Dianne Feinstein decries effort to delay train safety measure

With photos of victims of the deadly Southern California train crash behind her, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday launched a counter-offensive to preserve a 2015 deadline for railroads to install collision avoidance systems on trains carrying passengers and toxic materials.

"Hundreds of thousands of commuters are at risk until this system is put into place," she said on the Senate floor.

But Feinstein could be facing a tough fight. A transportation bill headed for a House vote in a few weeks would extend by five years, until 2020, the deadline for installation of the high-tech braking system known as positive train control. An effort is expected to be made in the Senate to extend the deadline by three years.

The 2015 deadline was included in 2008 rail safety legislation at the urging of Feinstein and others after a Metrolink train collided head-on with a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, Calif., killing 25 people and injuring more than 130. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that Metrolink’s engineer was text messaging and failed to stop for a red signal. 

A 2008 congressional report cited 52 rail accidents throughout the country in the previous decade in which the installation of a positive train control system "would likely have prevented the accident.''

Metrolink is moving to complete installation of its $201-million system by mid-2013.

But Feinstein said extending the deadline could make deployment of the collision system more difficult. The 2015 deadline, she said, "creates a substantial incentive for industry to develop new and cost-effective technology that lowers the deployment cost for everyone, including Metrolink.''

House Republicans included the new deadline in their $260-billion, five-year transportation bill after industry complaints that it is costly and difficult to install.

"What they are delaying is a device that saves lives," Feinstein said. "The case has not been made to do so." Congress, she said, should await a report from the Federal Railroad Commission on the issue "before scaling back or delaying a system that can prevent crashes."

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees railroads, said in a recent interview that financially strapped commuter rail operators in the Northeast have told him that the current deadline could force them to put off other critical safety measures. "There are significant technological issues associated with PTC that require additional time for consideration,’’ he said.

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) hopes to bring the House floor an amendment that would keep the 2015 deadline. But a similar effort was soundly defeated in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a bipartisan vote.

ALSO:

Tennessee 'Don't Say Gay' bill clears a hurdle in state House

Buy latte, pack gun: Starbucks hit with boycott -- and 'buycott'

Are smokeless cigarettes safer? E-cig explodes in smoker's mouth

-- Richard Simon in Washington, D.C.

Photo: The 2008 crash of a Metrolink passenger train and a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, Calif., was the deadliest rail collision in modern California history. Credit: Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times

House Republicans push new oil drilling to fund road projects

A measure that would allow new oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration is headed for a vote in the Republican-controlled House -- but faces a gusher of opposition in the Senate.

The energy legislation, which includes a measure designed to clear the way for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, is being considered in connection with the GOP-written $260-billion, five-year House transportation bill. The House, which began considering the energy legislation Wednesday, could complete action on it Thursday.

Republicans say increased domestic energy production would generate jobs and revenue to help pay for traffic-easing projects at a time when gas tax funds have fallen. (Drivers are now motoring around in more fuel-efficient cars.)

But the drilling measures face opposition in the Democratic-controlled Senate, especially from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who hails from a state where offshore drilling has been a hot issue since a devastating a 1969 spill off Santa Barbara.

The White House also has objected to the measures, saying they would take away the Interior secretary’s discretion to determine "which areas are appropriate and safe'' for exploration. The administration also said that the provision to advance the Canada-to-Gulf Coast Keystone XL pipeline would "circumvent a long-standing process for determining whether cross-border pipelines are in the national interest."

Though the legislation faces uncertain prospects, House Republicans, at the very least, hope to use Democratic opposition to expand drilling to highlight differences between the parties -- especially as high gas prices promise to become an election-year issue.

"Prices will only climb higher if we don’t take action now to increase our energy independence and develop our own American energy resources," said Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

The bill would open up, within five years, areas off Southern California, the Eastern Seaboard and Alaska "considered to have the largest undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources."

It also would permit new energy exploration off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties from existing offshore platforms, expand energy production in the Gulf of Mexico and promote oil shale development in the West.

"Californians have spoken loud and clear. We do not want more drilling off our shores," Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) told her colleagues.

Citing the 1969 spill off Santa Barbara, she added: "We were outraged by the damage to the environment ... to our economy."

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek), noting the bill would exempt new drilling leases from state review, needled "my good friends on the Republican side" for "always talking about states’ rights" but writing a bill that "strips away the right of California to take care of its own coastline."

But a Capps effort to strike the provision to allow new drilling off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties was rejected.

Hastings, in opposing Capps’ effort, said it would "lock away significant resources that belong to the American people."

Critics of the controversial energy measures say they could jeopardize the transportation bill, which faces opposition from the right and the left -- and a White House veto threat -- over a variety of issues.

A coalition of groups, including Taxpayers for Common Sense and the pro-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, sent a letter to lawmakers contending that using drilling revenue to fund transportation projects runs counter to the "user pays" principle for transportation spending. Under that principle, drivers pay for highway construction and maintenance. Critics of the idea also say it relies on speculative revenue to fund transportation projects.

The Senate is considering a $109-billion, two-year measure. Once the chambers act, House-Senate negotiators will attempt to reconcile differences to produce a final bill.

ALSO:

Which is easier: Driving in L.A. or passing a highway bill?

Buy latte, pack gun: Starbucks hit with boycott -- and 'buycott'

Bury Josh Powell near sons? 'Unthinkable,' family attorney says

-- Richard Simon in Washington

Photo: A bicyclist looks at an oil-drilling platform off Southern California. Credit: Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times

Which is easier: Driving in L.A. or passing a highway bill?

Getting a highway bill through Congress is becoming more challenging than navigating Los Angeles traffic.

A $260-billion, Republican-drafted House bill is facing opposition from the left and the right, forcing GOP leaders Wednesday to put off a final roll call while they scramble to line up the votes to pass it.

The White House on Tuesday threatened a veto, saying the measure "jeopardizes safety, weakens environmental and labor protections and fails to make the investments needed to strengthen the nation's roads, bridges, rail and transit systems." If the bill gets to the president's desk, the White House budget office said, his senior advisors will recommend that he veto it. 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman, has called the legislation the worst transportation bill he has seen in 35 years of public service.

The bill would, among other things, open up a portion of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and some new coastal sections -- including an area off Southern California -- to energy exploration to generate money for road projects.

It also would end the decades-old use of a portion of gasoline-tax revenue for mass transit.

Further, the measure would extend by five years, until 2020, the deadline for operators of trains carrying passengers and hazardous materials to install collision avoidance systems. The mandate was included in 2008 rail safety legislation after a Metrolink train collided head-on with a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, Calif., killing 25 people and injuring more than 130.

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) hopes to bring the House floor an amendment that would keep the 2015 deadline. But a similar effort was soundly defeated in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a bipartisan vote.

House Republican leaders say the bill would generate jobs, speed up traffic-easing projects and increase domestic production of oil at a time when gas prices are once again rising.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), acknowledging concerns about the bill among his rank and file, told congressional Republicans Wednesday, "I want you to have a chance to offer amendments, to have a full debate on the floor. This debate is a debate we want to have,'' according to an attendee of the closed-door meeting.

"It’s more important that we do it right than that we do it fast,'' the speaker said, according to the attendee.

Boehner also advised his fellow Republicans that when their constituents ask about high fuel prices, "tell them about this bill that we’re working on.”

The final vote on the five-year bill is expected after the Presidents Day recess.

The Senate is considering a $109-billion, two-year bill that has had bipartisan support. But it is encountering gridlock because of expected Republican efforts to attach controversial measures to it that supporters fear could jeopardize it, such as a rider mandating approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

ALSO:

House transportation bill: Traffic is heavy -- against it

Virginia House advances antiabortion 'personhood' measure

After Russell Pearce ouster, Arizona may alter recall process

-- Richard Simon in Washington

Photo: The Capitol is seen behind some stoplights in Washington. Credit: Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg

House transportation bill: Traffic is heavy -- against it

A highway and mass transit bill headed to the House this week has drawn opposition from an eclectic array of organizations.

The Episcopal Church has come out against a provision that would open a portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration to generate money for road projects.

The American Society of Landscape Architects and other groups oppose a provision that would end a mandate for a portion of transportation funds to go toward bike paths, scenic beautification and other "transportation enhancements."

And a civil rights group and the Teamsters are among the groups opposing a provision that would end the decades-old use of gas tax funds for mass transit.  

The strange bedfellows in opposition to provisions of the $260-billion five-year bill underscore the challenge facing Republican leaders in rounding up votes to pass the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act.

The Senate is considering a $109-billion, two-year bill, but it's less controversial than the House measure.

Those pushing to end the requirement that a portion of transportation funds -- about $925 million last year -- go to "transportation enhancements" have said Congress should give states greater flexibility in deciding how to spend funds at a time when gas tax funds have fallen off because of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Critics of the spending also have questioned some of the projects that have received funding, such as $198,000 awarded to the National Corvette Museum in Kentucky for a simulator theater. A museum official previously defended the spending as helping motorists, especially teens, perfect their driving skills and reduce the risk of accidents.

"Over the years, Congress has diluted the intent of the federal transportation program by adding mandates, set-asides and government edicts telling states how to spend gas tax revenues," said Justin Harclerode, a spokesman for Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "Many of these requirements are simply not in the federal interest and are best left to state and local decision makers.''

But supporters of the funding contend that it has paid for important safety projects for bicyclists and pedestrians and improved the quality of life in communities. "From a trails, walking and bicycling perspective, the current House bill is probably the worst piece of legislation. Ever," says the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.

"It really will take us back decades to a time when -- instead of funding the balanced transportation system that people want -- the federal role will be restricted to building highways," Kevin Mills, the group’s vice president of policy, added in an interview. The Senate bill would preserve the program but subject projects to greater competition for funds.

A spokeswoman for the American Society of Landscape Architects noted that bicycling and walking make up about 12% of trips in the U.S., yet receive less than 2% of federal transportation funding.

The Episcopal Church, while not taking a position on the overall bill, is encouraging Episcopalians to contact members of Congress to "oppose the use of the transportation reauthorization process as a 'back-door' effort to get around consistent congressional opposition to drilling."

Taxpayers for Common Sense, meanwhile, complained in a letter to lawmakers Monday about the "budget gimmicks'' included in the bill, such as relying on "highly speculative oil and gas revenues'' from drilling in the Arctic refuge and in coastal areas to fund transportation projects.

Heritage Action for America, a conservative group, has expressed concern about the bill's level of spending. It also said the bill "seeks to find additional sources of revenue, most of which have no relationship to road usage, thus breaking the user pays principle." Club for Growth, another conservative group, urged a "no" vote on the House bill. Both groups also oppose the Senate bill.

A wide range of other groups -- including local bus and rail operators -- oppose the provision to end the use of gas tax funds for public transit -- in place since the Reagan administration, warning that it would subject the public transit to annual budget battles for funds at a time when Congress is seeking to reduce deficit spending.

According to the American Public Transportation Assn., the bill, after a one-time appropriation, provides "no guarantee for any public transportation funding beyond FY 2016. This makes it virtually impossible for public transit agencies to develop reliable long-term capital plans, and it could leave the future of the public transit program in peril."

A spokesman for Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee said the change was needed because of the threatened insolvency of the highway trust fund. "The upfront transfer of $40 billion keeps the mass transit account solvent through fiscal year 2016 and provides Congress and stakeholders the opportunity to engage in a serious conversation about how to equitably fund mass transit moving forward,” the spokesman said in a statement.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is planning to seek to amend the bill on the House floor to restore gas tax funding for mass transit.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights also has come out against the measure, saying it would hurt low-income people who rely disproportionately on public transit.

A coalition of federal and postal employees and retirees also is opposing a provision that would increase employee pension contributions and change the way pensions are calculated for new employees in order to fund transportation.

"With payroll costs to the taxpayer approaching $450 billion per year, and pension costs exploding, asking federal workers and Members of Congress to contribute more to their retirement is not a burden too heavy," Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.), sponsor of the pension changes, said in a statement.

ALSO:

House transportation bill would harm California, Democrats say

Psst! Wisconsin agency reveals secret location of recall petitions

Abraham Lincoln's birthday: President gets Hollywood reboot -- as a vampire hunter

-- Richard Simon in Washington

Photo: No one likes traffic (this is a scene from the Santa Ana Freeway), and it seems no one much likes a new House transit bill either. Credit: Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

House transportation bill would harm California, Democrats say

As Congress gears up for an unusual fight over a new transportation bill, virtually all of California’s Democratic delegation has come out against the Republican-drafted measure, saying it would cut funding to the state.

The state’s Democrats also say they object to provisions that would bar funding for California’s high-speed rail project, open the Southern California coast to energy exploration and "cripple our transit agencies" by ending the decades-old use of gas tax funds for mass transit. They contend the bill would cut highway funding to the state by nearly $725 million over five years.

"If this bill is enacted into law, it will hurt California’s fragile economy by cutting vital funding, prohibiting new funds from being dispersed to one of California’s largest infrastructure projects and delaying safety measures," the lawmakers said in a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

The five-year, $260-billion House bill, dubbed the "American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act" by its drafters, includes one measure eagerly sought by Los Angeles officials to speed up expansion of the region’s public transit system: $1 billion a year nationwide for a federal program that provides loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit to  help fund projects.

But while transportation bills traditionally have enjoyed bipartisan support, the House bill has drawn Democratic opposition because, among other things, it relies on revenues from new oil drilling to fund road projects and would end the use of gas tax funds for public transit.

Passage of a transportation bill has been complicated by consumers buying more fuel-efficient cars, which reduces gas tax revenues, and Congress ending the practice of lawmakers earmarking funds for projects in their districts.

The earmarking helped win votes for bills in the past but sparked a public outcry after the last big transportation bill, in 2005, was filled with thousands of earmarks, including Alaska's "bridge to nowhere.’’

"It's a lot harder to win votes when you don't have goodies to pass out," Boehner told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. Boehner also said at a news conference the measure would be the first highway bill he's ever supported.  "In the past, highway bills represented everything that was wrong with Washington: earmarks, endless layers of bureaucracy, wasted tax dollars and misplaced priorities,'' he said.

Transit agencies have expressed concern that the House bill would subject public transit to annual budget fights at a time when lawmakers are eager to reduce deficit spending.

California Democrats also complained about the prohibition on funding high-speed rail in the state.

"Prohibiting funds for high-sped rail in California, when other states are free to move forward with high-speed rail, will prevent California from being able to decide how to best address its capacity constraints and transportation needs," they wrote.

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Atwater), who sought to prohibit funding for the project, said in a statement: “Highway bill money should be used on highways.

"This administration and the California legislature want high-speed rail at any cost, they will spend lavishly without a disciplined plan and say anything to get it done, but this amendment will prohibit highway bill money from being used on a project that is going nowhere fast.”

The House could vote on its bill as early as next week. The Senate is considering a two-year, $109-billion transportation bill.

RELATED:

Motorcycle-only checkpoints rev up controversy in Congress

ALSO:

Powerball jackpot hits $325 million: What you should know

Victim of O.J. Simpson Vegas robbery accused of shoplifting

--Richard Simon in Washington

Stormy Pacific rescue: 3 saved after sailing accident off Hawaii

The ocean voyage was fit only for the hardy: no on-deck swimming pools; no movies at night; no meals fit for the delicate epicure.

It was just two Canadian men and a 9-year-old boy on a 39-foot sailboat, traveling from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, across the Pacific Ocean through what turned out to be stormy weather -- and an agonizing, but ultimately successful, rescue from a capsized and disabled vessel.

“It was scary. I thought we were going to die,” the boy, West James, told the Associated Press on Thursday in Hawaii. West, his father Bradley, 32, and uncle, Mitchell James, 29, were rescued this week from their drifting boat about 340 miles from Oahu. The sailboat had been disabled by storms.

“There were waves crashing all over the place. We had no engine. We had no sail,” Bradley James, of Edmonton, Canada, told the news agency. He said the boat had a leaky exhaust, a broken water pipe, an overheating engine and a snapped mast, which made sailing to land impossible.

The trio sought help by satellite phone, and the Coast Guard redirected a commercial ship, the Horizon Reliance, from about 150 miles away. The 900-foot ship maneuvered into position, but two waves -- 25 to 30 feet, Bradley James estimated -- forced the big ship's bow onto the sailboat.

“It just crushed it,” he said. The sailboat sank, leaving the Canadian trio in the water, wearing life jackets and headlamps. The ship rescued Mitch James within half an hour, but Brad and his son had drifted away.

Horizon Reliance Capt. James Kelleher eventually solved the difficult nautical problem of steering his ship through the steep waves and fierce winds of 50 knots toward the father and son. They were rescued about an hour later; all arrived in Honolulu by Thursday morning.

ALSO:

First lady fights obesity in Iowa, but overweight kids are few

No Child Left Behind: Obama administration grants 10 waivers

Keystone XL: State Department cleared of conflict, not ineptness

-- Michael Muskal

Photo: Horizon Reliance crew member Ahmed Baabbad, left, pats West James on the head in Honolulu. The boy was part of a Canadian family rescued from a capsized boat in the Pacific Ocean. Credit: Marco Garcia / Associated Press

 

Motorcycle-only checkpoints rev up controversy in Congress

Motorcycle-only safety checkpoints have revved up controversy among some lawmakers who say the inspections are another example of intrusive federal policies.

A measure inserted into the House transportation bill would bar the U.S. Department of Transportation from providing grants to local or state governments for such inspections.

The action grows out of a furor over checkpoints set up in Georgia last year and planned again this year under a $70,000 federal traffic safety grant.

The roadside checkpoints operate similar to the popular drunk-driving checkpoints. Law enforcement officials signal motorcyclists to pull over and then conduct on-the-spot safety inspections, checking on the condition of the bikes and whether drivers are properly licensed and complying with the state helmet law.

Similar checkpoints have been set up in New York.

But Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), among a bipartisan group of lawmakers who pushed for the provision in the bill, assailed motorcycle-only checkpoints as "an intrusive governmental overreach."

"Motorcycle riders are right to be outraged at being singled out for safety inspections," Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) added in a statement.

Jackie Gillan, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, criticized the provision. The group describes itself on its website as a coalition of "consumer, health and safety groups and insurance companies and agents working together to make America's roads safer."

"What you see are the fingerprints of the anti-helmet people,'' Gillan said in an interview. "We're fighting efforts in state legislatures to repeal rider helmet laws. Now, what they're doing is attacking, in those states that require helmets, the ability of law enforcement to enforce the law.''

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesman said that the agency's administrator David Strickland is concerned about the increasing proportion of fatalities among motorcyclists.

"If the argument is, well, you can't single us out by vehicle, we do,'' said Lt. Jim Halvorsen of the New York State Police. "When we do seat-belt checkpoints, we waive the motorcyclists through because they don't have seat belts. Both helmets and seatbelts are required safety devices."

Of approximately 27,000 motorcyclists that passed through their checkpoints last year, about 2,500 were stopped for closer inspection, Halvorsen said. Of those, 380 were ticketed for an illegal helmet. Six motorcyclists were arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. Forty-nine motorcyclists were ticketed for operating a motorcycle without the proper license class. A total of 1,665 tickets were issued.

In 2009, 4,462 motorcyclists were killed, a decrease of 16% from the previous year, according to the most recent figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Twenty-two percent of motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes in 2009 were riding without a valid motorcycle license at the time of the collision, compared with 12% of drivers of passenger vehicles involved in fatal crashes who lacked a valid license, according to the agency.

The American Motorcyclist Assn. believes that "strategies to promote motorcycle safety must be rooted in motorcycle crash prevention, and don't include arbitrarily pulling over riders and randomly subjecting them to roadside inspections," according to its vice president of government relations, former Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard.

Strickland, in a 2010 letter to the American Motorcyclist Assn., noted that of 225 motorcyclists inspected at one New York checkpoint, 11% were found to have unsafe tires, and 36%were not wearing helmets meeting state law.

A letter sent to the House Transportation Committee by the bipartisan group of lawmakers in support of the provision said that funds would be better spent on educational programs aimed at reducing motorcycle crashes

Both chambers of Congress are expected to consider their own versions of the transportation bill next week.

ALSO:

First lady fights obesity in Iowa, but overweight kids are few

No Child Left Behind: Obama administration grants 10 waivers

Keystone XL: State Department cleared of conflict, not ineptness

--Richard Simon in Washington

PHOTO: A Laguna Beach police officer checks a motorcycle. Credit: Karen Tapia-Andersen / Los Angeles Times



Drunk drivers: Congress gets behind breath-test ignition devices

An effort to get more states to require convicted drunk drivers to test their breath for alcohol before they can start their cars is gaining support in Congress.

A House transportation bill unveiled Tuesday would offer additional highway funds to states that require ignition interlock devices for DUI offenders. A similar measure is expected to come before the Senate.

Fifteen states require all convicted drunk drivers, including first-time offenders, to use the devices, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has promoted use of the devices. The ignition interlock prevents a driver from starting the engine if his or her blood-alcohol content exceeds a preset limit.

In a pilot project that runs through 2016, DUI offenders in Los Angeles County and three other California counties were required to install the devices in their cars beginning in 2010.

The idea of requiring the devices for all drunk drivers is opposed by the American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade association.

The group said in a statement that making all DUI offenders use the interlocks would "deny judges the ability to distinguish between a driver one sip over the limit and high-BAC, repeat offenders."

Spokeswoman Sarah Longwell said the association supports the route taken by a number of states to "target the hard-core offenders" by requiring the devices for those convicted with high blood-alcohol contents.

Dangling money in front of financially strapped states to nudge them into requiring the devices has emerged as one area of agreement in a divided Congress trying to write a new transportation spending bill in a politically charged election year. The House bill, like the measure headed for the Senate, also includes a big increase in a federal loan program that has been crucial to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s efforts to speed local transportation projects.

Lawmakers from both parties have portrayed the transportation funding measure as a jobs bill.

But plenty of disagreements have emerged that could make it difficult to pass a bill this year, perhaps most significantly over how highway projects should be funded at a time when gas tax funds have fallen because of more fuel-efficient cars.

Senate Democrats have come out against a Republican proposal to open up more of the coast to oil drilling in order to generate more money for highway projects. A fight also is emerging over efforts to allow larger and heavier trucks on interstate highways.

In unveiling the House Republicans’ five-year, $260-billion measure, Transportation Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-Fla.) said it "cuts red tape and bureaucracy that delays projects across the country" and "gives states more flexibility to determine their most critical transportation needs," among other things.

He also boasted that the bill has none of the earmarks eagerly sought by lawmakers in the past, such as Alaska's much-derided "bridge to nowhere" that was among more than 6,300 earmarks in a previous transportation bill.

"Do any of you have any idea how difficult it is to do a transportation bill without earmarks?" he joked.

ALSO:

Indiana's top elections official faces voter fraud charges

Costa Concordia search for missing Minnesota couple halted

Judge tells officials to give notice before clearing Occupy D.C.

-- Richard Simon in Washington

Photo: The ignition interlock device requires drivers to breathe into the unit before starting a car. Credit: LifeSafer

Smoke in Florida pileup may have come from deliberately set fire

The smoke suspected of contributing to a fiery, multicar pileup on Interstate 75 in Florida early Sunday may have come from a deliberately set fire. The pileup killed 10 people, injured 18 and left a mile-long trail of wreckage.

The scene looked, one witness said, "like the end of the world."

Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board are joining the Florida Highway Patrol in efforts to pinpoint the cause of the chain-reaction wreck, which occurred near Gainesville at about 3:45 a.m. Sunday and spanned both the northbound and southbound lanes.

PHOTOS: Florida interstate pileup

Low visibility, possibly caused by a combination of fog and smoke from a nearby brush fire, appear to have played a role, forcing cars, trucks and motor homes to suddenly slow down and pull over -- and begin slamming into each other. Cars burst into flames. Trucks crushed smaller vehicles.

"In that area, the road, it kind of dips down, it's a low area, we had a mixture of fog and smoke that combined and kind of laid into that area, [and] made visibility a factor," Florida Highway Patrol Lt. Patrick Riordan said (see video above).

Authorities had shut down the stretch of road earlier in the evening due to a crash, but reopened it later. No doubt, questions will be raised about whether the roadway should have remained closed for public safety.

Eyewitness Steven R. Camps of Gainesville attempted to describe the accident to the Gainesville Sun: “It looked like someone was literally throwing cars,” he said. “I honestly sat there and thought I would never get out of that situation alive, even after I got out of the car.”

He told CBS News: "You could hear cars hitting each other. People were crying. People were screaming. It was crazy." He said he had been driving home with friends when he found himself staring down the carnage. "I would say it looked like the end of the world."

Before the investigation is over, it could turn into a criminal investigation, CBS said. State officials can find no natural cause, no natural explanation like a lightning strike, that could have started the brush fire. They say it may have been intentionally set.

The highway has since been reopened to traffic.

ALSO:

'Most hated' man in America gets death penalty

'The Grey' slammed for 'bloodthirsty' portrayal of wolves

'Welcome Back, Kotter': Robert Hegyes' 'Epstein' helped alter TV 

-- Rene Lynch
Twitter / renelynch

New Mexico may limit driver's licenses for illegal immigrants

New Mexico has been torn for some time as to whether undocumented immigrants should continue to be eligible for driver’s licenses. The state is one of two that allow it; Washington is the other.

Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, who was not in office when the legislation passed, says it encourages fraud. Her argument got some fuel this week from an Associated Press investigation showing that state driver’s license data pointed to possible abuse.

People without Social Security numbers who apply for New Mexico licenses must show multiple identifying documents and prove they live in the state. When the AP analyzed years of license data, the news service found dozens of addresses where fraud may have occurred.

For example, over a five-year period, 48 foreign nationals applying for licenses said they lived at an Albuquerque smoke shop. Seventeen people during a nine-month period said they lived at a car repair business. (It’s unclear whether the applicants were in the country illegally; the state does not ask about immigration status.)

The law’s supporters told the AP that the state could prevent abuse without stripping people of licenses they need to register their cars and get insurance.

A spokesman for Martinez, a former prosecutor, countered that the investigation was “yet another sign of how New Mexico's driver's license has been compromised.”

When state lawmakers took up the issue Thursday, Martinez’s proposal to repeal the license law got a rocky reception, the AP said. A legislative committee instead approved a Democratic plan to keep the licenses while imposing new restrictions.

ALSO:

Shhh, nice piggy: Georgia considers silencers for hog hunting

Fire them? Federal employees, retirees owe $3.4 billion in taxes

No fetuses in food: Oklahoma lawmaker explains intent behind bill

--Ashley Powers in Las Vegas
Twitter.com/ashleypowers

Photo: The group Somos Un Pueblo Unido, or "We Are a United People," protests Thursday in Santa Fe, N.M., against a proposed repeal of a law that allows illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses. Credit: J.R.Oppenheim/Associated Press