Date: 2012-07-23
Speaker: BONO MACK (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the RECORD on H.R. 5859. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California? There was no objection. Mrs. BONO MACK. Today. we have an opportunity to slam the car door on an obsolete provision in the United States Code requiring motor vehicle insurance cost reporting. which is of little or no use to American consumers. In other words. the requirement is simply not working as intended. and its become a needless cost and burden to automobile dealers nationwide. Today. we have an opportunity to tow this clunker of a regulation to the junkyard where it belongs and to provide Americas nearly 20.000 automobile dealers with some important regulatory relief. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. H.R. 5859 repeals a provision of law related to the reporting of automobile insurance cost. This provision requires car dealers to make available to prospective buyers information that compares insurance costs for different vehicles based on damage susceptibility. While I am always wary of any attempts to limit consumer information. clearly. the provision of law that H.R. 5859 would repeal is simply not working as intended. Every year. the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. or NHTSA. as we call it. produces and sends to auto dealers a booklet containing insurance cost information. Dealers have told us that very few consumers even ask for the booklet. Yet. under Federal law. NHTSA is still required to produce and distribute these booklets. and dealers are still required to make them available. I am not opposed. Mr. Speaker. to ending the current reporting mandate. However. we should not repeal this mandate without acknowledging that the impetus behind the original provision is sound. The purpose of the provision was to give consumers a basis for comparing damageability risk at the point of sale. Damageability is about how much damage a car is likely to sustain when a collision occurs. even at very low speed. The law also intended to create an incentive for manufacturers to produce cars which are more resistant to damage and less expensive to repair and service. Whether you think the current requirement is a nuisance for auto dealers or you think that NHTSA has missed the mark in its implementation of the mandate. I think we should accept that consumers continue to have a legitimate interest in minimizing the costs associated with minor collisions. Therefore. I would like to thank Congressman HARPER for his interest in this. Congressman OWENS. on our side of the aisle. from New York. who was one of the original Members of Congress who presented this idea. Chairman BONO MACK and Chairman UPTON and Ranking Member WAXMAN for all working with me to include alongside the repeal a requirement that NHTSA thoroughly examine--that would be the requirement--that NHTSA would thoroughly reexamine the issue of how best to inform prospective buyers about damage susceptibility. I think we have struck the right balance. We fix a valid problem and keep in place a valuable principle. VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:40 Jul 24. 2012 Jkt 019060 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634