the funds within its own jurisdiction? 

Mr. GERACI. I am not sure where the requirement sits right now, 

but certainly those exact discussions are taking place, and I would 

11 

expect them to become more advanced as we move forward with 

more States interested. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Representative Loudermilk, I thought, in particular, the discussion of the rear-end accidents and yellow lights was fairly extraordinary. You talked very specifically about the reduction in violations. I didn’t find in the testimony a specific discussion of comparative accident results at those intersections. Do you have that 

or does that exist? You know, I mean, if violations were down 70 

percent, what was the before and after in terms of accidents at that 

intersection? 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, it varies. We are still compiling the data. 

One of the problems we have had in Georgia is there was lack of 

enforcement or penalty, I should say, for local governments who 

didn’t follow the State law regarding red light cameras, so a great 

instance was we required annual reporting that went to the legislature prior to House Bill 77. Reports were due by the end of February. Half the reports wouldn’t show up; those that did come were 

late. So there is a lot of data that we are missing in the past. 

House Bill 77 does put penalties into place now. Basically, the 

penalty is if there is any violation of the State law regarding red 

light cameras, then all the revenue generated from the red light 

camera during that time period goes to the State. So we are seeing 

a lot more compliance. 

And, again, a lot of the data that we are getting is coming from 

the local media, whose opinion on red light cameras have changed 

significantly in the last two years. Two years ago, there were proponents of red light cameras, but as more data is coming out and 

abuses by local government, we are seeing a lot of change. So a lot 

of the data that we are getting is done through investigative reporting. 

So through the House Transportation Committee that I serve on, 

we are starting to compile a lot of that data from the cities so that 

we can analyze why are we seeing an increase in accidents at certain intersections. Half of the intersections we are seeing an increase in accidents; not just rear-end, but also angle collisions. Is 

it because of the location? There was no constraints, prior to House 

Bill 77, on where a red light camera could go, and we saw a lot 

of cameras going into low speed, high congestion intersections that 

weren’t accident prone, but they were high revenue generators. 

So we are trying to find that correlation right now. What we are 

finding is that there has been a financial incentive to not do the 

engineering aspect for safety. 

So that is a long way of answering that a lot of that data we are 

still compiling. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Just one other quick question. If they are out 

of compliance, you require them to remit all the fines to the State. 

I guess I am wondering, if they are out of compliance, whether that 

would raise questions about the guilt or not of the violators, and 

I wonder why the money wouldn’t go back to the persons who received the citations when that jurisdiction was out of compliance. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, that was, you may say, an unintended 

consequence of the legislation, because, as we were drafting the 

legislation, we never envisioned that local governments would just 

12 

blatantly be not in compliance with State law. Something we are 

looking at changing is the City of Atlanta recently had to give 

$35,000 to the State because they operated one red light camera; 

their permit was denied by the State Department of Transportation 

because, over the period of having the red light camera there, there 

was either no reduction or, in this case, there was an increase in 

accidents. So the DOT saw that the red light camera was not being 

effective, denied the permit. The City of Atlanta continued to operate the camera. 

So during that time period, by law, they have to give that money 

to the State. We are looking at—that should have gone back to the 

violators, especially that same intersection. A year ago the City 

failed to add the additional second to the yellow light time until 

CNN came up to do an interview and the time got added at that 

point. 

Judges in the past have ruled that monies had to be refunded 

back to the citizens in situations like that, so that is something 

that we are going to be looking in this coming legislative session 

to change the existing law. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Now, Mr. Kelly, hearing the testimony from Representative 

Loudermilk, where they find that there had not been adequate yellow light timing, and a questionable choice of intersections. You 

seem to broadly endorse this technology and don’t acknowledge 

that these problems exist and/or there should be some sort of either 

State or Federal mandatory guidelines. Do you want to address 

those concerns? 

Mr. KELLY. Mr. DeFazio, let me say this— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And I would reiterate what the Ranking Member 

said, which is we did invite vendors, and they refused. I thought 

of subpoenaing them, but we have a lot of other things to do. But 

I find it disturbing that none of them wanted to come and talk 

about what a great thing they are doing for America here. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, I thank you for having me as the second choice. 

Let me say this, Mr. DeFazio. We wholly would support working 

with State and Federal authorities to develop programs and standards and outline an effective program. When you are talking about 

an issue of amber light timing, the amber light timing is something 

that is set by professional traffic engineers. That is something that 

they have a very specific formula for. I am not an engineer, I don’t 

talk engineer talk, but they have a very specific traffic formula 

whereby they set those amber light times, and we think that they 

are the professionals and they are the ones that should be setting 

amber light times. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But all they do is set, as I understand it, Mr. 

Geraci, a minimum standard, which perhaps it has a parameter, 

upper/lower, I don’t know. 

Mr. GERACI. That is correct. But again, as Mr. Kelly said, it is 

up to those local engineers to establish what that timing is. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. GERACI. The recommendations are—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And apparently at some of these jurisdictions in 

Georgia, and perhaps elsewhere, they decided to either not increase 

13 

it or to minimize it in order to maximize infractions and cause 

more accidents. That is kind of a problem. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, if those decisions are being made at the local 

level, they are being made by the local authorities, they are not 

being made by the vendors of the machines. We have no access to 

that information. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I guess the question is: there is an issue of 

local control, State control, and Federal, and I guess the position 

I am headed toward here is for any Federal money that is invested, 

it must comply with comprehensive assessment of the problems 

and/or intersections, and a comprehensive approach must be taken, 

which might or might not include the automated enforcement; and, 

if it does, that the automated enforcement would not be to generate 

revenues, but to be put back into more safety improvements, which 

would probably preclude some of the contracts your companies 

have here. 

OK, with that, I have exceeded my time and I will turn to the 

Republican side. I will have another round of questions. 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Duncan. 

Good to have you all with us today. 

Mr. Geraci, what were some of the negative effects from the 

automated red light camera systems that you detected in your review of the seven international evaluations? 

Mr. GERACI. Really, the—— 

Mr. COBLE. Or were there any? 

Mr. GERACI. If any, there may have been some rear-end collisions. There were significant improvements in right-angle collisions, which are typically higher speed, more severe in terms of 

property damage and injury. But there was some slight indication 

of increases of rear-end collisions because of following too close or 

stopping suddenly, but that is really the only indication that might 

be there. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Loudermilk, did you find that once engineering solutions 

were implemented at intersections with photo enforcement, that 

violations dropped dramatically to the extent that localities canceled their photo enforcement contracts because insufficient revenue was being generated? 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Yes, sir, we did. Specifically, in 12 cities, within three months of House Bill 77 going into effect, at least the additional one second to the amber time going into effect, we had 12 

cities to remove some or all of the red light cameras because the 

revenues dropped below the cost to operate the cameras. I guess 

the most compelling was the City of Dalton, Georgia, the carpet 

capital of the world. The mayor not only removed his red light cameras, made the statement that they did not see any significant improvement or any improvement at all in safety until they added the 

one second. Not only did they remove the camera, but they went 

and added one second to all the major intersections in the city because they saw that the timing of the yellow light significantly reduced red light running and improved safety much more than they 

ever saw from red light cameras. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

14 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Reagan, you alluded to House Bill 325. Has that 

bill been enacted or is it awaiting enactment? 

Mr. REAGAN. Actually, it goes into effect July 1st. So this week 

it will actually go into effect. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, who is responsible for reviewing the tapes and 

issuing subsequent citations? 

Mr. REAGAN. What we did in the State of Florida, we put that 

back on every local law enforcement official. No citation can be 

issued in the State of Florida, regardless of what camera company 

the individual city is using, unless a local law enforcement official 

reviews the tape, issues a citation using basically whatever language that they would have for their current issuance of a citation. 

Mr. COBLE. And how does the bill, Mr. Reagan, provide for distribution of revenue? 

Mr. REAGAN. Primarily what we did was split the revenue basically in half, between the local municipality, the other half going 

to the State of Florida. The money that goes to the State of Florida 

does go to our general revenue fund. Of the balance that stays in 

the local community, they have to operate their camera costs out 

of that. 

Now, a portion of the money that goes to the State of Florida is 

directed to trauma centers and brain and spinal institute studies. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

Dr. McCartt, in your testimony you mentioned that the installation of roundabouts at intersections can reduce accidents by 40 percent. What other engineering modifications can result in a reduction of speeding and red light running crashes, A; and, B, how do 

these other improvements compare to photo enforcement? 

Ms. MCCARTT. Well, I think the main thing that would come to 

mind, as others have mentioned, lengthening the yellow signal. 

And we have done research that shows that the proper yellow signal time does reduce red light running violations. But we did a 

study in Philadelphia a couple years ago where we actually worked 

with the city and they first made the yellow timing meet the engineering requirements and actually even go beyond that, and that 

did reduce red light running violations by about a third. 

But then they added red light camera enforcement and there was 

a further reduction of 96 percent in violations beyond the reductions achieved with yellow timing. So we concluded from that study 

that at some intersections better yellow timing won’t fully address 

the problem of red light running. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. My red light is about to illuminate, so I will yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We don’t want to hit you with a violation, Howard. 

With that, I would turn to Mr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank our witnesses. A couple of quick things. First of all, 

as a behavioral scientist, I just have to say the mere possibility 

that accident rates go up following installation of red light cameras 

does not necessarily mean they are ineffective. The research design 

might suggest that maybe there are just a lot more people on that 

road. So you just have to watch that reporting conclusion. 

15 

Secondly, what is the average cost to install and maintain one 

of these? Mr. Kelly? 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Baird. The average cost to install a red light pole is around $100,000. That cost is borne by the manufacturer, and those costs get recouped back through monthly leases 

with the locality. 

Mr. BAIRD. OK. One of the things that puzzles me about this is, 

my experience with this, it seems like it is a little bit like invisible 

fencing for your dog, but the shock doesn’t come for about three 

weeks, in the mail, and then you wonder why your dog is not stopping at the invisible fence. How do I know that there is a red light 

camera or a speeding camera present, other than this little obscure 

sign that I drive by a week after I got the red light ticket and realize I should have slowed down? 

Mr. REAGAN. If I may, in the State of Florida, part of our legislation requires basically I call it a massive sign, it is almost like a 

billboard type sign at every intersection where a camera is being 

used. In addition to that, on the right turn on red there is an additional sign that is going to be located right there. 

So, in my opinion, if someone violates that law with signage 

there, I hate to say it, but they deserve the ticket. 

Mr. BAIRD. Yes, I think that makes sense. I mean, to me, behaviorally, I would say that if I look at that red light and there is a 

flag on it and I say,‘‘Ah!’’, then you are more likely to get people 

to stop running red lights. So too with speeding; if you have some 

type of marking on the pavement or something that says you have 

a speeding camera here, then, you know—people slow down when 

they see the police car. 

Mr. REAGAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. BAIRD. They drive faster when there is not a police car 

present. Well, if you have an invisible police car, you have a good 

revenue generator, but you don’t have a public safety generator 

here, would be my perspective. 

What do we know about the use of these things in school zones? 

I have twin five-year-olds, and people drive like crazy past their 

school, and it is quite frustrating. What do we know about their effective use in school zones? 

Mr. KELLY. We do know, Mr. Baird, that school zones are a popular place for mainly speed cameras, as opposed to red light cameras, to be implemented, and we do need some more data about the 

effectiveness in school zones. We need more data generally on the 

effectiveness of speed cameras. There are studies out there that do 

show that speeds are reduced, but we don’t have nearly the quantitative number of studies on speed camera enforcement effectiveness as we do on red light effectiveness. 

Mr. BAIRD. I am intrigued by this yellow light issue. Every now 

and then you visit another community, and you are driving, and 

suddenly the yellow is a lot quicker than in your own community. 

What do we know, in the absence of punitive-like cameras, about 

safety in general as it pertains to the length of the yellow light signal? 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, thank you for the question; I think it is 

very good and it is very relevant. A lot of the information that we 

have derived actually goes back to a testimony to this body by the 

16 

former majority leader, Dick Armey, in studies that he had done 

that showed that an increase in just one second of a yellow light 

time can decrease accidents 30 to 40 percent. However, a decrease 

in the yellow light time has the opposite effect, but even greater, 

in that it increases the number of red light running. 

One thing to keep in mind is the majority of injury accidents or 

the majority of accidents that happen in these intersections is not 

by the intentional red light runner, the person who is turning left 

and gets caught by a short yellow. The majority of these accidents 

are caused by the unintentional runner; the person who is texting, 

who—— 

Mr. BAIRD. That is very helpful. Some of us will not allow Dick 

Armey to be cited as a predominant expert. 

Dr. McCartt, do you have any response to that? 

Sorry, but I am suspect of Dick Armey. 

Ms. MCCARTT. Our research does show that yellow signal timings 

that meet the engineering guidelines do reduce violations. But as 

I said earlier, we also showed that red light cameras further reduce 

violations. So it is sometimes not enough to change the yellow signal. 

Mr. BAIRD. Great. I thank you. 

No disrespect to our witness here, or to Mr. Armey, I just want 

a second opinion on that. 

Thanks. I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman and turn now to Representative Buchanan. This will be the last round of questions. We have 

votes. I assume Members do have questions, so we will recess for 

those votes. Hopefully you can all stay. The votes, by the time we 

leave, should be concluded in about 25 or 30 minutes. OK? 

Go ahead. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Representative Reagan, it is great to see you here today. He has 

been a great leader in our community and in Florida, and obviously 

this is an issue that has been very important to you and been 

passed into law. Let me ask you. In your testimony, you said there 

have been probably about 5600 injuries prevented. What do you 

base that on? I mean, how did you come up with that number? 

Mr. REAGAN. By the way, Representative Buchanan, it is good to 

see you. Thanks for being here and thanks for inviting me, as well. 

What we looked at was statistical data that was provided by the 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and we had to 

make a conclusion based on the parameters and data that they 

gave us, and what we did is we said if these violations had not occurred, what injuries would not have occurred. And that is where 

we extrapolated that data for the State of Florida. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. And how many accidents will this prevent in the 

years to come? Do you have any sense of that going forward once 

this gets fully implemented in Florida? 

Mr. REAGAN. Well, number one, I think it is really going to depend on how many of these cameras are installed, what cities, 

what intersections. As we speak, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, as well as the Department of Transportation, are working to come up with standardized data that other 

17 

States have used for the conditions to use these cameras and at 

what intersections. 

All the statistical data that I have seen throughout the Nation, 

T-bone type accidents generally drop anywhere from 50 to 70 percent when these cameras are installed. While I have heard testimony that rear-end collisions have gone up, in some communities 

they have. In our test data in Sarasota and Manatee Counties, we 

had three intersections with these cameras for 90 days and we did 

not have one single rear-end collision. 

So I do believe, number one, if we educate the motoring public, 

number two, if we engineer correctly the standards and the intersections where these cameras are used, I believe we are going to 

see a dramatic reduction in accidents. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Why did you initially get involved in this proposed bill? What happened in your area? I don’t know if I have 

ever heard that story. Because you have spent a lot of energy and 

time and been a major leader in Florida on it, and I know it is your 

bill in the new law, but what was the motivation initially? 

Mr. REAGAN. Thank you, Representative. Actually, a constituent 

of yours and mine that was killed about a mile from my house, on 

State Road 70. He and his brother-in-law had gone out for dinner, 

were returning. His wife was nine months pregnant. He had a 

green arrow, made the turn, and a woman, at about 50 miles an 

hour, slammed into the side, killing him instantly. Two weeks after 

she buried her husband, she delivered her only child. 

She actually contacted me after that, looking for some situation, 

some help as to what can we do for habitual drivers, number one, 

and people who do violate the law, primarily red light camera running. By the way, her husband’s name was Mark Wandall; her 

name is Melissa Wandall, and she has been a very great advocate 

in the State of Florida, as you well know. 

I worked with her for about a year looking at what could we do 

legally to try to prevent red light running. The cameras, we found 

they work. We have studied other States and, as you well know, 

I spent five years in the State of Florida trying to get this legislation passed. I do believe they are going to work. I do believe it is 

going to make our roads safer in the State of Florida, as well as 

the rest of the Country, when these things are implemented. But, 

realistically, I got involved because one of my constituents was 

killed. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, thanks for your leadership. I know that 

you just term limited out. We are going to miss you, but, again, 

thanks for your leadership. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for his questions. 

We will recess until 11:30. And if any of you have other commitments, I understand, but if you can be here at 11:30, it would be 

appreciated for additional questions. 

The Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The Committee will return to order and I would 

recognize the Ranking Member, Representative Duncan, for questions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

18 

First, let me tell the witnesses how sorry I am that we have had 

these votes to interrupt this hearing, but this sometimes happens. 

So we are going to make this quick. I have a luncheon appointment 

at 11:45, so, really, I am just going to ask one question that I am 

curious about. Can anybody tell me what percentage of these red 

light violations are for turning right, as opposed to actually running the red light? 

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. Duncan, I will tell you one of the studies we 

did in the State of Florida was that very issue, and that is right 

turn on red, and what is the revenue generated from that versus 

people that blow right through the intersection. In some cities it 

was as high at 60 percent; in some cities it was as low as 35 percent. So I would say, realistically, what we found was probably in 

the neighborhood of 50 to 55 percent of violations were for right 

turn on red. 

What we did in the State of Florida, though, we said since, number one, no citation can be issued in the State of Florida unless the 

local law enforcement official reviews the tape, certifies basically 

using the standard if you were there and could write a ticket, 

would you. I mean, while we didn’t write that in the bill, that is 

kind of the explanation we gave and asked them to do. 

But what they did was simply this. We also put in our language 

if you make that right turn on red, even though it is a violation 

of the law, in a careful and prudent manner, then no citation 

should be issued. So we left it up to local law enforcement officials, 

whether it is in Pensacola, Tampa, or Miami. Since they know their 

own rules, they know their own roads, they know their own intersections, we think it makes sense to do it that way. 

But basically, to get back to your question, it is over 50 percent 

on average. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, the reason I asked that is this. I am really 

skeptical about these polls that say most people support these 

things, because I have noticed, in Mr. Danila’s form here, that 15 

States and 11 cities have now banned the use of these cameras. 

And I guess the reason that I got so interested in it was not only 

because I was having a lot of people talk to me about it but, in addition, it was a real controversial thing in the last session of the 

Tennessee legislature. 

I mean, they really got into this in a big, big way, and I guess 

they did in Georgia too, Representative Loudermilk. And it 

wouldn’t have been such a big issue in the Tennessee legislature 

if a lot of people weren’t talking about it, and some of the legislators told me that they were hearing from a lot of people. And the 

ones I was hearing from were all these people upset about this 

turning right on the red lights, because we have been doing that 

for years. Now, just flat out running a red light, not too many people are concerned about that. 

But I am impressed, though, by the fact that this increased use 

of the yellow light can make such a difference and going to more 

roundabouts and increased signage and these other things, and I 

think these cities should try all these other things first. 

And I will always be convinced. You know, we have created so 

many parks in this Country now we can’t even take care of all of 

them, and we can’t get the use out of them unless people just someVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57250.0 KAYLA
19 

how find the way to go on permanent vacations. And we keep taking all this land off the tax rolls at the same time that the police 

and the schools and everybody is coming to us wanting more 

money. 

So the States have tried to come up with every way they possibly 

could to raise money, and all the States have gone most heavily 

into gambling—lotteries and other forms of gambling—and I understand that. And I think these red light cameras are a whole lot 

more about money than they are about safety. I know people say 

it is about safety, but you will never convince me, because I think, 

as I said in my opening statement, you can never satisfy government’s appetite for money or land; they always want more. And 

they are going to get it one way or the other, I assume, but I don’t 

think it is good. 

So I was impressed and appreciated all of your testimonies. I 

have learned from it and I think it has been a good hearing. I am 

sorry that we were interrupted by the votes, but thank you very 

much for being here. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman both for raising the subject 

and for his participation, and recognize that we ran over, so he has 

another commitment, but I have a few additional questions. 

Captain Hansen, in your testimony you said the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police and NHTSA are working together to 

establish technical standards for red light and speed cameras. Can 

you give us a little bit more elaboration on that? Because we had 

some discussion about guidelines earlier. Is this different? What 

are we talking about here? 

Mr. HANSEN. It is different. Thank you, sir. The International 

Association of Chiefs of Police and NHTSA have formed a subcommittee called ETATS, and that committee is setting up technical standards. So the guidelines on red light running camera systems operational guidelines, speed enforcement systems operational 

guidelines, they look at the policy issues, look at how a program 

should be established, from problem identification to pulling your 

stakeholders together, to making sure you look at engineering alternatives before you go to enforcement, all of that, which I support 

100 percent, I think is critical. 

Once you get to you are going to do automated enforcement and 

what steps do you take from there, ETATS is picking up with technical standards to make sure that when a local government entity 

or a local law enforcement agency selects a piece of technology, that 

that technology does accurately reflect the car that is running the 

red light, it does capture an image when the light turns red, 

doesn’t make any mistaken images, and does it in a reliable manner. 

So where the operational guidelines are very important for what 

they do, these technical standards are also important for what they 

do. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. Mr. Kelly, you talked earlier about the average $100,000 installation cost, and a couple of the Members that were here at that point 

sort of raised their eyebrows. I guess we are talking a very tall 

standard and a large boom that has to exceed truck height, so basiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57250.0 KAYLA
20 

cally that is generally how they are suspended and that is where 

most of the cost comes in? 

Mr. KELLY. The cost comes in from not only the pole and the 

camera on top of the pole, but also there are sensors that are built 

into the intersection that can judge the speed of the oncoming vehicle, keep that in mind with the light that is about to turn or has 

turned; it can judge the speed and make a pretty good assessment 

of whether or not that vehicle is going to go through the intersection—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Meaning if they say it was a yellow light and I 

couldn’t stop safely. 

Mr. KELLY. Yes. And at that point, that is when the camera will 

get triggered to take a picture of that vehicle going through the 

intersection. So it is not a situation where the cameras are taking 

pictures of every single vehicle that goes through the intersection, 

it is just the ones that are most likely or highly likely to run the 

red light in the first place. 

So the cost comes from the equipment and also from the construction of putting the sensors and the coils in the intersection. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We had some other testimony about some of these 

devices being removed. Mr. Danila spoke to this. He said there are 

many examples of automated enforcement programs being shut 

down because they are not profitable. I guess first I would ask Mr. 

Danila to sort of expand or comment on what is many. Give us a 

number. 

Mr. DANILA. Well, basically, what they looked at in certain situations, some of those examples that are listed in my written testimony, is the yellow lights at certain intersections have been increased to the point—normally they are supposed to be increased 

based on engineering studies, and then they noticed that basically 

the traffic cameras were not profitable anymore because nobody— 

I shouldn’t say nobody, but there is a huge decrease in the incidents of people running the red light. And basically what happened 

was the cost of operating these cameras, as Mr. Kelly said is pretty 

significant, didn’t make the revenue they were supposed to generate, and then certain counties and cities eventually have given 

up using them because they were not profitable. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. But I asked the question about the word 

many. Do you have a list? Can you quantify? 

Mr. DANILA. Yes, there is a list, actually on page 7 of my testimony. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. All right. 

Mr. DANILA. Basically there is a list of States and then particular 

cities which have banned these programs. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Kelly, I understand the installation cost; you 

explained that. But it doesn’t seem to me that there would be a 

particularly substantial ongoing operating cost, so I am a bit puzzled here as to why so many places would be removing the cameras. I mean, in particular, if it isn’t that you have to parse 

through all the traffic, as you explained, you don’t, it is people approaching too quickly, knowing the cycle of the light, and then they 

are likely and then they are videoed, and then that is reviewed. 

And there is obviously a cost to the public agency in Florida to 

review, but that is not your cost or your vendor’s cost. So I am curiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57250.0 KAYLA
21 

ous what is the substantial operating cost and why would there be 

so many withdrawn? Because it doesn’t seem to me there would be 

a very large monthly operating cost. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have really two issues 

at play here. As Mr. Danila points out, there have been some localities that have withdrawn the cameras, and his contention would 

be it is because they are not making the revenue that they thought 

they would make. Another way to look at that would be that the 

cameras were there to address a safety issue, and when you have 

the violations going down and when you have crashes going down, 

the safety issue has been addressed; and there may not be a safety 

need for the camera at that particular intersection anymore, and 

that could be one of the considerations that localities are taking 

when they are withdrawing the cameras from an intersection. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But that would imply a permanent change, withdrawing the enforcement mechanism. I would argue that there may 

have been a decrease in violations, but it may increase if you remove— 

Mr. KELLY. And it may, but there are some instances in traffic 

safety enforcement programs that you see the deterrence effect and 

the halo effect of that happening continuing out. You see the same 

sort of thing with drunk driving enforcement when you know 

checkpoints are at a particular intersection. Even if they are not 

there every time you drive through that intersection, the perception 

of enforcement is out there and it changes your behavior. 

On your other question about the monthly fees and the associated costs, one of the things that the vendors do, it is not just sort 

of put in the equipment and walk away. The vendors do monthly 

services, and it is negotiated, it is different with every locality; it 

is sort of a negotiated contract, where they are taking the cameras 

and processing it—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. But again, it seems to me there is a big investment up front, it is amortized or not amortized, and it just 

seems that a monthly maintenance fee in comparison to that would 

be quite small. Can you give me a number of what monthly maintenance fees run? Or is this an issue where you expect a minimum 

return, and if the jurisdiction or the intersection doesn’t meet that, 

then the jurisdiction has to make up the difference and, therefore, 

they have a motivation to remove the light because they are now 

not getting revenue from it, but have to pay for it? Is that the problem? 

Mr. KELLY. To the contrary, sir. What we are seeing now with 

a lot of the contracts that municipalities and localities are entering 

into is that they are holding themselves harmless. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. KELLY. Whereas, if you are not receiving enough revenue to 

pay for the equipment for their monthly fee or whatever it is, they 

are holding themselves harmless and they are saying—and I will 

make a number up here—if we are going to charge you $5,000 a 

month, but we only have $4,000 a month in revenues, we are not 

responsible for the other $1,000; those costs have to be borne by 

the vendor. 

22 

So those types of contracts are becoming more popular and increasingly in use in various localities. So the cities are really putting the onus back on the vendors for their—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So who, then, controls the decision to remove the 

device if it is a money-losing proposition; is it up to the vendor, is 

it joint? What do the contracts normally say there? 

Mr. KELLY. The city has the ultimate decision on whether or not 

a device is to be removed. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So if it has been installed, it is there, and even if 

it is losing money, the city can say ‘‘we want to keep it there’’? 

Mr. KELLY. Depending on the various contracts with the locality, 

there are escape clauses that are there. But the reason that the 

cameras are there and the reason that the cameras are effective is 

because people are running red lights and people are speeding. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. OK, but I am just trying—— 

Mr. KELLY. There is a need there to address this issue, and photo 

enforcement is one of the tools, as others have talked about, one 

of the tools of enforcement that go along with traditional enforcement. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. OK, I got that. What about what Mr. Baird 

said, which I think makes a tremendous amount of sense, which 

is: require prominent posting of these intersections which would 

give people—I think he is spot on in terms of saying that would 

bring about compliance at sort of the after-the-fact, oh gosh, I 

didn’t know there was a camera there, I go through that intersection every day; now I won’t do it again. 

Or maybe you just went through that intersection once and it is 

not going to make any difference in your behavior because you are 

not going through it again; maybe you will be careful somewhere 

else, maybe you won’t. What about prominent posting? What is the 

position of your association on prominent posting? 

Mr. KELLY. Signage is in use in many different programs across 

the Country and is something that is an integral part to an effective program. Remember, the goal of the program is to reduce the 

incidence in the first place. So we do support in various States and 

localities, wherever working with the vendor, prominent signage to 

let people know this is an issue; this is an area where there is 

photo enforcement. 

And the definition of prominent signage is mostly regulated on 

a State level, so what might be prominent in one district could be 

different than what is prominent in another district, but prominent 

signage so people understand this is an intersection where there is 

photo enforcement, this is a freeway where there is speed enforcement. And how that is signed and people understand that there is 

a problem is something that we would support. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. 

Mr. Danila, would your organization oppose any use of automated technology, even if we have taken a comprehensive approach, we are meeting best practices in terms of length of yellow 

light, we have prominent signage and we have looked at design parameters, we have looked at other factors and we still have a problem? Are you opposed then to the use of automated technology even 

then? 

23 

Mr. DANILA. I think yes, and the reason probably in that case 

would be, one, would be the way the drivers are actually being notified about these alleged violations. First of all, the camera is very 

unpopular to the public. Every time they appear on ballots, they 

get voted down. And the way the drivers get notified, first of all, 

nobody knows who the driver was, you know, there is just a vehicle 

who is getting—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, but I think you have a responsibility to control the use of your vehicle and be certain the person using your 

vehicle uses the vehicle responsibly. So you can’t just say, oh, I 

have a friend who has a drunk driving problem, I am going to lend 

him my car and I am not going to worry about it. 

Mr. DANILA. That is correct. However, the notification process, 

the way it is currently in place, I think has some flaws in terms 

of the driver, the owner of the vehicle, is notified by regular mail, 

and I know this for a fact, from a personal situation when it happened to a friend of mine who actually did not get the actual socalled first notification. 

However, he got the second one with a double fine. And when he 

called in to contest it, he was told he has to pay what the double 

fine is or otherwise his fine would be reported to the credit collectors and stuff. So that is one of the main problems I think that this 

program is facing, about notifying properly the drivers about the 

situation. 

The other thing, the second problem is there is no human factor 

involved in it. If, let’s say, a driver contests it in court, there is nobody there from the State who would actually say, yes, this was the 

driver who committed this violation. There is hearsay, basically; 

there is a camera on the road that took a picture. 

And that leads to the third problem, which is how well these 

cameras are actually maintained, because I know for a fact in some 

places they had problems with weather interference, whether two 

vehicles were photographed in the same picture. So there were 

other problems with the maintenance of the cameras themselves 

which at times may not function properly; however, they still 

issued a citation. 

So I think on these three levels the NMA would definitely still 

oppose the cameras. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Would either Representative Loudermilk or 

Representative Reagan want to address those issues or that issue? 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. The question that you posed to the gentleman, from a personal standpoint, 

I would still be opposed to the red light cameras from a constitutional standpoint. The statement was made earlier that there have 

been no court cases ruling them unconstitutional, but just this year 

the State of Minnesota, in Minnesota v. Coleman, the Supreme 

Court of Minnesota ruled that placing the burden of proof upon the 

accused is a violation of the Fifth Amendment by due process. 

And currently in California the Supreme Court is hearing a case 

from a lower appellate court, interestingly enough, dealing with the 

Sixth Amendment, the right to confront your accuser, and stating 

that a camera is so focused on an intersection that it can’t testify 

to other aspects of what was going on. 

24 

And a perfect illustration we have had of that in Georgia that 

we are trying to address in the legislature now is the legal running 

of red lights, such as a funeral procession. We have had instances 

where funeral parlors have contacted me and said we have a problem; every time the procession goes through an intersection, every 

car in the procession receives a red light camera ticket. There is 

no provision in the law for them to get out of it because they can’t 

sign off saying that they weren’t the driver because they were. 

And we had an incident where a citizen from Alabama was required by the City of Rome in Georgia to drive back into Georgia— 

they were there out of State for a funeral—get a copy of the obituary that ran in the local paper, and take it to the local court before they would allow them out of paying the fine. 

So there is this continual concern that although House Bill 77 

has been very effective in Georgia in reducing red light running, 

it still has not addressed the constitutional concerns of the Fifth, 

the Sixth, now what we are seeing with the Sixth Amendment— 

in fact, the State of South Dakota, the Supreme Court is dealing 

with a Fifth Amendment case right now dealing with due process. 

But also the Fourteenth Amendment we are looking at in Georgia that states that no State shall deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process to law. Without taking a picture of the driver, it is very difficult to not put the burden of proof 

upon the accused, especially. 

And there are many instances where they didn’t necessarily loan 

the car to someone; we have had many instances where the tag 

was misread, a G was read as a C. We have also had instances 

where a maintenance shop had the vehicle and was test driving the 

vehicle and ran through the intersection. So now the accused is 

having to prove that—in fact, we have had instances where they 

were out of State, and they have had to go and show airline tickets 

and hotel tickets, taking time off work. 

So there are still going to remain the constitutional concerns, but 

if we are going to have the red light cameras, then we have to focus 

on the safety. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Representative Reagan? 

Mr. REAGAN. If I might. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio, I appreciate 

that. I would like to address two things. One is the notification. In 

the State of Florida, we have toll booths at expressways, just like 

many other States do, and if you violate that under State statute 

today, we send the owner of the vehicle a picture of the automobile 

violating the law and a $100 fine. We don’t take a picture of the 

driver because we ask, just as you said, Mr. DeFazio, we ask that 

you, as the owner of the vehicle, be responsible for your vehicle. 

Also, parking tickets. Virtually every State sends a ticket to the 

owner of the vehicle, not the driver of the vehicle. 

So I think notification is fine; I don’t think there is a problem 

with that whatsoever, and I think those standards should be followed properly. 

Now, my colleague brought up something regarding funeral processions. In the bill in the State of Florida, we actually addressed 

that very specifically. If you are in a funeral procession, then all 

you have to do is basically make a statement to that effect and you 

are off the hook. Also, if you are at the direction of a law enforceVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57250.0 KAYLA
25 

ment official violating a red light via getting out of the way of an 

ambulance or anything of that nature, also you have the opportunity to do that. 

And one other thing we did in the State of Florida, when you receive the citation, is simply this: If you were not the driver and you 

do know who that driver is, you can sign an affidavit to that effect, 

and we transfer the ticket away from you to that individual. 

So I think we are trying, in the State of Florida, to address all 

the concerns that we have heard throughout the Nation. 

I might also mention one other thing. We have heard testimony 

today about the extension of the amber light by one additional second. We ran tests in Florida regarding that very thing and, yes, it 

does initially stop people from running red lights by 50 percent. I 

have heard the testimony and I will buy that, with the exception 

of two things. Number one is once you have changed somebody’s 

driving habit and behaviors, we did a test study, and five days 

after we added the additional second to the amber light, the same 

people were violating that red light again. 

The other concern about that is what about the next intersection 

down the road that doesn’t have the extension on their amber 

light? We found that people actually exceed the speed limit running 

that next red light because of the fact they believe, mentally, they 

have gotten in the habit of they have that extra time. 

So I don’t necessarily believe that adding the one additional second, unless you are going to do it across your entire State or across 

the entire Nation, then you are going to have, I think, tremendous 

additional traffic problems if you do that. So proper engineering 

probably is the thing to do overall. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, may I just address the court cases for 

a second? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Briefly, yes. Go ahead. 

Mr. KELLY. I would say the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 

agrees with you about responsibility for the ticket, and they have 

issued such an opinion, and I would be happy to provide that to 

the Committee for the record. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. OK, thank you. 

OK, anybody have anything they wanted to add, contest, or otherwise augment the record with? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, seeing no volunteers, then, I would thank you 

all for your time and your testimony on this issue, and the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

26 


Insert offset folio 10 here 57250.010
27 


Insert offset folio 11 here 57250.011
28 


Insert offset folio 12 here 57250.012
29 


Insert offset folio 13 here 57250.013
30 


Insert offset folio 14 here 57250.014
31 


Insert offset folio 15 here 57250.015
32 


Insert offset folio 16 here 57250.016
33 


Insert offset folio 17 here 57250.017
34 


Insert offset folio 18 here 57250.018
35 


Insert offset folio 19 here 57250.019
36 


Insert offset folio 20 here 57250.020
37 


Insert offset folio 21 here 57250.021
38 


Insert offset folio 22 here 57250.022
39 


Insert offset folio 23 here 57250.023
40 


Insert offset folio 24 here 57250.024
41 


Insert offset folio 25 here 57250.025
42 


Insert offset folio 26 here 57250.026
43 


Insert offset folio 27 here 57250.027
44 


Insert offset folio 28 here 57250.028
45 


Insert offset folio 29 here 57250.029
46 


Insert offset folio 30 here 57250.030
47 


Insert offset folio 31 here 57250.031
48 


Insert offset folio 32 here 57250.032
49 


Insert offset folio 33 here 57250.033
50 


Insert offset folio 34 here 57250.034
51 


Insert offset folio 35 here 57250.035
52 


Insert offset folio 36 here 57250.036
53 


Insert offset folio 37 here 57250.037
54 


Insert offset folio 38 here 57250.038
55 


Insert offset folio 39 here 57250.039
56 


Insert offset folio 40 here 57250.040
57 


Insert offset folio 41 here 57250.041
58 


Insert offset folio 42 here 57250.042
59 


Insert offset folio 43 here 57250.043
60 


Insert offset folio 44 here 57250.044
61 


Insert offset folio 45 here 57250.045
62 


Insert offset folio 46 here 57250.046
63 


Insert offset folio 47 here 57250.047
64 


Insert offset folio 48 here 57250.048
65 


Insert offset folio 49 here 57250.049
66 


Insert offset folio 50 here 57250.050
67 


Insert offset folio 51 here 57250.051
68 


Insert offset folio 52 here 57250.052
69 


Insert offset folio 53 here 57250.053
70 


Insert offset folio 54 here 57250.054
71 


Insert offset folio 55 here 57250.055
72 


Insert offset folio 56 here 57250.056
73 


Insert offset folio 57 here 57250.057
74 


Insert offset folio 58 here 57250.058
75 


Insert offset folio 59 here 57250.059
76 


Insert offset folio 60 here 57250.060
77 


Insert offset folio 61 here 57250.061
78 


Insert offset folio 62 here 57250.062
79 


Insert offset folio 63 here 57250.063
80 


Insert offset folio 64 here 57250.064
81 


Insert offset folio 65 here 57250.065
82 


Insert offset folio 66 here 57250.066
83 


Insert offset folio 67 here 57250.067
84 


Insert offset folio 68 here 57250.068
85 


Insert offset folio 69 here 57250.069
86 


Insert offset folio 70 here 57250.070
87 


Insert offset folio 71 here 57250.071
88 


Insert offset folio 72 here 57250.072
89 


Insert offset folio 73 here 57250.073
90 


Insert offset folio 74 here 57250.074
91 


Insert offset folio 75 here 57250.075
92 


Insert offset folio 76 here 57250.076
93 


Insert offset folio 77 here 57250.077
94 


Insert offset folio 78 here 57250.078
95 


Insert offset folio 79 here 57250.079
96 


Insert offset folio 80 here 57250.080
97 


Insert offset folio 81 here 57250.081
98 


Insert offset folio 82 here 57250.082
99 


Insert offset folio 83 here 57250.083
100 


Insert offset folio 84 here 57250.084
101 


Insert offset folio 85 here 57250.085
102 


Insert offset folio 86 here 57250.086
103 


Insert offset folio 87 here 57250.087
104 


Insert offset folio 88 here 57250.088
105 


Insert offset folio 89 here 57250.089
106 


Insert offset folio 90 here 57250.090
107 


Insert offset folio 91 here 57250.091
108 


Insert offset folio 92 here 57250.092
109 


Insert offset folio 93 here 57250.093
110 


Insert offset folio 94 here 57250.094
111 


Insert offset folio 95 here 57250.095
112 


Insert offset folio 96 here 57250.096
113 


Insert offset folio 97 here 57250.097
114 


Insert offset folio 98 here 57250.098
115 


Insert offset folio 99 here 57250.099
116 


Insert offset folio 100 here 57250.100
117 


Insert offset folio 101 here 57250.101
118 


Insert offset folio 102 here 57250.102
119 


Insert offset folio 103 here 57250.103
120 


Insert offset folio 104 here 57250.104
121 


Insert offset folio 105 here 57250.105
122 


Insert offset folio 106 here 57250.106
123 


Insert offset folio 107 here 57250.107
124 


Insert offset folio 108 here 57250.108
125 


Insert offset folio 109 here 57250.109
126 


Insert offset folio 110 here 57250.110
127 


Insert offset folio 111 here 57250.111
128 


Insert offset folio 112 here 57250.112
129 


Insert offset folio 113 here 57250.113
130 


Insert offset folio 114 here 57250.114
131 


Insert offset folio 115 here 57250.115
132 


Insert offset folio 116 here 57250.116
133 


Insert offset folio 117 here 57250.117
134 


Insert offset folio 118 here 57250.118
135 


Insert offset folio 119 here 57250.119
136 


Insert offset folio 120 here 57250.120
137 


Insert offset folio 121 here 57250.121
138 


Insert offset folio 122 here 57250.122
139 


Insert offset folio 123 here 57250.123
140 


Insert offset folio 124 here 57250.124
141 


Insert offset folio 125 here 57250.125
142 


Insert offset folio 126 here 57250.126
143 


Insert offset folio 127 here 57250.127
144 


Insert offset folio 128 here 57250.128
145 


Insert offset folio 129 here 57250.129
146 


Insert offset folio 130 here 57250.130
147 


Insert offset folio 131 here 57250.131
148 


Insert offset folio 132 here 57250.132
149 


Insert offset folio 133 here 57250.133
150 


Insert offset folio 134 here 57250.134
151 


Insert offset folio 135 here 57250.135
152 


Insert offset folio 136 here 57250.136
153 


Insert offset folio 137 here 57250.137
154 


Insert offset folio 138 here 57250.138
155 


Insert offset folio 139 here 57250.139
156 


Insert offset folio 140 here 57250.140
157 


Insert offset folio 141 here 57250.141
158 


Insert offset folio 142 here 57250.142
159 


Insert offset folio 143 here 57250.143
160 


Insert offset folio 144 here 57250.144
161 


Insert offset folio 145 here 57250.145
162 


Insert offset folio 146 here 57250.146
163 


Insert offset folio 147 here 57250.147
164 


Insert offset folio 148 here 57250.148
165 


Insert offset folio 149 here 57250.149
166 


Insert offset folio 150 here 57250.150
167 


Insert offset folio 151 here 57250.151
168 


Insert offset folio 152 here 57250.152
169 


Insert offset folio 153 here 57250.153
170 


Insert offset folio 154 here 57250.154
171 


Insert offset folio 155 here 57250.155
172 


Insert offset folio 156 here 57250.156
173 


Insert offset folio 157 here 57250.157
174 


Insert offset folio 158 here 57250.158
175 


Insert offset folio 159 here 57250.159
176 


Insert offset folio 160 here 57250.160
177 


Insert offset folio 161 here 57250.161
178 


Insert offset folio 162 here 57250.162
179 


Insert offset folio 163 here 57250.163
180 


Insert offset folio 164 here 57250.164
181 


Insert offset folio 165 here 57250.165
182 


Insert offset folio 166 here 57250.166
183 


Insert offset folio 167 here 57250.167
184 


Insert offset folio 168 here 57250.168
185 


Insert offset folio 169 here 57250.169
186 


Insert offset folio 170 here 57250.170
187 


Insert offset folio 171 here 57250.171
188 


Insert offset folio 172 here 57250.172
189 


Insert offset folio 173 here 57250.173
190 


Insert offset folio 174 here 57250.174
191 


Insert offset folio 175 here 57250.175
192 


Insert offset folio 176 here 57250.176
193 


Insert offset folio 177 here 57250.177
194 


Insert offset folio 178 here 57250.178
195 


Insert offset folio 179 here 57250.179
196 


Insert offset folio 180 here 57250.180
197 


Insert offset folio 181 here 57250.181
198 


Insert offset folio 182 here 57250.182
199 


Insert offset folio 183 here 57250.183
200 


Insert offset folio 184 here 57250.184
201 


Insert offset folio 185 here 57250.185
202 


Insert offset folio 186 here 57250.186
203 


Insert offset folio 187 here 57250.187
204 


Insert offset folio 188 here 57250.188
205 


Insert offset folio 189 here 57250.189
206 


Insert offset folio 190 here 57250.190
207 


Insert offset folio 191 here 57250.191
208 


Insert offset folio 192 here 57250.192
209 


Insert offset folio 193 here 57250.193
210 


Insert offset folio 194 here 57250.194
211 


Insert offset folio 195 here 57250.195
212 


Insert offset folio 196 here 57250.196
213 


Insert offset folio 197 here 57250.197
214 


Insert offset folio 198 here 57250.198
215 


Insert offset folio 199 here 57250.199
216 


Insert offset folio 200 here 57250.200
217 


Insert offset folio 201 here 57250.201
218 


Insert offset folio 202 here 57250.202
219 


Insert offset folio 203 here 57250.203
220 


Insert offset folio 204 here 57250.204
221 


Insert offset folio 205 here 57250.205
222 


Insert offset folio 206 here 57250.206
223 


Insert offset folio 207 here 57250.207
224 


Insert offset folio 208 here 57250.208
225 


Insert offset folio 209 here 57250.209
226 


Insert offset folio 210 here 57250.210
227 


Insert offset folio 211 here 57250.211
228 


Insert offset folio 212 here 57250.212
229 


Insert offset folio 213 here 57250.213
230 


Insert offset folio 214 here 57250.214
231 


Insert offset folio 215 here 57250.215
232 


Insert offset folio 216 here 57250.216
233 


Insert offset folio 217 here 57250.217
234 


Insert offset folio 218 here 57250.218
235 


Insert offset folio 219 here 57250.219
236 


Insert offset folio 220 here 57250.220
237 


Insert offset folio 221 here 57250.221
238 


Insert offset folio 222 here 57250.222
239 


Insert offset folio 223 here 57250.223
240 


Insert offset folio 224 here 57250.224
241 


Insert offset folio 225 here 57250.225
242 


Insert offset folio 226 here 57250.226
243 


Insert offset folio 227 here 57250.227
244 


Insert offset folio 228 here 57250.228
245 


Insert offset folio 229 here 57250.229
246 


Insert offset folio 230 here 57250.230
247 


Insert offset folio 231 here 57250.231
248 


Insert offset folio 232 here 57250.232
249 


Insert offset folio 233 here 57250.233
250 


Insert offset folio 234 here 57250.234
251 


Insert offset folio 235 here 57250.235
252 


Insert offset folio 236 here 57250.236
253 


Insert offset folio 237 here 57250.237
254 


Insert offset folio 238 here 57250.238
255 


Insert offset folio 239 here 57250.239
256 


Insert offset folio 240 here 57250.240
257 


Insert offset folio 241 here 57250.241
258 


Insert offset folio 242 here 57250.242
259 


Insert offset folio 243 here 57250.243
260 


Insert offset folio 244 here 57250.244
261 


Insert offset folio 245 here 57250.245
262 


Insert offset folio 246 here 57250.246
263 


Insert offset folio 247 here 57250.247
264 


Insert offset folio 248 here 57250.248
265 


Insert offset folio 249 here 57250.249
266 


Insert offset folio 250 here 57250.250
267 


Insert offset folio 251 here 57250.251
268 


Insert offset folio 252 here 57250.252
269 


Insert offset folio 253 here 57250.253
270 


Insert offset folio 254 here 57250.254
271 


Insert offset folio 255 here 57250.255
272 


Insert offset folio 256 here 57250.256
273 


Insert offset folio 257 here 57250.257
274 


Insert offset folio 258 here 57250.258
275 


Insert offset folio 259 here 57250.259
276 


Insert offset folio 260 here 57250.260
277 


Insert offset folio 261 here 57250.261
278 


Insert offset folio 262 here 57250.262
279 


Insert offset folio 263 here 57250.263
280 


Insert offset folio 264 here 57250.264
281 


Insert offset folio 265 here 57250.265
282 


Insert offset folio 266 here 57250.266
283 


Insert offset folio 267 here 57250.267
284 


Insert offset folio 268 here 57250.268
285 


Insert offset folio 269 here 57250.269
286 


Insert offset folio 270 here 57250.270
287 


Insert offset folio 271 here 57250.271
288 


Insert offset folio 272 here 57250.272
289 


Insert offset folio 273 here 57250.273
290 


Insert offset folio 274 here 57250.274
291 


Insert offset folio 275 here 57250.275
292 


Insert offset folio 276 here 57250.276
293 


Insert offset folio 277 here 57250.277
294 


Insert offset folio 278 here 57250.278
295 


Insert offset folio 279 here 57250.279
296 


Insert offset folio 280 here 57250.280
297 


Insert offset folio 281 here 57250.281
298 


Insert offset folio 282 here 57250.282
299 


Insert offset folio 283 here 57250.283
300 


Insert offset folio 284 here 57250.284
301 


Insert offset folio 285 here 57250.285
302 


Insert offset folio 286 here 57250.286
303 


Insert offset folio 287 here 57250.287
304 


Insert offset folio 288 here 57250.288
305 


Insert offset folio 289 here 57250.289
306 


Insert offset folio 290 here 57250.290
307 


Insert offset folio 291 here 57250.291
308 


Insert offset folio 292 here 57250.292
309 


Insert offset folio 293 here 57250.293
310 


Insert offset folio 294 here 57250.294
311 


Insert offset folio 295 here 57250.295
312 


Insert offset folio 296 here 57250.296
313 


Insert offset folio 297 here 57250.297
314 


Insert offset folio 298 here 57250.298
315 


Insert offset folio 299 here 57250.299
316 


Insert offset folio 300 here 57250.300
317 


Insert offset folio 301 here 57250.301
318 


Insert offset folio 302 here 57250.302
319 


Insert offset folio 303 here 57250.303
320 


Insert offset folio 304 here 57250.304
321 


Insert offset folio 305 here 57250.305
322 


Insert offset folio 306 here 57250.306
323 


Insert offset folio 307 here 57250.307
324 


Insert offset folio 308 here 57250.308
325 


Insert offset folio 309 here 57250.309
326 


Insert offset folio 310 here 57250.310
327 


Insert offset folio 311 here 57250.311
328 


Insert offset folio 312 here 57250.312
329 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 313 here 57250.313