[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8656-S8678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT

  The Senate resumed with the consideration of the bill.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Erica Gumm, 
an intern from Senator Domenici's office, be granted floor privileges 
during the Senate's consideration of S. 440, the highway bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1432

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Inhofe, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. Inhofe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1432.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . QUALITY THROUGH COMPETITION.

       (a) Contracting for Engineering and Design Services.--
     Section 112(b)(2) title 23. United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) Performance and audits.--Any contract or subcontract 
     awarded in accordance with subparagraph (A), whether funded 
     in whole or in part with Federal-aid highway funds, shall be 
     performed and audited in compliance with cost principles 
     contained in the Federal acquisition regulations of part 31 
     of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(D) Indirect cost rates.--In lieu of performing its own 
     audits, a recipient of funds under a contract or subcontract 
     awarded in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall accept 
     indirect cost rates established in accordance with the 
     Federal acquisition regulations for 1-year applicable 
     accounting periods by a cognizant Federal or State government 
     agency, if such rates are not currently under dispute. Once a 
     firm's indirect costs rates are accepted, the recipient of 
     such funds shall apply such rates for the purposes of 
     contract estimation, negotiation, administration, reporting, 
     and contract payment and shall not be limited by 
     administrative or de facto ceilings of any kind. A recipient 
     of such funds requesting or using the cost and rare data 
     described in this subparagraph shall notify any affected firm 
     before such request or use. Such data shall be confidential 
     and shall not be accessible or provided, in whole or in part, 
     to an other firm or to any government agency which is not 
     part of the group of agencies sharing cost data under this 
     subparagraph, except by written permission of the audited 
     firm. If prohibited by law, such cost and rate data shall not 
     be disclosed under any circumstances.
       ``(E) Effective date/state option.--Subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D) shall take effect upon the date of enactment of this Act, 
     provided, however, that if a State, during the first regular 
     session of the State legislature convening after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, adopts by statute an alternative 
     process intended to promote engineering and design quality, 
     reduce life-cycle costs, and ensure maximum competition by 
     professional companies of all sizes providing engineering and 
     design services, such subparagraph shall not apply in that 
     State.''

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from 
Oklahoma would require that any contract awarded with Federal aid funds 
accept overhead rates established in accordance with Federal 
acquisition rules. We are currently in a situation where we have 
duplication on the audits on these highway situations. The amendment of 
the Senator from Oklahoma would provide that the Federal System would 
prevail as to what is proper overhead rates.
  So, Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been cleared with 
the Democratic side. I believe it is acceptable to all.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have looked at the amendment. I have 
examined it. I support it. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  So the amendment (No. 1432) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1433

(Purpose: To clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the Federal 
share applicable to a project for the construction, reconstruction, or 
  improvement of an economic growth center development highway on the 
            Federal-aid primary, urban, or secondary system)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Jeffords and Leahy, 
I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. 
     Jeffords, for himself and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1433.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . FEDERAL SHARE FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH CENTER DEVELOPMENT 
                   HIGHWAYS.

       Section 1021(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240) (as amended by 
     section 417 of the Department of Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-388; 106 
     Stat. 1565)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 143 of title 
     23'' and inserting ``a project for the construction, 
     reconstruction, or improvement of a development highway on a 
     Federal-aid system, as described in section 103 of such title 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     Act) (other than the Interstate System), under section 143 of 
     such title''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment is a technical correction 
to the current law regarding highways in Economic Growth Centers [EGC]. 
The amendment simply allows programs already approved for EGC funding 
to continue to receive this level of support.
  The EGC program was authorized by title 23, United States Code [USC], 
section 143, for projects on the Federal-aid systems other than the 
Interstate System. Under 23 USC 120(k), the Federal share for EGC 
projects financed with regular Federal-aid funds were 95 percent. 
However, in 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act [ISTEA], which eliminated the Federal-aid systems and 
replaced it with National Highway System, which we are debating today. 
In [[Page S 8657]] addition, ISTEA eliminated 23 USC 120(K).
  During debate over the Department of Transportation's Appropriations 
Act of 1993 my amendment to restore the 95 percent Federal funding 
ratio for previously approved EGC projects was accepted. However, 
because of the change ISTEA made in referring to Federal-aid systems, 
the amendment, as interpreted by the Department of Transportation, did 
not apply.
  The amendment I am offering today will grandfather those EGC projects 
that have already been approved for EGC ratio funding. My understanding 
is that there are roughly 19 projects in the State of Vermont, all 
located in the Barre/Montpelier area or in Burlington.
  In discussions with the Department of Transportation, we have been 
assured that this language will guarantee 95 percent Federal funding 
for these few EGC projects in Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a small 
program that has a large impact in my home State of Vermont. Federal 
economic growth centers are designated by Vermont's Agency of 
Transportation as areas that receive Federal funds with a reduced local 
matching requirement.
  This program allows various small communities in Vermont to upgrade 
roads, sidewalks, and bridges that would otherwise be unaffordable. 
Most transportation projects are funded with an 80-percent Federal 
share, and a 20-percent State and local share. Economic growth centers 
are funded with a 95-percent Federal share, a 3-percent State share, 
and a 2-percent local share. This low local contribution allows 
communities such as Barre, VT, to undertake the North Main Street 
project, which upgrade roads, improve pedestrian facilities, 
handicapped accessibility, and enhance traffic signals.
  Today there are 18 other similar projects across my State that are 
either receiving EGC funding or are scheduled to. From Burlington to 
Rutland, this program benefits Vermont.
  However, if the National Highway System bill is approved in its 
current form, then many of these Vermont projects will revert to the 
less generous Federal funding formula. This would be disastrous for 
projects like the one in Barre. That is why I am offering an amendment 
with Senator Jeffords that maintains the current funding status. I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this Jeffords-Leahy amendment deals with 
economic growth center cost sharing. This amendment is a technical 
correction which amends title 23 by striking the words ``Federal-aid 
system'' each place they appear and inserting the words ``Federal-aid 
highways.'' Section 143 of ISTEA contains outdated language referring 
to the Federal-aid system which ISTEA failed to amend. The term 
``Federal-aid system'' limits use of the 95 percent Federal share and 5 
percent State share to economic growth projects on the National Highway 
System.
  Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared with the other side, 
and I believe it is acceptable to all.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as the distinguished chairman mentioned, 
this is a technical amendment. It clarifies that the Federal share be 
applied to economic growth centers. We urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1433) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1434

(Purpose: To permit the full implementation of a border city agreement 
by exempting vehicles using certain routes between Sioux City, IA, and 
the borders between Iowa and South Dakota and between Iowa and Nebraska 
 from the overall gross weight limitation applicable to vehicles using 
the Interstate System and by permitting longer combination vehicles on 
                              the routes)
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I offer on 
behalf of the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, Senator 
Harkin, and Senator Kerrey. It would allow South Dakota, Nebraska, and 
Iowa to update what are called border city agreements. These were 
agreements that were first reached in early 1970's allowing certain 
trucks from North Dakota and Nebraska to travel on a 3- to 5-mile 
stretch of interstate highway to enter Sioux City, IA.
  Due to restrictions on weight and truck configurations in the current 
Federal law, however, Iowa is no longer allowed to honor existing 
agreements or to enter into new updated ones. This amendment does not 
require any State to change its current policies. Rather, it waives the 
Federal provisions that prevent these States from entering into 
agreements they consider to be in their mutual best interests.
  I see no reason to oppose this amendment, Mr. President. I send the 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Daschle, for 
     himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Kerrey, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1434.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . VEHICLE WEIGHT AND LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLES 
                   EXEMPTION FOR SIOUX CITY, IOWA.

       (a) Vehicle Weight Limitations.--The proviso in the second 
     sentence of section 127(a) of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``except for those'' and inserting the 
     following: ``except for vehicles using Interstate 29 between 
     Sioux City, Iowa, and the border between Iowa and South 
     Dakota and vehicles using Interstate Route 129 between Sioux 
     City, Iowa, and the border between Iowa and Nebraska, and 
     except for''.
       (b) Longer Combination Vehicles.--Section 127(d)(1) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(F) Iowa.--In addition to vehicles that the State of Iowa 
     may continue to allow to be operated under subparagraph (A), 
     the State of Iowa may allow longer combination vehicles that 
     were not in actual operation on June 1, 1991, to be operated 
     on Interstate Route 29 between Sioux City, Iowa, and the 
     border between Iowa and South Dakota and Interstate 129 
     between Sioux City, Iowa, and the border between Iowa and 
     Nebraska.''

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is the amendment I just described. I 
think it has been agreed to by the majority side. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee is exactly right. This amendment permits Iowa to continue 
allowing bigger and heavier trucks coming from South Dakota and 
Nebraska to enter Sioux City, IA, on I-29 and I-129, even though these 
trucks are bigger than are permitted on the general highways of Iowa. 
This has been cleared and has the approval of the Senators from Iowa. 
Apparently, Sioux City, IA, is just over the border in some fashion so 
that the trucks from South Dakota pull in there.
  So, Mr. President, indeed, it has been cleared by this side.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of 
Senators from the three States affected by it: the Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Harkin], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], and myself.
  This amendment repairs a breakdown in Federal highway laws that 
prevents the free flow of trade between our three Midwestern States, 
allowing South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa to update border city 
agreements that were first reached in the early 1970's. These 
agreements allow certain trucks from South Dakota and Nebraska to 
travel on a 3- to 5-mile stretch of interstate highway to enter Sioux 
City, IA.
  Due to restrictions on weight and truck configurations in current 
Federal law, Iowa is no longer allowed to honor existing agreements or 
to enter into new, updated ones. These Federal policies impede the flow 
of interstate commerce between our States.
  The governments of each of our three States support the approach 
taken in this amendment to free up the open market for trade with each 
other. Yet, the U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated that it 
does not have the authority under the law to waive Federal 
restrictions, even though it may be appropriate to do so. [[Page S 
8658]] 
  Our amendment does not require any State to change its current 
policies. Rather, it waives Federal restrictions that prevent these 
States from entering into agreements they consider to be in their 
mutual best interest.
  Businesses in all three States have paid the price since the border 
city agreements were disrupted by Federal regulation. One example is 
the movement of livestock into Sioux City, IA, stockyards from Nebraska 
and South Dakota. Vehicles that exceed Iowa's legal weight limit of 
80,000 pounds must either light-load their vehicles or truck their 
livestock to terminals farther away. This increases the costs for 
ranchers and hurts the Sioux City stockyards.
  In addition, longer combination vehicles that are permitted to 
operate in South Dakota but not in Iowa cannot cross State lines for 
the short trip to the Sioux City stockyards. They are instead forced to 
uncouple and leave part of their load at the South Dakota border, only 
to later return and make another trip to complete delivery to Sioux 
City.
  The Daschle-Harkin-Kerrey amendment would permit our States to update 
their border city agreements. It places a simple waiver in statute so 
that trucks can once again travel unimpeded from the Siouxland tristate 
area into Sioux City, IA.
  This problem stems from Federal regulations that require most States 
to prohibit divisible loads with a gross weight limit in excess of 
80,000 pounds on interstate highways. States that authorized heavier 
loads in effect in 1956 were grandfathered, or allowed to keep those 
rights.
  While Iowa did not allow heavier loads in 1956, South Dakota and 
Nebraska did. This was not a problem, however, because border city 
agreements were reached in the area that allowed for heavier trucks 
from South Dakota and Nebraska to drive into Sioux City.
  The ISTEA of 1991 added a similar restriction on longer combination 
vehicles that contained a grandfather clause that did not take into 
account these border city agreements.
  The Federal Government should not disrupt the free flow of trade 
between these States. The State legislatures in both South Dakota and 
Iowa approved resolutions calling on Congress to correct this problem. 
These agreements are supported by the departments of transportation in 
all three States. The U.S. Department of Transportation does not oppose 
restoring these agreements--it simply claims to lack the authority to 
do so.
  Mr. President, our amendment addresses a classic example of Federal 
overregulation of business. It corrects the kind of problem that makes 
people fed up with the Federal Government, and we should correct it 
today. Truly, the Federal Government was established in 1789 to promote 
commerce among the States, not to impede it. This amendment is needed 
to provide a commonsense solution to a real problem, and to restore 
public confidence in our ability to reduce overregulation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1434) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1435

 (Purpose: To revise the authority for a congestion relief project in 
                              California.)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have another amendment which I send to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1435.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . REVISION OF AUTHORITY FOR CONGESTION RELIEF PROJECT 
                   IN CALIFORNIA.

       Item I of the table in section 1104(b) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 
     102-240; 105 Stat. 2029) is amended by striking 
     ``Construction of HOV Lanes on I-710'' and inserting 
     ``Construction of automobile and truck separation lanes at 
     the southern terminus of I-710''.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is another technical amendment. This 
one clarifies that the State of California use previously authorized 
funds for construction of automobile-truck separation lines. This is a 
very technical amendment. I do not think it needs further explanation. 
I urge the Senate to agree to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana is exactly right. 
It has the approval of those on this side. We are supportive of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1435) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1436

(Purpose: To provide that if a certain route in Wisconsin is designated 
 as part of the Interstate System, certain vehicle weight limitations 
                            shall not apply)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Kohl, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1436.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1.  APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS 
                   IN WISCONSIN.

       Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Operation of Certain Specialized Hauling Vehicles on 
     Certain Wisconsin Highways.--If the 104-mile portion of 
     Wisconsin State Route 78 and United States Route 51 between 
     interstate Route 94 near Portage, Wisconsin, and Wisconsin 
     State Route 29 south of Wausau, Wisconsin, is designated as 
     part of the Interstate System under section 139(a), the 
     single axle weight, tandem axle weight, gross vehicle weight, 
     and bridge formula limits set forth in subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to the 104-mile portion with respect to the 
     operation of any vehicle that could legally operate on the 
     104-mile portion before the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.''.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a brief explanation of 
the amendment offered on my behalf by my colleague, Senator Baucus. The 
amendment that was accepted by the managers of the bill addresses a 
problem that is critical to north central Wisconsin, but it does so in 
a way that does not upset the balance and symmetry of this important 
piece of legislation.
  Specifically, my amendment relates to a 104-mile portion of U.S. 
Highway 51--also known as Wisconsin State Highway 78. Highway 51 
connects population centers and industries located in north central 
Wisconsin with markets to the south. Wisconsin has recently completed 
the improvements necessary to bring Highway 51 up to interstate 
standards, and interstate shields will soon be erected.
  However, a Federal exemption to insert weight requirements is 
required to allow continued operation of overweight commercial vehicles 
that currently use Highway 51. Overweight vehicles currently operate on 
this stretch [[Page S 8659]] of highway under State permits, but they 
would be forced off the road once the highway is designated as an 
interstate.
  U.S. 51 is the only four lane north-south road serving this area. All 
other roads are secondary two lane State highways. Forcing large trucks 
onto these narrower--and more winding--secondary roads raises greater 
safety--and durability--concerns. The secondary roads that would be 
affected are small country roads that have never had large truck 
traffic. Who knows what sort of damage these huge vehicles could do?
  Highway 51 has handled large truck traffic safely and efficiently for 
many years and a weight exemption would allow continued use of this 
safe and efficient route.
  The weight exemption is also critical to a number of industries that 
contribute to the continued economic development of north central 
Wisconsin, including the manufacturing, pulp and paper, farming, food 
processing, dairy, livestock, refuse, garbage, recycling, and coal 
industries. Many Wisconsin communities and businesses, both small and 
large, will benefit from the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor I would like to thank the 
bill managers--chairman Chafee and Senator Moynihan--for their 
assistance and consideration. Let me also express my gratitude to 
Senator Baucus for his advice and assistance in offering the amendment. 
Finally, I thank my good colleague from New Jersey--Senator 
Lautenberg--for his guidance in this matter. Mr. President, I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment, offered by the Senator 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], would grandfather the current truck size and 
weight limitations on a segment of a Wisconsin highway that will 
shortly become part of the interstate system.
  We have done this in a couple of other parts of our country. It is 
only appropriate that this section of interstate highway in Wisconsin 
also receive the same treatment.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this side supports the amendment. I had a 
call from the Governor of Wisconsin yesterday in support of the 
amendment, and there is no objection to it, that I know of, on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1436) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I guess this is for the purpose of an 
inquiry. It is my understanding that the amendment we had that would 
change the procedure and offer more latitude in terms of avoiding 
duplication in preaward audits has already been taken up.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is correct, his amendment went flying 
through.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator very much. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 1437

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I have an amendment, which I send to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself, 
     Mr. Gregg, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Kempthorne, and Mr. 
     Thomas, proposes an amendment numbered 1437.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . ELIMINATION OF PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH 
                   MOTORCYCLE HELMET AND AUTOMOBILE SAFETY BELT 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 153 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking out subsection (h); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (i) through (k) as 
     subsections (h) through (j), respectively.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, section 153 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act, better known by the acronym ISTEA, 
penalizes States that refuse to enact mandatory motorcycle helmet and 
automobile seatbelt laws. In other words, if a State chooses not to 
enact a mandatory seatbelt or mandatory motorcycle helmet law, they are 
penalized and they are penalized very substantially.
  The amendment that I am offering, along with Senators Gregg, Snowe, 
Campbell, Kempthorne and Thomas would simply repeal the penalties on 
the States. It does not affect any State that has already adopted these 
laws. It does not interfere with that in any way. It has no effect on 
any State whatsoever that has adopted a mandatory helmet or seatbelt 
law.
  But what it does do is repeal the penalty on any State that has not 
enacted such a mandatory use for its riders, either in automobiles or 
on motorcycles. So, again, lest the debate get misdirected, this does 
not affect any State law whatsoever.
  This section of current law sanctions States, or penalizes States, 
that do not enact mandatory motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws by--
this is how it is done--diverting scarce highway maintenance and 
construction funds to their safety funds, even if that does not make 
any sense to do because they are already spending money into safety 
programs.
  So, in other words, the penalties are assessed regardless of whether 
your State already has a safety program that is adequately funded 
toward both helmet and seatbelt usage, irrespective of your State's 
safety record. So if your State spends more than an adequate amount on 
training, on safety for the use of seatbelts and/or helmets, has a good 
safety record, it still gets penalized because it does not have a 
mandated helmet or seatbelt law. In fact, 28 States suffered this 
penalty, this current fiscal year.
  Twenty-five States will suffer a doubling of this penalty, come 
October. In the State of New Hampshire, for example, we were penalized 
nearly $800,000 this year. That will double to $1.6 million next year. 
That is almost $1 for every man, woman, and child in the State of New 
Hampshire.
  Nationally, this penalty translates into $48 million not spent on 
needed highway improvements this year, and $97 million that will not be 
spent next year and every year thereafter.
  I think it is fiscal blackmail. If we look at the list of these 
States and look down the list, in many cases, the penalties double. 
They are very substantial. Some run as high as over $4 million. For 
example, in the State of Ohio, the current penalty is $4.6 million and 
that doubles to over $9 million in 1996.
  I would just ask a question. In this era of where we are trying to 
provide for more States rights, more individual freedom, why would we 
want to penalize a State by taking away several million dollars--$97 
million in total of all the States, $800,000 in New Hampshire, $9 
million in Ohio, to use two examples. Why would we want to do that and 
insist they spend money for safety, or not get the money at all, when 
they already have the safety program that is necessary?
  A person might say, it would be reasonable to allow those States to 
spend and to fix roads, to repair potholes, to repair bridges. That 
might be worth the effort. That is true. But that is too reasonable. 
That does not happen. If they do not spend it on the safety programs 
that they do not need, they do not get the money, and they are 
penalized.
  Mr. President, I am not here to debate the merits of whether you wear 
a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet. I do not ride a motorcycle. One of 
my colleagues does and he will be speaking to that in a moment. I do 
wear a seatbelt. That is my choice.
  In fact, I am a strong supporter about educating the public on the 
benefits of wearing a seatbelt and a motorcycle helmet. The State of 
New Hampshire already requires seatbelt usage for [[Page S 
8660]] children up to 12 and motorcycle helmets for passengers up to 16 
years old. The sanctions still apply, unless the State has a mandatory 
law for everyone.
  The argument has been made that taxpayers should be concerned about 
the amount of money spent on Medicare and Medicaid for injuries related 
to motorcycle accidents. This argument assumes a higher percentage of 
motorcycle riders are covered by Medicaid than the average citizen. I 
know Senator Campbell will speak to that shortly.
  I would just say at this point that is not true. On average, 
motorcycle riders have no great reliance on Medicaid than anybody else. 
I think that is a misnomer.
  Furthermore, I would be happy to join any of my colleagues who are 
interested in reforming Medicare and Medicaid programs in order to save 
the taxpayers' dollars and maintain their solvency for future 
generations. I do not think that is the issue.
  The administration has tried to make a case for maintaining the 
sanctions for the benefit of society and taxpayers. What next? Will we 
decide that convertible cars are more dangerous and therefore we should 
ban them? Should small cars such as Miatas or Alfa Romeos be banned 
because they are less safe in accidents than, say, a pickup truck or a 
van? Should the Federal Government limit Medicare and Medicaid to 
individuals who smoke? Who are police officers? Who are firemen? Bridge 
builders? Window washers? Should we limit Medicare and Medicaid to 
those people that lead a riskier life? I do not think so.
  All we are talking about here is a person's voluntary right to wear a 
seatbelt, and voluntary right to wear a helmet. Maybe I am exaggerating 
to make a point which is how far should the Federal Government be 
allowed to reach into people's lives, or tell States what laws they 
will have on their books?
  Frankly, this could cost lives, Mr. President. If we took the State 
of New Hampshire, the $800,000--and the Senator who is sitting in the 
chair at the moment, my colleague from New Hampshire, knows full well 
some of the rural roads we have in our States are full of potholes, and 
$800,000 could fix a lot of them.
  Now, how many accidents happen because somebody loses control of an 
automobile, hitting a bad pothole or hitting some other portion of a 
road that needs repair? The truth of the matter is that New Hampshire 
cannot spend that $800,000 on the pothole repairs, because they have to 
use the $800,000 to create additional personnel for safety that they do 
not need because they already have an adequate safety program, more 
than adequate, more than the demand even calls for.
  The whole thing is ridiculous. Again, it is the paternalistic 
attitude of Big Brother.
  The real issue is whether Washington's micromanagement, of what 
should be dealt with at the State and local level, should continue. 
That is the issue. States should have the flexibility to devote the 
highway funds where they think they make the most sense, whether it be 
protecting public safety by improving those roads and bridges and 
traffic flow or through highway education. Frankly, in most cases, it 
is both. Let the States make that determination.
  In fact, in the State of New Hampshire, which does not have a 
mandatory helmet or a seatbelt law, it has one of the best highway 
records in the Nation. One of the most safe, as far as fatalities per 
million miles traveled.
  The New Hampshire legislature recognizes the need for improving 
motorcycle safety, and as a result, the Motorcycle Rider Education 
Program was enacted in 1989. Since then, more than 4,000 riders have 
gone through the program.
  Educational programs like this certainly play an important role in 
increasing highway safety, and I believe the States have the expertise 
and know-how to develop their own programs, thank you, without the 
Federal intimidation or Federal intervention or Federal heavy hand. 
States will say they are in a better position to address safety 
concerns. They are.
  During a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we 
received testimony from such States as Florida, Idaho, Montana, South 
Dakota, New Hampshire, and Wyoming, all with the same message: Let the 
States decide how to address highway safety. They all oppose the use of 
Federal sanctions to pressure States to enact laws against their will.
  Furthermore, dictating how States spend their highway funds infringes 
on their ability to control their own budgets, resulting sometimes in 
misdirected and wasted resources.
  Let me just give an illustration. Our New Hampshire highway safety 
coordinator has complained as a result of the mandated transfer of 
funds to his existing $550,000 budget, he has more money than he knows 
what to do with. He cannot spend it for safety. More there than he 
needs. It is hard to imagine that a government official is actually 
complaining about having too much money, but we are pretty independent 
in New Hampshire. Frankly, we tend to tell the truth when the truth 
needs to be told.
  That is the reality. They do not want to go out and create another 
level of bureaucracy in the safety department in the New Hampshire 
Highway Department because they do not need it. Not because they do not 
care about safety, not because they do not want to promote safety, but 
because they do promote safety adequately and they want the funds to go 
into repairs.
  Scarce resources could end up being wasted in these education 
projects while a section of the road falls in disrepair and somebody 
loses a life as a result of a pothole or some other urgent need.
  It does not make any sense, which is why this constant dictating at 
the Federal level causes problems with our States and with our 
citizens.
  It is this kind of action by the Federal Government that brought our 
Governors and our local officials to a state of rebellion, frankly, and 
led to this year's enactment of the unfunded mandates relief bill, one 
of the first pieces of legislation passed in this Congress.
  Last year, the American people also voted for great local control and 
for relief from heavy-handed Federal mandates. With that in mind, let 
me conclude for the moment on this point, Mr. President. We should 
continue the trend of ridding this Washington-knows-best attitude 
around here, and allow our States, governments, communities, to make 
the kinds of decisions that they need to make for themselves. A vote 
for this amendment does not cure everything, but it is a step in the 
right direction.
  I will point out before my critics point it out, we are not about to 
say here, by passing this amendment, that we are not in favor of 
safety, that we want people to go out on the motorcycles and not wear 
helmets and injure themselves and be wards of the State for the rest of 
their lives, or we want people to go out and not wear seatbelts and 
cause permanent injuries to themselves.
  What we are saying is, we have adequate safety programs in our 
States, education programs, that indicate to these people that it is 
unsafe, that it would be better to use a seatbelt and to use a helmet. 
But if you choose not to, if you choose not to, that is your decision. 
Your State should not be punished by not receiving dollars that could 
be used to repair roads and bridges, which is the purpose of the 
legislation in the first place.
  I know my colleagues here wish to speak. At this time I will yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise also in support of the amendment 
proposed by my friend and colleague, Senator Smith. This legislation 
will provide for a full repeal of the financial penalties established 
under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 and will 
provide relief to the 25 States, as he has mentioned.
  There are, as my colleagues know, probably going to be three 
amendments, depending on how the vote goes on the Smith amendment. But 
I am just going to make some general statements. If we go on to the 
next amendments, I will make some others dealing specifically with 
helmets. But this is not only a burdensome Federal mandate placed on 
the backs of State legislatures but also an erosion of States rights. [[Page S 
8661]] 
  This amendment, by the way, does not require States to repeal any 
mandatory laws they now have in effect, not seatbelt laws or helmet 
laws. Strictly speaking, 25 States have refused to be blackmailed by 
the Federal Government. They have refused to comply with the Federal 
mandates. In accordance with ISTEA, they are required to transfer very 
scarce transportation and construction dollars to section 402 safety 
programs. This shift forces States to spend 10 to 20 times the amount 
they are currently spending on section 402 safety programs.
  As Senator Smith mentioned, it is money that is not even needed in 
one program and is badly needed in another, yet they are forced to 
transfer it from one to another. These penalties are assessed 
regardless of whether the State already has the funds dedicated to 
safety programs or not.
  This year, these States had to divert 1.5 percent of their Federal 
highway funding to safety programs. This transfer affects the National 
Highway System, the Surface Transportation Program, and the Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. Those States which did 
not enact seatbelt or helmet laws by September 30, 1994, are required 
to shift 3 percent of their Federal highway funds from these important 
programs into safety.
  This year $48 million will not be spent on highways and bridges 
because of this section 153, as Senator Smith has mentioned. Clearly, 
this is a punitive action by the Federal Government against States. The 
amendment Senator Smith offers repeals that section.
  I, like many people, believe the Federal Government has blackmailed 
States long enough and forced them to pass laws which may or may not be 
in the best interests of their citizens but certainly has taken away 
the right for them to choose what is best for them in their own States, 
in sort of a one-case-fits-all scenario.
  It should not be a question of whether you should or should not wear 
helmets or whether you should or should not wear seatbelts. The 
question is who decides, you or the people in your State as elected 
legislators? Or the Federal Government, which is far removed from many 
of the people who have to comply with these laws?
  The question is, What level of Government regulations becomes too 
absurd? In my view, that mandate has already reached that point. When 
the Federal Government starts requiring what you wear for some 
recreational pursuits, as it is now doing, it has gone too far.
  Let us just say for the sake of argument that those on the other side 
of the issue are right, that in fact seatbelts and motorcycle helmets 
make people safer. You can find many personal accounts to support 
either side of the issue. There is no question about that. But clearly 
neither one prevents accidents. Does that give the Federal Government 
the right to force people to wear them? Most people agree that too much 
exposure to the Sun can cause cancer. Should the Federal Government 
require all sunbathers to wear sunscreen and threaten the States with 
withholding Federal money in case people get cancer?
  I might also say I come from a State where over a million Americans 
ski, the State of Colorado. It is a big industry. I would like to point 
out we have had about five skiers killed on the slopes of Colorado this 
year. None of them was wearing a helmet. I am a skier and I tell you I 
would be concerned if the Federal Government decided here in Washington 
to require everybody who skis to wear a helmet. I think we see the same 
kind of general direction taken for people riding bicycles or horses or 
young people who use skateboards or rollerblades. Should we have a 
Government that dictates what you can wear and what you cannot with 
your recreation?
  There is a thing called a public burden theory that often people use 
to defend the use of seatbelts and helmets, too. That public burden 
theory says if you are injured and do not have an insurance policy and 
do not have the money to pay for your hospitalization, then you become 
kind of a ward of the Government. That money has to be taken from the 
taxpayers to provide for your medical services.
  There is no study I know of in the United States that says people who 
do not wear helmets become public burdens any more than anyone else, 
skiers or bicyclists or rollerbladers or ski boarders or anyone else. 
When you talk about the public burden I think you can use the same 
logic for anyone. There is an element of risk in any form of 
recreation. The question is how many individual rights do we take away 
in the name of the public burden theory?
  In my view, the helmet law mandate has reached that point. We have 
talked on the floor many times this session about Federal mandates. I 
think if the voting public said anything to us last fall, it was to 
relieve them of some of the unfunded mandates, some of the things the 
Federal Government requires without setting the finances to implement 
the requirement. The last election certainly was about that.
  While it can be argued that mandating these things may be good for 
American citizens, is it right to have the Federal Government intrude 
in our lives to that extent? And, where do we draw the line?
  In closing, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the 
amendment of Senator Smith and I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to join 
Senator Smith as well as Senator Campbell in support of this amendment. 
I commend Senator Smith for offering it because I do think it 
underscores a very important point. In fact, as I recall, this Congress 
and this Senate, when we began in January, the very first issue we 
addressed was banning unfunded Federal mandates. I cannot think of 
another issue that represents unfunded mandates more than the one we 
are currently addressing with this legislation that would take away the 
mandate on States to enact mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws, and, if 
they do not, they are penalized by losing 1.5 percent of their 
transportation funds in 1995 and 3 percent in 1996.
  What is unprecedented about that approach, and something that I 
certainly object to, is saying that States are going to lose existing 
transportation funds, which will happen this October, if they do not 
enact both laws. It is not saying if the States enact these laws we 
will give you additional funds and create an incentive, which has 
generally been the approach taken by the U.S. Congress in the past on a 
number of issues, but rather we are penalizing those States with 
existing transportation funds, which certainly are needed in terms of 
repairing roads and bridges.
  We allow States to determine minimum driving ages for their 
residents. States have the authority to determine when the driver 
education courses are required. They determine the difficulty of the 
written as well as the practical tests. They determine many of the 
speed limits for various areas. And they determine the various 
penalties for violations such as driving while intoxicated.
  In nearly every aspect of day-to-day driving we trust the individual 
States to determine the motor vehicle laws that govern the majority of 
vehicles that are on our highways. In short, the States control every 
aspect, for the most part, of our driving experience, with one 
exception. And that is, of course, when the Federal requirements state 
that States must pass laws to adopt seatbelts and helmet laws.
  I do not believe that seatbelt and helmet laws are any different than 
any other motor vehicle law. We are creating these mandates from a 
paternalistic attitude, as Senator Smith indicated. It is certainly 
outdated. I think the arrogance of that attitude manifested itself in 
the last election. Somehow we always think Washington knows best, and 
what Washington knows best and what is good for the States generally 
can be two different objectives.
  I believe these differing perspectives were a critical reason we did 
address banning unfunded mandates as our very first legislative 
initiative in this Congress.
  No matter how you package this issue, sanctions or penalties or 
whatever, the truth is it is a Federal requirement that is an unfunded 
Federal mandate. If you look at the helmet laws--and that is a good 
example--the States, as Senator Smith indicated, 25 [[Page S 
8662]] States will lose almost $49 million in 1995, and in 1996 they 
will lose close to $97 million because they did not adopt seatbelt and 
helmet laws.
  In fact, it is interesting to note that many States already fund 
rider education programs with respect to riding motorcycles. My State 
is a very good example.
  Yet, I am under these penalties. My State will double the motorcycle 
rider education safety program from $500,000 to more than $1 million. 
Yet, my State certainly needs these transportation funds for other 
things. It already has a well funded rider education program. It does 
not need to have it doubled. That is what the penalty will be under 
section 153.
  It is interesting to note that those 44 States that have rider 
education programs with respect to motorcycles have very high rates of 
safety. And they do not have mandatory helmet laws. My State again is a 
good example. We ranked 49th out of 50 States in terms of the number of 
fatalities with respect to motorcycles in 1993. We are next to the 
lowest in the country. Yet, we do not mandate a helmet law, but have a 
very active motorcycle education program. We know that these education 
programs work. The State knows that they work.
  It is hard to believe that we are saying somehow that the Governors 
of each and every State and every State legislature somehow are 
unconcerned and unresponsive to the statistics in what might be 
happening on their roads and their highways.
  As we all know, State governments are even more close to their people 
and to their constituencies, and somehow we are saying that they cannot 
possibly understand the implication if they do not enact seatbelt and 
helmet laws.
  The question here today is not whether we believe wearing a seatbelt 
or a helmet is a good thing. What we are saying is who should decide? 
And it clearly should not be the Federal Government.
  As I said earlier, much of our driving experience is governed and 
dictated by States. In 1993, there were 2,444 motorcycle fatalities. 
That same year, there were 5,460 young people between the ages of 16 
and 20 that were the victims of traffic fatalities.
  So if you apply the logic of section 153 of ISTEA, that it is a 
safety issue, then one should suggest that penalties should be imposed 
on those States for allowing individuals to drive a car or ride a 
motorcycle under the age of 21.
  The fact of the matter is there are many dimensions to our personal 
and social behavior that do have implications for health care 
expenditures. And I know opponents of Senator Smith's amendment, or an 
amendment which I might offer or one which Senator Campbell might 
offer, are saying that this really has an impact on our health care 
expenditures. Well, I have to say that there are many aspects of social 
behavior in this country that have an impact on our health care costs. 
Low-fat diet, lack of exercise--if people do not engage in having a 
good diet or engage in daily exercise, that can be a contributing cause 
of heart disease, which is a major cause of death in this country.
  What should the Federal Government do--dictate a change in behavior 
in that regard? We could go on and on with some of the numbers of 
examples that we could offer as to what the Federal Government should 
get involved in because it has impact on health care. The point is that 
this legislation that was passed in 1991 really intervened in an area 
that has traditionally been a State issue.
  I hope that we can recognize here today in light of what happened in 
the last election, in light of what I think people strongly feel about 
what should be traditionally a Federal issue and what should be 
consistently a State issue, that we reverse what occurred in 1991.
  It is interesting to note that motorcycle fatalities, as well as 
motorcycle accidents, were reduced by 53 and 54 percent respectively 
between the time period of 1980 and 1992 before the penalties of ISTEA 
were put in place. It is because of motorcycle rider education programs 
that it made a difference in terms of reducing the number of accidents 
and fatalities.
  Applying the logic further, we could say, ``Well, the fatality rate 
on rural interstates is almost twice that of urban interstates.'' Does 
that mean we should penalize States with rural interstates because they 
have more accidents and more fatalities? Of course not.
  In 1993, before the Massachusetts seatbelt law went into effect, that 
State was one of only two States in the country that showed a 
consistent drop in motor vehicle fatalities for the prior 6 years. 
Another State which showed a consistent drop was Arizona, which does 
not have a mandatory helmet law.
  All combined, the 28 States that will face penalties if they do not 
enact both the helmet and seatbelt law will lose a combined $53 million 
in needed highway maintenance and improvement funding.
  When my State officials were asked exactly how they felt about the 
loss of money in the State of Maine, which is $800,000 that we will 
lose in 1995 and $1.7 million that we will lose in 1996, the State 
officials replied that, ``We could be spending it on our ailing 
highways and bridges, where it is desperately needed.''
  So I hope that we recognize that we should reverse the position that 
was taken in 1991. We know the States are responsive to these issues, 
and to these concerns and what occurs on their highways.
  My State, for example, is sending to our people the question as to 
whether or not to enact a seatbelt law. I think that is perfectly 
consistent with the rights and the interests of the people of my State. 
If they make a decision that we should enact a seatbelt law, that 
should be their decision. But it should not be the Federal Government 
dictating that approach to the people of my State.
  So again, I want to thank Senator Smith for offering this amendment. 
I think it is a good amendment. I think it takes the right approach. It 
is a States rights issue, and it is an issue of unfunded mandates in 
the State, and every State has a right to determine its own motor 
vehicle laws.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I vigorously oppose the amendment that has 
been offered by the Senator from New Hampshire. I really think it is 
very, very unfortunate that this amendment has been brought forward 
because a study that has been conducted on the efficacy and 
effectiveness of safety belts and motorcycle helmets has come to the 
conclusion that they are effective.
  I have here a letter from the Eastern Maine Medical Center. This is 
what the physician there has to say about the use of seatbelts.

       At Eastern Maine Medical Center here in Bangor, where I am 
     a physician, we have completed a study of the issue of 
     seatbelt use and hospital charges of area Maine patients 
     injured in car accidents with and without seatbelts. Our 
     study shows that patients injured without seat belts had 
     hospital bills almost $10,000 higher on average than patients 
     injured while wearing seatbelts. We estimate that seatbelts 
     would have saved $2.4 million in hospital bills for the 256 
     unbelted patients in our study. Those unnecessary bills were 
     paid by all of us, of course. In the last 2 years of our 
     study, we were able to identify the insurance status of 
     patients admitted after car accident injuries. The medical 
     bills for Medicaid and Medicare patients alone amounted to 
     more than $2 million. Of the 73 Medicare and Medicaid 
     patients in our study, only 10 were wearing seatbelts at the 
     time of their injuries. We estimate seatbelts would have 
     saved these patients alone $599,000, nearly $600,000. This 
     saving of almost $600,000 would have been in just one 
     hospital, in 2 years, and just 63 patients.

  Maine has a seatbelt use of 35 percent, the lowest in the United 
States. Our low-use rate, which then results in more injuries and 
higher costs, as we have identified in our study, then forces taxpayers 
in other States who are required to wear seatbelts, to pay for our 
freedom to be unbelted in Maine.
  Mr. President, a lot of discussion this afternoon has been about 
unfunded mandates and the Federal Government dictating what takes 
place.
  The answer is twofold. I think as Senators we have a responsibility 
to do what we can to preserve lives and prevent injuries of American 
citizens. And it is not enough to say, oh, leave it to the States; let 
them take care of it.
  I will show you a chart in a few minutes that shows what happens when 
we do leave it to the States.
  In 1966, we passed a law in the Federal Government that mandated 
motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, and in [[Page S 8663]] this chart you 
will see that once that occurred the number of deaths declined 
dramatically. Then 10 years after that, in 1976, we repealed that, and 
up go the deaths. Will the States pass all these laws? Will these 
wonderful legislators, bold and brave, step up and face up to the 
motorcyclists who do not want this?
  Well, the answer frequently is no.
  Now, there is another point I would like to make, Mr. President. That 
is that the wrong approach here is to have sanctions. The way this law 
works--and I was instrumental in the writing of the so-called ISTEA 
legislation, the highway bill of 1990, this portion of it, and what we 
did was we said you pass a mandatory seatbelt and motorcyclist helmet 
bill by such-and-such a year, and if you do not, you will have to 
devote some small portion of your highway money to education and safety 
features, such as the three Senators have been discussing here this 
afternoon.
  And it was pointed out that that is the wrong way to go; we ought to 
have inducements, benefits paid, rewards. Well, we do not do that. We 
have, as you know, a minimum drinking age bill that passed the Senate, 
and it says you must enact a law that says you cannot serve liquor to 
those under 21, and if you do not you lose 5 percent of your highway 
funds, and the next year you lose 5 percent more, making it 10 percent. 
That is the law.
  Now, nobody is advocating repealing that. That is not a benefit that 
is thrown up: That is the wicked Federal Government coming in and 
dictating what you have to do. That is Big Brother, as we are accused 
of being here.
  But there is no question that has saved hundreds of lives of the 
young people of our Nation.
  Now, you might say, what right do we have to say anything about 
motorcyclist helmets or seatbelts. We have a right because we pay the 
piper. We are the ones who pay Medicaid. And do not tell me that these 
motorcyclists, when they end up in comas because they do not have 
helmets, have wonderful insurance policies that take care of them. 
Those are not the facts. The facts are that very, very frequently they 
do not, and particularly if they are in a coma for a long period. There 
is a Rhode Islander in our State hospital who has been there 20 years 
in a coma, all being paid for by the State, the cost now exceeding over 
$2 million to take care of him during the 20 years. And so, Mr. 
President, I just very, very strongly hope that this amendment will not 
be adopted.
  Now, I would just like to talk a little bit about what are the 
benefits of safety belt and motorcycle helmet laws. There have been a 
slew of studies done by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, the States, the medical community, the safety groups, 
the Centers for Disease Control, the General Accounting Office, for 
example. They reached the same conclusion. They are as follows: First, 
safety belts and motorcycle helmets save lives and prevent serious 
injury.
  Everybody knows that. We do not have to be in every emergency room to 
know that. We know it. We have seen it.
  Over the past 10 years, safety belts and motorcycle helmets have 
saved over 60,000 lives and prevented 1.3 million serious injuries. If 
everyone used the safety belt, an additional 14,000 lives and billions 
of dollars could be saved every year. There are 40,000 people killed 
every year in our country. That could be cut to 26,000--14,000 lives 
saved if safety belts were used. If every motorcyclist wore a helmet, 
nearly 800 lives could be saved every year.
  Unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in collisions are three times more 
likely than helmeted motorcyclists to incur serious head injuries that 
require expensive and long-lasting treatment. I think the motorcyclists 
would acknowledge that, and indeed in the sanctioned meets of the 
American motorcycle clubs you have to wear a helmet. That is a mandate. 
You cannot be in those meets, those hill climbs, and so forth, without 
a helmet. That is what they think of wearing helmets.
  Now, the second point. The cost of motor vehicle crashes are 
staggering. Each year, as I say, 40,000 people die on our Nation's 
highways. Another 5.4 million--that is not thousand, that is million--
5.4 million people are injured each year. These fatalities and injuries 
cost us over $137 billion every year for medical care, lost 
productivity and property damage. This represents a $50 billion annual 
cost to employers. The lifetime costs of one serious head injury 
sustained because no helmet or safety belt was used can reach the 
millions of dollars.
  Now, who foots the bill? When somebody is injured in a motorcycle or 
an automobile accident, a police officer, who is a public employee, 
responds. The municipal ambulance carries the injured party to a 
hospital. Medical specialists provide emergency treatment without 
regard to costs. And if the victim is on welfare or unable to pay, 
Medicaid pays, and we all know that.
  Now, the third point I would like to make is that mandatory laws are 
the most effective way to ensure that safety belts and motorcycle 
helmets are used. The States that have enacted mandatory safety belt-
helmets have an average of a 20 percent increase in use. In other 
words, it is not enough to have an education program. You have to 
mandate it by law or it will not be followed.
  In the early 1980's, before safety belt laws were enacted, the use 
rate was 11 percent. Now, with laws in 48 States, some version of 
safety belts, the use rate is 66 percent.
  Now, I would like to read--we had hearings on this. We had doctors 
and others come in--what Dr. Rosenberg from the Centers for Disease 
Control said. Listen to what he said.

       We are unaware of any evidence that demonstrates that 
     testing, licensing, or education alone leads anyone near the 
     improvement in helmet laws that mandatory laws produce.

  In other words, education does not do the trick. You have to have a 
law. And finally:

       Effective safety laws require a Federal-State-local 
     partnership. Our history shows that when Federal requirements 
     are eliminated, safety laws are weakened or repealed and 
     deaths and injuries increase.

  In other words, what they are saying there is the Federal Government 
really has to step in and do the trick. If we, the Federal Government, 
back off from this legislation, you can bet your bottom dollar that 
many of the States that have enacted motorcycle helmet and seatbelt 
laws will retreat because the pressures are so strong.
  I have been a legislator. Many of us here have been legislators. The 
pressures that can come from one group, particularly if it is not 
something that the individual is deeply interested in himself--he might 
be interested in improving the economic climate of his State or doing 
something about unemployment compensation. And when a host of 
motorcyclists come after him day after day after day to repeal a law, 
then the individual frequently gives way. That is what happened in the 
different States when the Federal law mandating the helmet use or 
mandating seatbelts was repealed.
  Now, what happens when the State does pass the law pursuant to the 
efforts that we have made here? California enacted its all rider 
motorcycle helmet law and motorcycle fatalities dropped by 36 percent. 
That is a remarkable figure. Maryland's helmet law resulted in a 20-
percent fatality drop; 20 percent fewer people were dead as a result of 
the Maryland law. Both States realized direct taxpayer savings in 
millions of dollars. Both States enacted these laws with the 
encouragement of the Federal law.
  There has been a great pressure in both States to repeal their 
motorcycle helmet laws. Can they maintain their laws if the Federal 
requirements are removed? I believe it will be difficult.
  I come from a State that has not enacted either of these laws. We 
have no motorcycle helmet law in our State.
 We have no mandatory seatbelt law. We have to give up money, as 
pointed out by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. We have to 
put extra money into education and safety costs that we do not want to 
put in. And so I say then, if you do not want to put it in, pass the 
law. ``Oh, we do not want the law. We think people have freedom to 
drive their motorcycles without helmets. If they end up on the public 
assistance rolls, and particularly through Medicaid, well, that is just 
one of those things.''

  We had a State senator from Illinois talk about this business of what 
the [[Page S 8664]] pressure is on the States. This is what the State 
senator said:

       So even though there is no doubt in my mind that a 
     motorcycle helmet law is something that would be favored by 
     an overwhelming majority of the citizens of the State of 
     Illinois--

  The people would be for it.

     the mechanics of passing a law are such that the more vocal 
     opponents have had their way in the general assembly. The 
     Federal Government has played a critical role in enacting 
     safety legislation throughout the years. The original helmet 
     law would not have passed but for Federal action. We all know 
     that the drinking age and seatbelt legislation was passed in 
     many states as a result of Federal action. And we also have 
     some experience that every time that Congress changes its 
     mind, such as back in the '70's, death and injury rates go 
     up.

  I will guarantee you, if this amendment is adopted today, you will 
see these States repeal the laws that they have. That is a guarantee. 
And you will see the number of deaths on motorcycles and from lack of 
using the seatbelts increase in our country.
  I have a chart here. What is a speech these days without a chart?
  Now, this illustrates what I have been talking about. In 1966, the 
law was passed. The Federal law mandated helmet use. And you can see 
the dramatic decrease in the death rate. This is per 10,000 
motorcyclists. It was 13,000, then dropped down to about 8,000 and 
stayed at that and slid down a little more and got way down until you 
are about less than half or near than half of a decline in the deaths.
  Then the law was repealed in 1976 right here in Congress. Up it goes 
once again. So that shows the correlation between what happens when we 
repeal our laws. And, obviously, repeals were enacted in the States. 
Twenty-seven States repealed or weakened the helmet laws right after we 
said you do not have to do it. My State was one of them. We had--in my 
State following the 1966 Federal law, sometime in that period around 
1970, we enacted in our State a mandatory motorcycle helmet law.
  When the Federal law was repealed, our legislature gave us, as did so 
many others, a repeal of the law itself. That will be the consequence. 
No question about it.
  Now, I have a letter here from the executive director of the Safety 
and Health Council of New Hampshire. This is what he says:

       Without continued Federal leadership in these critical 
     areas of highway safety, we will see a return to the 
     inconsistent and less effective State laws. Inevitably there 
     will be a greater loss of life and an increased financial 
     burden on our society. The problem is especially acute in New 
     Hampshire which, despite overwhelming evidence of the 
     benefits, refuses to pass either a seatbelt or a helmet law.

  Now, as the legislator from Illinois pointed out, these laws enjoy 
broad popularity except with a small but very, very persistent and 
energetic group that bedevils the legislators until they conform. The 
public supports strong safety laws. In recent national public opinion 
polls, 76 percent of those surveyed opposed the weakening or repeal of 
safety belt laws and 90 percent opposed the weakening or repeal of the 
motorcycle helmet laws.
  Now, why do we repeal this? Why is this suggestion made?
  The proponents argue that this section 153, which is the basic law, 
constitutes an encroachment on States and individual rights. Well, I 
disagree. When we get into our cars or hop onto our motorcycles, we do 
not do it in a vacuum. We become part of a complex and usually crowded 
transportation network. In the best interest of protecting drivers, 
property, and safety, we live by certain rules. Taxpayers have a right 
to be protected from higher taxes which result from motor vehicle 
crashes. Now, as I say, proponents have argued this undermines States 
rights, individual rights. You are entitled to drive your motorcycle 
with the wind blowing through your hair.
  The problem is that the costs associated with highway crashes are a 
serious national problem. Each additional injury and fatality takes its 
toll on hospital backlogs, regional trauma centers, tax rates, national 
insurance rates. All of us have spent untold numbers of hours on trying 
to do something about health care costs in this country. And there is 
not one of us who will not say we are for preventive medicine.
  It is a crime. Give children immunization. Prevent these accidents 
and diseases and illnesses from occurring. There is no clearer way of 
doing what we are out to do, preventive medicine, than having laws just 
like this that we have got on our books. And those who would vote to 
repeal this clearly are taking a vote to add to our medical costs in 
this country. There is no doubt about that. So, Mr. President, I do 
strongly urge my fellow colleagues to reject the amendment proposed by 
the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Very frankly, I thought we would probably be able to 
avoid a game of statistics and studies. But it looks like we are not 
going to. I have a number of them that I will ask unanimous consent to 
have introduced in the Record. I would like to mention just a few 
things.
  First of all, my colleague, the chairman, talked a little bit about 
the California study. And I would like to point out that the California 
study done by Dr. Krause took only--I think the figures were misleading 
because basically he took only the accidents into consideration based 
on the number of motorcycles that were registered at the time, not 
using figures up to 2 years before that indicated almost a drop of 50 
percent in the registrations in California during the 2 years preceding 
his study. Clearly, if you have less of them on the highways, there are 
going to be less accidents.
  He also did not take into consideration there is in excess of over 1 
million motorcyclists that went through rider safety training. I would 
like to read just a few statements from different studies that have 
been made which I will try to abbreviate very shortly.
  One, accident and fatality statistics, analyzed by Dr. A.R. 
MacKenzie, said that in a study of over 77 million motorcycle 
registrations covering the 16-year period, 1977 to 1992, the accident 
and fatality rates have been calculated and compared with in the helmet 
law States than in the repeal States.
  On the basis of registrations, there have been 10.4 percent more 
accidents and 1.1 percent more fatalities in those States that had 
mandatory helmet laws than in repeal States. Our State is one of them. 
In Colorado, in fact, the fatalities went down after we repealed it.
  According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation 1978 Division 
of Motor Vehicle study, 29.4 percent of the motorcyclists that died 
wearing a helmet died of a head injury; 28.9 percent, almost 29 
percent, of motorcyclists that died without a helmet also died of head 
injury. In other words, almost identical statistics with or without the 
helmets.
  According to the National Safety Council ``Accident Facts'' of 1991, 
motorcycles represented only 2.2 percent of the overall U.S. vehicle 
population, and yet they were only involved in less than 1 percent of 
all the traffic accidents, the smallest recorded category of any moving 
vehicles.
  Furthermore, only 2.53 percent of all registered motorcycles were 
reportedly involved in accidents, and just a little over 3 percent of 
those were fatal.
  The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center study 
says--and I am trying to abbreviate these:

       Helmet use was not found to be associated with overall 
     injury severity, discharge facility . . . or insurance 
     status. Injured motorcycle operators admitted to trauma 
     centers had lower injury severity scores compared to other 
     road trauma victims, a group including motor vehicle 
     occupants, pedestrians and bicyclists.

  A State of Kansas Health and Environment Department report to NHTSA 
stated:

       . . . we have found no evidence that the death rate for 
     motorcycle accidents increased in Kansas as a result of the 
     repeal of the helmet law. We have also not found any such 
     evidence on a national basis.

  I skipped over one, the Second International Congress of Automobile 
Safety said:

       The automobile driver is at fault in over 70 percent of our 
     car/motorcycle conflicts.

  Seventy-two percent of U.S. motorcyclists already wear a helmet, 
either by choice or existing State laws, while auto drivers use 
seatbelts only 47 percent of the time. Even with seatbelt laws in 
effect in 48 States, covering over 98 percent of America's population--
only Maine and New Hampshire [[Page S 8665]] currently have no seatbelt 
law--more than half of all auto fatalities involve head injury, yet no 
one would suggest that auto drivers should wear a helmet. There are 10 
times the fatalities in automobiles due to head injuries than 
motorcycles.
  In a Hurt Report, Traffic Safety Center, University of California, 
they indicate 45.5 percent of all motorcyclists involved in accidents 
had no license at all and over 92 percent had no training. That is what 
we are trying to emphasize here. Helmets do not prevent accidents, 
training prevents accidents.
  The American College of Surgeons declared in 1980 that improper 
helmet removal from injured persons may cause paralysis.
  Inside a new label--I just happened to read one a couple years ago 
and wrote it down, a new DOT label said:

       Warning: No protective headgear can protect the wearer 
     against all foreseeable impacts. This helmet is not designed 
     to provide neck or lower head protection. This helmet exceeds 
     Federal standards. Even so, death or severe injury may result 
     from impacts of speeds as low as 15 miles an hour . . .

  So, in other words, not a Federal agency that is empowered to 
authorize the testing and no private industry that does the testing, 
since DOD does not do their own, none will guarantee helmets over 15 
miles an hour.
  From my perspective, they do darn little help.
  In a DOT test report of 1974 through 1990, where DOT tested helmets 
by a 6-foot vertical drop, impacting at 13.6 miles an hour, even at 
those low speeds, 52 percent of the helmets failed during that test.
  Another study, done by Jonathan Goldstein at Bowdoin College:

       In contrast to previous findings, it is concluded that: 
     One, motorcycle helmets have no statistically significant 
     effect on the probability of fatality and, two, past a 
     critical impact speed--

  And I assume that is past 13.6 miles an hour, the DOT test speed.

     helmets will increase the severity of neck injuries.

  A study done by Dr. John G.U. Adams, University College of London, 
said:

       Wearing a helmet can induce a false sense of security, 
     leading to excess risk-taking and dangerous riding habits.

  In fact, the six safest States by actual study in the United States 
per fatalities for 10,000 registrations are: Wisconsin, Iowa, 
Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming. None has adult 
helmet laws. And yet the States that have the helmet laws also have the 
highest injury and fatality rates.
  So we could probably stay here all day long talking about studies 
that support either thesis, that they are good or bad, but I think we 
are still getting away from the fact that the decision should be made 
by the States, by the individuals, not by the Federal Government.
  I see my friend and colleague from Montana in the Chamber. We were 
discussing the cost of each State a while ago. In fact, according to 
the statistics I have, Montana stands to lose $2,192,000 this year out 
of their construction funds if we do not pass some relief for States 
from this punitive measure we took in the Federal Government.
  My own State loses over $2 million. Many of the people who will be 
here on the floor today--over 50 Senators, since there are 25 States 
that have refused to comply--are going to be penalized collectively to 
the point of hundreds of millions of dollars. With that, I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have a letter dated May 1 from the 
Secretary of Transportation, and I would like to read parts of it, if I 
might. This is what he said. It is addressed to me:

       I would like to take this opportunity to present the 
     administration's position on several vital highway safety 
     laws that may be challenged during the committee's 
     consideration of the National Highway System legislation.

  This was written as we took up the legislation in the committee.

       The Department of Transportation strongly supports the 
     existing Federal provisions encouraging States to enact and 
     enforce basic highway safety laws, such as section 153 of 
     Title 23, United States Code--

  That is the provision that deals with motorcycle helmet and seatbelt 
laws.

     relating to safety belts and motorcycle helmets. We would 
     oppose efforts to weaken these provisions. We estimate that 
     State minimum drinking age laws, safety belt and motorcycle 
     helmet laws and enforcement of speed limit laws save 
     approximately $18 billion every year. If these provisions are 
     weakened or repealed, costs to the States and Federal 
     Government would increase.

  Then he talks a little bit about the minimum drinking age. Next 
paragraph:

       The other provisions offer similar savings to States. Motor 
     vehicle crashes cost our society more than $137.5 billion 
     annually in 1990 dollars. Many costs of motor vehicle crashes 
     are ultimately paid by Federal and State welfare public 
     assistance programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Aid to 
     Families with Dependent Children.
       Between 1984 and 1993, safety belt and motorcycle helmets 
     use saved more than $16 billion in Federal and State 
     revenues. Nearly $6 billion of this is the result of reduced 
     public expenditures for medical care, while the remainder 
     represents increased tax revenues and reductions in financial 
     support payments.
       The Federal provisions encouraging minimum drinking age 
     laws, safety belt, motorcycle helmet laws and the enforcement 
     of speed limit laws were established because of high social 
     and economic costs to our Nation resulting from motor vehicle 
     crashes. These four provisions address areas where State laws 
     and enforcement are proven effective and where savings are 
     great. For example, when California enacted its all-rider 
     motorcycle helmet law, motorcycle fatalities fell by 36 
     percent and the State saved millions of dollars. Every State 
     that has enacted such a law has had similar experiences. 
     States that repeal all-rider helmet use laws uniformly see a 
     substantial increase in motorcycle fatalities.
       For example, the Colorado Division of Highway Safety found 
     that the State's fatality rate decreased 23.8 percent after 
     adopting a helmet law and increased 29 percent after the 
     helmet law was repealed.

  That is what we were discussing earlier about when the Federal 
Government in 1976 said you did not have to have the law, the States 
repealed them, I think it is 27 States repealed them--my State was one 
of them, regrettably--and up go the accidents.
       Wisconsin Department of Transportation data indicates that 
     motorcycle fatalities were 18 percent lower when the State 
     had a helmet law than after repeal.

  Mr. President, Secretary Pena goes on:

       Weakening or repealing these will lead to a tragic increase 
     in unnecessary preventable deaths and injuries on our roads 
     and will increase the burden on State and Federal Government. 
     At the very least, we must oppose steps that would clearly 
     add to Federal spending.

  Signed by Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation.
  So, Mr. President, I think in every way you look at this, whether you 
are looking at the tragedy that comes from accidents where people do 
not have a seatbelt, the tragedy that comes to motorcyclists who do not 
wear their helmets, or the cost to the Federal Government--everybody 
here is for reducing cost--I find this amendment very, very difficult 
to understand.
  Mr. President, I hope very, very much that it will be rejected.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to respond to a few 
of the comments that have been made by the chairman, the manager of 
this legislation, because I think it is important since we are quoting 
from one another's States with respect to statistics and positions of 
officials in those States.
  It is interesting to note, because back when we had hearings this 
year on this entire issue, Rhode Island State Senator William Enos, in 
testimony before the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure in March, noted that in 1976, the 
last year that Rhode Island had a helmet law, there was 1 death per 
every 1,000 riders. In 1994, without a mandatory helmet law, that rate 
was less than 0.5 deaths per 1,000 riders, despite the fact that there 
were 7,000 more riders in 1994 than in 1976.
  He goes on to say:

       In 1993, the number of fatalities per 10,000 registrations 
     was lower in Rhode Island than in many States with motorcycle 
     helmet laws. Massachusetts, which has applied strict helmet 
     wearing standards to motorcycle riders, has a fatality rate a 
     full point higher than Rhode Island. Much of this success can 
     be attributed to motorcycle rider education programs, which 
     were first implemented in 1980.

  [[Page S 8666]] Back in 1980. That was 15 years ago that Rhode Island 
implemented a motorcycle rider education program because they 
understood the value of those programs with rider safety and being able 
to drive a motorcycle better and more effectively. The same is true for 
driving an automobile.
  I further read from his testimony:

       Again, referring to the attached graph, it can be seen that 
     since rider training began, fatality rates have continued to 
     decline. Furthermore, Rhode Island also had the second lowest 
     rate of all motorcycle accidents per 10,000 riders, behind 
     only Oregon, which has a helmet law in place.

  As I said earlier, the State of Maine in 1993 ranked 49th in the 
number of motorcycle fatalities, second lowest in the country. And it 
has a very effective rider education program.
  The 44 States that have rider education programs--and I think it is 
essential to underscore that there are 44 States that have motorcycle 
rider education programs. Those are not essentially mandated by the 
Federal Government, but the States have determined in their wisdom that 
they are the most effective approach in reducing the number of 
fatalities and accidents on the highways.
  In fact, those programs are financed through motorcycle registration 
and license fees. Collectively, they have raised $13 million. Contrary 
to what the chairman has said, these education programs are not only 
financed by the States, but our States have determined how much is 
necessary to finance these programs. It is not as if they do not have 
the money. They have been financing the programs.
  My State does not need to double the amount of money that already 
exists for its motorcycle rider education program. It has sufficient 
funding through license fees and registrations. But it does need its 
money for highway improvement and repairs. It desperately needs that 
funding.
  Listening to the debate here today, one would think that it would be 
very difficult for State legislatures and the Governors and State 
officials to have the capability to make these decisions on behalf of 
the best interests of their State and the welfare of their own 
constituency.
  Somehow, we have this notion that they do not know any better, that 
they could not possibly make these decisions for their constituents in 
their States, that somehow we know better here in Washington, DC, what 
should happen in the States when it comes to motor vehicle safety; that 
they do not have the capacity to understand.
  No one is disputing the fact that we should do everything we can to 
improve safety on the highways. There is no doubt about that. Yes, it 
has some impact on our health expenditures. As I said earlier, so much 
of our behavior asks how far do we go?
  That is the issue here today. Where do we draw the line as to what 
the Federal Government will dictate to the States or what the States 
themselves will decide for the people who live in their States? That is 
the ultimate question here. And I think that it is important to make a 
decision as to how far we are willing to go.
  I would argue with the chairman that there are many other aspects to 
personal and social behavior that contribute far more to that cost of 
Medicare than riding a motorcycle or driving an automobile.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for a 
question?
  Ms. SNOWE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. I think the Senator from Maine has made a superb point, 
and I would like to ask the Senator if this is the basic concept.
  This is not an issue of health. It is not an issue of safety. It is 
an issue of States rights. On an issue of health or safety, that is a 
police power traditionally reserved for the State. It is ironic and 
anachronistic that the Federal Government has stepped into this area, 
where it has not stepped into 100 different areas that could be 
outlined.
  Is not what we are dealing with here an issue of who has the right to 
manage the health and safety of the State, and whether or not that 
right is nationally vested in the State government, and it is 
inappropriate for the Federal Government to come in and usurp that 
right?
  Ms. SNOWE. I answer the Senator, that is absolutely correct. 
Certainly, Senator Gregg well knows, having been a former Governor of 
the State of New Hampshire, to understand exactly what is relevant and 
within the purview or jurisdiction of the State, it is very essential 
that we begin to draw those lines as to how far we need to go to impose 
Federal mandates and Federal dictates.
  Would the Senator agree that the States are in a much better position 
to make those decisions? Are they not more responsive since they are 
closer to the people? The Senator has been a Governor and certainly can 
appreciate that relationship between the State and the residents of 
that State.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, just to respond 
to that point, I believe that is absolutely true. I believe the Senator 
from Maine, the Senator from New Hampshire, and the Senator from 
Colorado have made this point extraordinarily well. That is, whether or 
not someone is on a highway and operating----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Parliamentarian 
whether the floor is now obtained by the Senator from Maine, or do both 
Senators have the floor at the same time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has the floor. She has 
yielded time to the Senator from New Hampshire----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. She cannot yield, Mr. President; I am sorry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For a question.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am waiting to hear the question.
  Mr. GREGG. I have the right to yield for the purposes of a question, 
Mr. President. During the prior colloquy, there was a question asked 
and there will be a question asked during this colloquy, also.
  The point which I think the Senator has made and which I wish to 
elicit her thoughts on, further, are there not a variety of activities 
that occur on highways which determine the safety of highway activity, 
such as the size of a car that operates on the highway, such as the 
licensing of the operator of the car on the highway, such as the 
inspection of the car that operates on the highway, and the motorcycle, 
the licensing of the motorcycle operator on the highway? Are these not 
traditionally rights which have been reserved to the State?
  It is sort of strange that the Federal Government would pick out just 
one area of safety on a State highway issue to step into. Is that not 
the issue here, that there is basically a unique usurpation of State 
rights?
  Ms. SNOWE. The Senator is absolutely correct. When it comes to 
dictating the driver's age or the automobile inspection or the types of 
tests that are given so that people can get their licenses, or even 
some of the speed limits that are established on the various roads 
within a State, they have all traditionally been within the purview and 
jurisdiction of the States in determining that.
  In fact, I was mentioning earlier in some of the statistics that the 
States have certainly made a number of decisions with respect to those 
issues and could make even more. We could draw a lot of decisions here 
today in terms of what we should do based on statistics, but the States 
are in a much better position to make those decisions.
  I ask the Senator, because I think it is important since the Senator 
has been a former Governor, there has been this sort of impression here 
that somehow the States just do not understand or get it and, 
therefore, it requires and compels the Federal Government to impose 
these dictates and mandates.
  Does the Senator not agree that the Governors and the States and the 
State legislature are in a far better position to make decisions about 
what is in the best interests of the general welfare of their 
constituencies and residents?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President I will agree with that. That is obviously 
the purpose of this amendment, and I congratulate the Senator from 
Maine, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, and the Senator from 
Colorado for bringing this to the floor.
  I see the Senator from New Jersey is seeking the floor, and although 
I may have further questions of the Senator from Maine, I will pass up 
those opportunities. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from 
Maine in allowing me to answer these questions.

[[Page S 8667]]

  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator. Just to conclude, Mr. President, 
because I think it is important to read from the testimony of a State 
senator from the State of Illinois, who presented testimony before the 
committee on this issue--I would like to quote from her statement 
because I think it is important. She said that ``Many in the State 
believe that this course''--referring to the penalties imposed by ISTEA 
in 1991--``is directly responsible,''--the course they established in 
the State of Illinois for rider education--

       . . . is directly responsible for the reduction in 
     motorcycle accidents we witnessed in Illinois. We had a 46 
     percent decline in accidents involving motorcycles from 1985 
     to 1990. This led to a 48 percent decline in injuries to 
     motorcyclists. During the time Illinois had a helmet law in 
     1968 and 1969, our fatality rate per 10,000 registrations 
     averaged 9.15. Back then, we had 91,000 registered 
     motorcycles. In 1993, we had 200,000 motorcycles registered 
     and with no helmet law our fatality rate was 5.4 per 10,000 
     registrations, double the number of motorcycles, more vehicle 
     miles traveled per year, no helmet law, and our fatality rate 
     was four points lower. Yet Congress has sanctioned the State 
     of Illinois for over $33 million.
       I would respectfully suggest to you that putting men to 
     work building and repairing roads is a better and more 
     efficient use of our highway dollars than requiring us to 
     print up and distribute bumper stickers telling people to 
     wear seatbelts.

  Finally, I would like to quote from a July 1994 Wall Street Journal 
article.

       Dennis Faulkenberg, chief financial officer for Indiana's 
     Transportation Department, says this year's lost share would 
     have paved 25 miles of highway and repaired 6 to 8 bridges. 
     New lanes and intersection improvements will also fall by the 
     wayside because of the loss of money to the State of Indiana 
     as a result of this penalty.

  Further, I would like to quote from a New Hampshire State 
Representative who testified before the Environment and Public Works 
Subcommittee on Transportation in March. He said:

       My issue on whether I favor or disfavor a law mandating 
     helmets or seatbelts is not the issue. The reason I came here 
     today is because I feel this issue should be able to be 
     decided by the State Legislatures in this country without the 
     threat of Federal sanctions and money being moved.
       I don't think there is one of my colleagues in the State 
     house that doesn't feel motorcycle helmets and seatbelts are 
     a safety issue. There isn't one of us that will disagree with 
     that. But let us discuss the issue, let us decide the issue 
     on the merits of the issue, and not because we're going to 
     have money transferred.

  I think that speaks very well to the issue and the essence of the 
amendment offered by Senator Smith.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to address the amendment 
before us, if someone will yield time to me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to speak to one aspect of 
the amendment offered by the Senators from Maine and New Hampshire, the 
repeal of sanctions against States lacking mandatory helmet laws. I am 
a cosponsor of the amendment which will be offered by the Senator from 
Maine at a later point, which addresses only the matter of helmet laws. 
But regardless of the amendment, there are two fundamental questions 
inherent in this debate. What is the proper role of government in 
regulating individual behavior? And what is the appropriate role for 
the Federal Government in policy areas that have traditionally been 
under the jurisdiction of the States?
  There will be many issues of safety raised in this debate. In 
addition, the point will be made that unhelmeted motorcycle riders 
increase societal costs, such as the costs of publicly-funded health 
care. Those are legitimate issues, but I do not think they address the 
truly fundamental questions at stake in this debate. I think the 
fundamental question, the fundamental issue, is the proper role of 
government.
  The relationship between the Federal Government and the States has 
been a complex relationship since the founding of this Nation. The 
practical and legal impact of the constitutional delineation of State 
and Federal responsibilities is very much a subject of debate today, 
and especially in this 104th Congress.
  Mr. President, I served in the Wisconsin State Senate for 10 years 
and I know very well the frustration of State officials at the 
sometimes incomprehensible nature of the Federal bureaucracy. This 
much-debated relationship is frequently at issue in the discussion of 
Federal requirements on issues like seatbelts and helmets and speed 
limits. It has been the source of great controversy in my home State of 
Wisconsin, which does not have a mandatory helmet law. In each of the 
last two sessions of the Wisconsin Legislature, there have been 
resolutions introduced that have urged the repeal of section 153 of 
ISTEA, which imposes sanctions on States that do not have mandatory 
helmet laws.
  Wisconsin stands to lose an estimated $2.3 million in highway funds 
this fiscal year and an estimated $4.7 million in fiscal year 1996, 
simply because our State is not in compliance with section 153 of 
ISTEA. Nationally, States will lose $48 million in fiscal year 1995 and 
$97 million in fiscal year 1996, if this provision continues.
  This sanction applies, regardless of Wisconsin's efforts, which are 
substantial, to improve safety on its roadways. Wisconsin's Secretary 
of Transportation, Charles Thompson, told the National Transportation 
Safety Board that Wisconsin, through its program:

       . . . consistently and actively encourages all motorcycle 
     riders to wear not only helmets but all protective gear 
     through:
       Mandatory helmet laws for riders under 18 years of age and 
     those with learner permits;
       Maintaining an award-winning rider education program which 
     has an all-time high enrollment now of 3,500 students;
       Helmet surveys which show that 41 percent of riders wear 
     helmets on a voluntary basis.

  So, Mr. President, among States which do not have mandatory helmet 
laws, Wisconsin has the lowest number of fatalities per 10,000 
motorcycle registration. Perhaps more significantly, among all States, 
Wisconsin ranks second with respect to motorcycle fatalities per 10,000 
registrations--among all States--not just those that do not have a 
mandatory helmet law.
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has emphasized 
that State by State comparisons of motorcycle data are meaningless and 
that the only valid comparisons are those that compare data within an 
individual State over time. Let us take that test, if the previous 
tests are not adequate.
  Even under that test, Wisconsin does extremely well. Our fatality 
rate in motorcycle accidents has declined from 93 fatalities in 1984 to 
41 in 1993. I think the reason is that the State of Wisconsin has an 
exemplary motorcycle safety program which has had the impact of 
substantially reducing the total number of motorcycle accidents by 
almost 50 percent--50 percent, Mr. President-- over the past 10 years.
  So our State of Wisconsin is understandably upset with the sanctions 
contained in ISTEA, given their exemplary record for motorcycle safety. 
The State, I think, feels discriminated against since ISTEA does not 
credit the State with the progress it has made with respect to reduced 
motorcycle fatalities. Given that the intent of ISTEA is, as I 
understand it, specifically to reduce fatalities, Wisconsin legislators 
and regulators are bewildered that there is no credit being given to 
them for their accomplishments. That is one of the flaws of section 153 
of ISTEA. It does not recognize significant accomplishments made in 
improving highway safety through proactive, voluntary State efforts.
  I contend that a Federal mandate on helmet use is not necessary to 
require States to do the right thing.
  However, beyond the question of the proper Federal-State 
relationship, I would also like to focus briefly on what I believe to 
be an even more fundamental issue. That is the question of whether the 
Government has a role in regulating individual behavior that does not 
have a direct impact on the health or safety of others in our society.
  Unlike other motor safety requirements, such as traffic laws intended 
to keep traffic, highway traffic orderly and safe for all users, I 
believe helmet use only generally impacts the individual choosing to 
wear or not wear a helmet.
  Many have argued that the cost which motorcycle accidents impose on 
our health care system are reason enough for regulating individual 
behavior, but I do not really see that as a persuasive argument. 
Individuals in this country still have a right to engage, if they wish, 
in risky behavior that does not directly harm others. [[Page S 8668]] 
  The Federal Government has not always regulated individual behavior 
for smoking or alcohol consumption in cases where that behavior does 
not affect others in our society. When it has done so, as we know with 
Prohibition, it has backfired.
  Arguably, those behaviors, such as drinking and smoking, also impose 
substantial costs on our health care system. However, we have generally 
recognized that such behavior should, in most cases, be a matter of 
individual choice, regardless of whether that choice is the wisest one 
that an individual might make.
  I generally object to Federal laws which regulate an individual's 
behavior for his or her ``own good.'' I ask my colleagues, if we 
regulate helmet use at the Federal level where, then, do we draw the 
line? Or can we draw the line? Where do we stop infringing upon an 
individual's right to make his or her own decisions?
  I contend that helmet use or lack of helmet use does not generally 
impact others in our society. As a strong supporter of individual 
rights I oppose Federal legislation requiring States, or blackmailing 
States into enacting helmet laws. I personally would strongly encourage 
all cyclists to wear helmets, as does Wisconsin's Motorcycle Safety 
Program. But I do not believe it is the Federal Government's role to 
require anyone to wear a helmet.
  Mr. President, the amendment to be offered by the Senators from Maine 
and Colorado would repeal the Federal sanctions on States which do not 
have mandatory universal helmet laws. It is a step in the right 
direction from the standpoint of individual rights and I urge my 
colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Smith 
amendment, which will repeal the penalties levied against States that 
have not passed both a mandatory seatbelt and helmet law. The issue is 
not the merits of helmet laws or seatbelt laws. The issue is where 
should these issues be discussed and decided.
  The message of the last election was that we need a smaller, less 
intrusive Federal Government. The Federal Government tries to do too 
much and has taken over so many functions that ought to be State and 
local decisions.
  The vote on the Smith amendment is a clear test as to whether or not 
the U.S. Senate got that message.
  For too long an activist Congress has used the threat of loss of 
highway trust fund money to force States to adopt whatever the Federal 
agenda of the moment is. I think that is a rotten way to do business.
  First, that approach assumes the money collected through Federal gas 
taxes somehow belongs to the Federal Government.
  This money comes from the States--it comes from highway users in the 
States. To collect the money from these folks and then turn around and 
hang it over their heads until they do whatever we say is outrageous.
  Second, the people who support this approach think State governments 
are incapable of making informed, responsible decisions about the 
safety of their citizens. I do not know how you can defend the idea 
that folks in Washington are somehow blessed with the divine wisdom to 
always know best. State officials are just as responsible, and in most 
cases are in a better position to make informed decisions than folks in 
Washington.
  I will let others argue the merits of helmet use. There are strong 
feelings on both sides of that issue. What I will argue is that debate 
ought to happen at the State level, and the Federal attempt has clearly 
failed.
  Section 153 was enacted as part of the ISTEA bill of 1991. Since 
enaction of section 153, only 1 State has adopted a mandatory helmet 
law; 25 States have yet to adopt mandatory helmet laws, and are in 
violation of section 153.
  This year alone, $48 million will be diverted away from road and 
bridge construction. Next year that figure will increase to $97 
million.
  In Wyoming, just over $1 million was moved from highway construction 
to safety education programs this year. Next year we will see over $2 
million shifted away. I do not know how we can spend $2 million on 
safety education programs in my State. That comes to just over $4 for 
every man, woman, and child in Wyoming to be spent on safety programs 
while we have millions in unmet infrastructure needs.
  It does not make sense, and a full half of the States have said 
enough. They have decided it is more important to preserve the ability 
to make their own decisions than to bow to Federal blackmail.
  That is a choice States should not have to make. I strongly support 
this amendment and urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think this issue has been aired really 
well. I do not have much to add and we are approaching a time when we 
could vote.
  The basic question we are debating is the degree to which the Federal 
Government should tell people whether or not they should wear seatbelts 
or whether or not they should have helmets when they drive motorcycles.
  Much of the debate today has centered around the number of 
fatalities, highway safety, and so forth. We all agree we want to 
minimize accidents on our highways. On the issue of the effect of 
wearing seatbelts and wearing helmets on safety and fatalities, my 
colleagues have voiced differences of opinion and cited various 
studies.
  Mr. President, I would like to draw a distinction between the Federal 
requirements to have seatbelt and helmet laws. There are 48 States that 
have seatbelt laws. I do not feel that all of these States passed these 
laws just because there has been a Federal requirement. States have 
enacted these seatbelt laws and fatalities and injuries have dropped. 
It makes sense to wear a seatbelt. And because 48 States have these 
laws, we should not disrupt the status quo. Seatbelts are part of 
American society now. Children today grow up knowing that it is right 
to buckle-up when they get into a car. It has become a part of our 
lives.
  However, only 25 States have passed helmet laws. Helmet laws are very 
controversial. It becomes more of an individual rights issue.
  I do not believe it makes sense for Congress to blackmail States into 
passing motorcycle helmet laws. That is a decision better left to the 
States. I know this is not an easy matter. Many of my colleagues do not 
agree with the State's rights argument.
  There is no debate here as to whether the Congress has the power to 
do this. Under the commerce clause, it is clear Congress has the power 
to require States to pass these laws. And if States do not, Congress 
has the power to withhold highway funds or say that a portion of 
highway funds should go to safety education programs.
  So the issue here is not whether the Congress has the power to do 
make these requirements. That is not the issue. The only issue question 
is should the Congress be involved in these decisions. Should the 
Congress tell the States to pass these laws. Or should Congress let the 
States decide on their own whether or not to pass these laws. Each of 
us is going to have to answer that question. We are 100 different 
Senators. We are bound to have different points of view on that issue.
  My view is that we should not repeal the Federal requirement for 
States to enact seatbelt laws.
  I would hope that if we were to adopt the Smith amendment, most 
States would keep their seatbelt laws and not repeal them.
  But the Federal requirement for helmets is different. As only 25 
States have these laws, there is obviously much more controversy 
attached to them. These difficult decisions can be made by the States.
  Now the pending amendment is the Smith amendment. It is my 
understanding that, if the Smith amendment is not adopted, the Senator 
from Maine is going to offer her amendment which would repeal only the 
helmet laws. If that amendment is not adopted, it is my understanding 
that the Senator from Colorado may offer his amendment which just 
requires States to have motorcycle education programs instead of 
motorcycle helmet use laws.
  I mention all of this because the sequence of amendments and the 
consequence of whether amendments are offered or not has a bearing on a 
Senator's position. The order of amendments is important if Senators 
have a different view on either seatbelt or helmet laws. If a Senator 
does not want to repeal both seatbelt and helmet requirements, or a 
Senator wants to only [[Page S 8669]] repeal the helmet requirements, 
the order of amendments is important. To close, I should also note that 
the State of Montana has had a referendum on seatbelts a few years ago. 
The people of Montana decided they wanted a seatbelt law. So let us 
focus on the helmet requirements.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Rhode Island would 
like to wrap this up. I have no objection to that if he chooses to seek 
unanimous consent to end the debate and have a vote momentarily. I want 
to make a couple of brief remarks. I think the Senator from Wyoming has 
a couple of remarks to make as well.
  I would just say to the Senator from Montana that we are not 
repealing seatbelts laws anyway. We are not repealing any seatbelt 
laws. We represent two States in the Union--Maine and New Hampshire--
who choose not to have seatbelt or helmet laws. All we are asking is 
the right for us to be able to do it our way, which is to improve 
safety, improve safety records, improve seatbelt and helmet use without 
the mandate which we are doing.
  So it is a misstatement to say that we are trying to repeal the 
seatbelt law in the other 48 States. You passed them. You can have 
them. That is perfectly all right with me. I am not repealing that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I understand that.
  If the Senator will yield for a question, if the Senator is 
successful, States which do not have helmet laws and seatbelt laws will 
not have to divert 1.5 percent of highway funds to safety education 
programs. Is that correct?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Also by 1996, under current law, it will double to 3 
percent.
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is providing in his amendment that States, if 
they do not have helmet or seatbelt laws, will receive the full 
complement of highway funding, and they would not have to direct that 
1.5 to 3 percent to the safety program.
  Mr. SMITH. That is correct. But I fail to understand the Senator's 
logic in saying that it is OK to mandate seatbelts and not OK to 
mandate helmets. What is the difference?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator let me repeat my argument?
  Mr. SMITH. If I could just briefly reclaim my time here, we could 
mandate that we lock all the doors in automobiles, too. I can envision 
State troopers roaring down the highway seeing the door lock up and 
immediately sending somebody over to the side of the road and citing 
with a ticket. We could mandate that we all wear foam rubber suits and 
helmets every day that we walk around so we do not hurt ourselves.
  The point is, Mr. President, in New Hampshire--I believe it is also 
true in Maine--we have safety programs, good safety programs.
  This is a chart which shows the counties in New Hampshire, the 10 
counties. Since 1984, we have improved--just picking one county off the 
top here, in 1984 there was a 24-percent seatbelt use in that county. 
Today it is 55 percent. There is no mandate. The point is we have good 
safety programs. We do not need another $800,000 for our safety 
programs. All we want is that $800,000 to be spent on repairing roads. 
It does not hurt Montana one bit. It does not do anything to Montana.
  We just want the right to be able to have this done in the ``Live 
Free or Die'' State without a mandate, without the Federal Government 
saying you have to wear a helmet. Why do we not wear helmets in cars? 
How about this? Will the Senators agree that we should wear helmets in 
cars? We could save a heck of a lot more people from head injuries in 
automobiles than on motorcycles. So we wear seatbelts in the car. If 
you wear a helmet in the car, you would save even more lives.
  The point is these mandates get ridiculous. The individuals have the 
right to essentially exercise the freedoms that they have as Americans.
  This is not an unreasonable amendment at all. To use the logic that 
somehow we are denying somebody else in the other 48 States--there are 
25 States here that are losing $97 million in moneys that they are 
entitled to to repair their highways. They are not getting it unless 
they decide to expand the safety program and spend money that they do 
not need because their safety programs are more than adequate. That is 
the whole stupidity of this Federal Government Washington-knows-best 
attitude.
  The issue, in conclusion, Mr. President--and I heard the Senator from 
Rhode Island talk about this. He said mandatory helmets have saved 
thousands of lives. Wrong. Helmets save lives. Mandating the helmets do 
not save lives. Wearing helmets save lives. It is not the mandate.
  So, you know, who makes the decision? That is the issue. Who is going 
to make the decision about wearing a helmet? The individual, the State, 
or Washington? It is no different than anything else in Medicaid, 
welfare, whatever, environmental laws. It is the same issue. Washington 
knows best. Therefore, nobody else knows anything. So we have the 
mandates.
  I ask unanimous consent in conclusion--even the USA Today, which is 
part of or a strong supporter of the conservative cause, says, ``States 
know what's best,'' and in their recent editorial of May 8, they 
indicated that we were right in what we are trying to do here on 
seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws.
  So I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record, Mr. 
President.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From USA Today, May 8, 1995]

                        States Know What's Best

       I-10 stretches hypnotically out of Tucson across the 
     desert. Yet the speed limit is the same as on I-64 as it 
     undulates through the mountains of eastern Kentucky.
       Any driver traveling those roads would recognize the 
     foolishness of the uniformity instantly. It exists only 
     because the federal government requires it.
       Common sense says those most familiar with the roads know 
     best. But that's not the way it's done. Technically, states 
     set the limits. But if they dare set them faster than 55 in 
     urban areas or 65 elsewhere, they face federal financial 
     penalties. So they go along.
       Seat-belt and motorcycle-helmet laws work much the same 
     way. Forty-eight states have belt laws, and 25 require all 
     riders to wear helmets. But if states don't pass both, they 
     must divert some of their highway funds to safety programs--
     even if the money could be used to prevent more accidents by 
     repairing dangerous bridges or roads.
       Now, there's a move afoot in Congress to remove the federal 
     shackles. A Senate subcommittee took the first step last 
     week. It voted to repeal the national speed-limit law and let 
     states set the limits without coercion from Washington.
       Auto safety advocates are up in arms. They look at a 
     highway fatality rate that fell from 5.2 per 100 million 
     miles traveled in 1968 to 1.8 in 1993, thanks in part to such 
     laws, and predict mayhem on the highway.
       But that's not likely.
       State officials can read statistics, too. They don't want 
     to be responsible for blood on the roads. They know polls 
     show public support for safety laws. Three states rejected 
     efforts to repeal belt laws last year, and two fought off 
     repeal of helmet laws.
       The argument today is not about whether seat-belt and 
     helmet laws save lives, whether excessive speed kills or 
     alcohol impairs the ability to drive. They do. The argument 
     is about who's better suited to balance safety against 
     sensible use of the roads.
       The answer is that the states are. They, not the feds, 
     already write the rules of the road, enforce vehicle and 
     traffic laws, and pay the bills.
       The proper federal role in auto safety lies elsewhere. Only 
     it can force automakers to build safe cars.
       Washington also is uniquely equipped to serve as a 
     clearinghouse for information about traffic convictions and 
     driving licenses--a role it now fills in cooperation with the 
     states--and it serves the country well by sponsoring safety 
     research.
       But when it comes to setting speed limits and requiring 
     seat belts, states belong in the driver's seat.
  Mr. SMITH. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
Governor of New Hampshire, which is 2 years old, which basically 
forecasts problems that would be coming up with this by having mandated 
laws--the Governor of New Hampshire was saying that New Hampshire 
voluntary seatbelt use had increased through education, and I ask 
unanimous consent that letter also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           State of New Hampshire,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Concord, NH, December 22, 1993.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: I would like to enlist your support in 
     opposing the diversion of highway funds under 23 U.S. Code 
     Section 153 which, under the present conditions, will occur 
     if the State of New Hampshire does not enact both mandatory 
     seat belt and motorcycle helmet use laws. [[Page S 8670]] 
       I am sure that you are well aware that New Hampshire has 
     made great progress in making our State's highways safer for 
     all who use them. In 1982, for example, 98 of 154 highway 
     fatalities, or 56.6%, were alcohol related. All of those 
     numbers have decreased significantly in the interim years to 
     a point where in 1992 only 30 of 123 fatalities, or 24.4%, 
     were alcohol related. This represents a 20% decrease in 
     highway fatalities, and the percentage of alcohol-related 
     fatalities has been reduced by more than one-half.
       New Hampshire's voluntary seat belt usage, which the 
     federal government would have us mandate, has risen from 
     16.06% in 1984 to 50.57% in 1993. For five consecutive years, 
     seat belt usage surveys in the State indicate that around 50% 
     of New Hampshire's motorists are buckling up. This has been 
     accomplished through public information programs and not 
     through any coercion of the motorist. This means that New 
     Hampshire has a nucleus of approximately 50% of its citizens 
     using their seat belts not because they are forced to, but 
     because they think it is the wise thing to do. Again, I am 
     sure you are aware this has been accomplished while during 
     the same time period (1982-1992) the number of drivers in the 
     state has increased by 26%, the number of registered vehicles 
     has increased by 49% and the population of the Granite State 
     has increased by 17%.
       The New Hampshire Legislature recognized the need for 
     improving motorcycle safety and a Motorcycle Rider Education 
     Program (RSA 263:34b) was enacted effective July 1, 1989. 
     Through 1993, 2,629 cyclists had completed this program, 
     which is entirely self-supported by fees attached to 
     motorcycle licenses and registrations. The following is an 
     interesting quote from the Highway & Vehicle/Safety Report of 
     May 17, 1993, which is published by Stamler Publishing 
     Company, 178 Thimble Islands Road, Branford, Connecticut:
       ``However, controversy surrounding mandatory use laws 
     (MULS) for motorcycle helmets emerged during the recent 
     hearing on ISTEA-related safety issues. Senator Ben 
     Nighthorse Campbell, D-CO---himself a motorcyclist--said 
     ISTEA's `mandatory section simply is not working'. No helmet 
     laws were passed in the last six months, leaving 25 states 
     without ISTEA's Section 153, which requires the transfer of 
     some highway funds to safety programs for states that do not 
     enact helmet laws by this fall. He claimed that non-MULS 
     states have 33% lower accident rates than those with MULS 
     crediting voluntary helmet use and rider education 
     programs.''
       Any assistance you can provide to prevent this federal 
     intrusion into our State's highway safety efforts would be 
     greatly appreciated.
           Very true yours,
                                                  Stephen Merrill,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I will at this 
point ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I may just engage in a bit of 
a colloquy here with my distinguished colleague. But I see the 
distinguished chairman of the committee. Does the chairman wish to 
address the Senate on a procedural matter?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to see if we can allocate 
time out to those who want to speak so we can let our colleagues know 
about when we are voting.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I might make a suggestion, if the Senator will yield, 
that is we have a vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from New 
Hampshire by 5 o'clock, the time equally divided.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The only thing is, I am not sure how much time people 
will want. The Senator from New Jersey would like how much?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from New Jersey would like probably 
around 10 minutes, maybe an extended 10.
  Mr. CHAFEE. How about 10? Let us just work this out and see how we 
are doing.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will tell the Senator this. I would not agree at 
this moment to a unanimous consent agreement that cuts off debate. I 
have stayed here, in all fairness, and listened to the debate from the 
other side, and I think there are people in opposition to it.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We are not going to cut anybody off. Let us say 10 
minutes, and if the Senator wants more he can take more.
  The Senator from Montana, the ranking Member, wants no more time. The 
Senator from Virginia, how much?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would be agreeable to maybe 6 or 7 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Let us say 7 minutes. The Senator from Wyoming, how much 
time would he like?
  The Senator from Ohio?
  Mr. DeWINE. Ten minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. All right, 10. So there is 20, plus 6, or 26 minutes. The 
Senator from Maine?
  Does the Senator from New Hampshire want some time?
  The Senator from Colorado?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Perhaps 5 minutes to wind up.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Five minutes. Well, I think, due to the point the Senator 
from New Jersey made, we cannot get a time certain to vote. But I can 
say to our colleagues who are listening, it looks as if we will vote 
about 10 past 5. That is not a certain time but just about then. If 
people could stick fairly close to the times that they took, that would 
be helpful. We have not forestalled anybody from coming. If somebody 
else shows up, they have a right to speak. This is not an agreement 
that has been reached, but perhaps it is an indication how much time we 
will take.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a very important issue. I commend 
our distinguished chairman. It is an issue that is held very deeply by 
a number of Members in the Senate, and I think we have had an excellent 
debate. I commend the distinguished chairman. I happen to align myself 
with the viewpoints that he has. I would like to just pose a question 
to my friend from New Hampshire.
  Members of my family are motorcycle folks and from time to time I 
attend the rallies. There was a rally that I attended not more than 6 
weeks ago down in the area of Hampton, VA. I have never seen a more 
orderly or more wonderful assemblage of motorcycle individuals. They 
know that I am not in favor of repealing the helmets, but there was not 
a person there who did not treat me with complete dignity and respect. 
Argue and debate with me, that they did. It is interesting; their motto 
is ``Let the riders decide.''
  We in our State of Virginia rank ourselves second to no State in this 
Union with respect to independence and individual freedom. But the 
question I pose to my good friend is as follows. Our State, in 1971, 
enacted both a seatbelt and a helmet law. This chart is down now, but 
we had the option presumably to repeal those laws at the time the 
Federal law was repealed, but we did not do it because the then 
Governor and others, the general assembly, felt it was in the interest 
of the State to keep it on, so it is still on today. It is primarily 
for that reason, that there has been a consistency of viewpoints of the 
people of Virginia on these two issues, that I support them, in 
addition to my own personal feelings. So I feel that I am correctly 
representing the State.
  But our drivers, knowing that there is a seatbelt law and a helmet 
law, as they drive in our State, I think they have a certain feeling of 
personal security because there is a correlation between wearing 
seatbelts and surviving an accident. We all know that. The safety 
statistics show that. But as they venture into other States, 
particularly as it relates to seatbelts, should there not be the use of 
seatbelts in those States as we have in ours, are they not taking some 
personal risk?
  Mr. SMITH. Are people who drive in other States without the mandate 
taking personal risk; is that the Senator's question?
  Mr. WARNER. Let us say in other States where there is an absence of 
law, State and Federal, seatbelts are not required, and they follow the 
maxim ``Let the riders decide,'' and there is a high percentage of use 
of motor vehicles without the use of seatbelts. Is there not some 
personal risk to those who travel from their State into another State 
and there is no seatbelt law?
  Mr. SMITH. I just say to the Senator, we do not have, as he well 
knows, a seatbelt law in New Hampshire and our seatbelt use has 
increased almost 40 percent since 1984 through education and training.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I saw those statistics. My good friend 
shared the statistics with me. But we also [[Page S 8671]] know as a 
fact that absent a Federal law, the State legislatures come under 
tremendous pressure to repeal those laws.
  Mr. SMITH. We are not asking you to repeal those laws.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand that. But as drivers from States that are 
used to the seatbelt laws move about the United States into other 
States that do not have them and there is likely to be a higher 
percentage of the nonuse of seatbelts, that concerns me from a safety 
standpoint. I just say to my good friend, that is an added reason, and 
a strong one, why I support the position taken by the distinguished 
chairman and also will oppose the Senator's amendment.
  I see the distinguished majority leader present.
  Mr. SMITH. May I take 10 seconds just to say to the Senator, it 
sounds to me as if the Senator from Virginia is advocating a national 
helmet and seatbelt law rather than a State law, based on the comments 
that the Senator made, if the Senator is worried about going from one 
State to another. The point is, I think it is not that. It is a 
question of who makes the decision, and I do not think the Federal 
Government needs to make it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Smith amendment 
to eliminate Federal mandatory motorcycle helmet requirements and 
seatbelt requirements.
  I want to say something at this moment that I said earlier in the 
debate on a couple of amendments, and that is that though I may differ 
with colleagues on the floor as to the application of law, I do not 
differ with them on their interests in saving lives and protecting 
their citizens. I want to make that clear, because though I think they 
are wrong, I do not think they intentionally want anybody to be hurt as 
a result of it. I would like to point out why I think their logic on 
the amendment is entirely antithetical to protecting life, limb and 
property.
  Mr. President, I have heard so many arguments on the floor here, and 
many of them revolve around whether or not we are discussing life, 
health, safety, and I heard the Senator from Maine before say, ``No,'' 
in response to the Senator from New Hampshire, ``No, that is not the 
issue, what we are talking about is States rights.''
  I do not understand that because people's lives and well-being are 
involved. Are we discussing process or are we discussing reality? Are 
we discussing the penalty that is paid for the lack of helmet use on 
motorcycles?
  Even though I am not a resident of New Hampshire or Maine I have a 
deep interest in what goes on with people in our entire society.
  The facts are that helmet use reduces fatality rates and severity of 
injury. Universal helmet rates increase helmet use and reduce deaths, 
and the public bears higher costs for nonhelmeted riders when they are 
crash victims.
  In 1975, 47 States had motorcycle helmet laws covering all riders. In 
1976, the Highway Safety Act was amended to remove the Federal helmet 
requirements. After the act was changed, 27 States, which contained 36 
percent of the American population, either repealed or seriously 
weakened their helmet laws. In the 5 years that followed, motorcycle 
fatalities increased 61 percent, while motorcycle registrations 
increased only 15 percent.
  When Colorado repealed its mandatory helmet use in 1977, its 
motorcycle fatality rate increased 29 percent. Conversely, States that 
have passed mandatory helmet laws since 1989 have seen a significant 
reduction in their motorcycle fatality rate when compared to the 
motorcycle fatality rate in their State before passage of the law.
  In Oregon, there was a 33 percent reduction in motorcycle fatalities 
the year after its mandatory helmet law was reenacted. California 
experienced a 36-percent reduction when its law went into effect. In 
total, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, 
estimated that 600 riders a year are saved as a result of motorcycle 
helmet use.
  More than 80 percent of all motorcycle crashes result in injury or 
death to the motorcyclist. Head injury is the leading cause of death in 
motorcycle crashes. Compared to a helmeted rider, an unhelmeted rider 
is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury and 15 percent 
more likely to incur a head injury when involved in a crash.
  At my request, one of the leading trauma hospitals in my State 
reviewed its data on motorcycle accidents over the last 3 years. 
According to the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 
located in Newark, the deaths for motorcycle accident patients that 
entered their hospital was 11.5 percent, and this compared with only a 
7.5 percent death rate for seriously injured automobile and truck 
accident patients, even though the absolute number of car and truck 
victims was far fewer than the motorcycle accident victims.
  The failure of the motorcyclists to use helmets also has placed a 
huge financial burden on society. NHTSA estimates that the use of 
helmets saved $5.9 billion between 1984 and 1992. Repeal of mandatory 
helmet requirements would increase the death rate for motorcycle riders 
by 391 people per year and would increase costs to society by $380 
million a year.
  In these days when we are discussing skimpier budgets I do not 
understand what it is that makes a Federal mandate so onerous that we 
all ought to pay extra funds for taking care of hapless victims of 
motorcycle accidents.
  When motorcyclists say they want Government off their backs and they 
want to ride bareheaded against the world, it is important to realize 
that there is a bill that has to be footed.
  Now, I know that each of my friends here on the floor has not 
dissimilar experiences to me and you have visited hospital trauma wards 
and seen what happens with motorcycle riders who are involved in 
crashes.
  I have seen many in my State. The most serious of injuries. My State 
is no different than any other. We are a little more crowded, but we 
are normal people just like anybody else.
  The most serious injuries are those incurred by motorcyclists, often 
paraplegics or quadriplegics. There is nothing worse for a family to 
endure--nothing worse--than to see a child or a family member wind up a 
paraplegic. But it happens, and motorcyclists do have a different risk 
than automobiles.
  We cannot use helmets, as was suggested. We do not need them in 
automobiles because we have roofs, we have roll bars, we have airbags, 
we have seatbelts. We have all kinds of devices to protect the driver 
and the occupants. That is why we continue to see declines in fatality 
and injury rates in automobiles, despite increasing traffic.
  This amendment also eliminates federal seatbelt requirements, I find 
it amazing. Seatbelt use reduces the risk of a fatal or serious injury 
by 40 percent down to 55 percent--that much of a difference, Mr. 
President, 40 to 55 percent.
  National seatbelt rates have gone from 13 percent in 1982 to 67 
percent in 1994. Four States now have these laws. We, as a country, 
still travel virtually every developed nation in the world in 
seatbelts.
  In those States with seatbelt laws, use rates average 67 percent. 
With strong enforcement and extensive public education, some States 
have been able to reach the use rate of 80 percent. Use of safety belts 
saved more than 40,000 lives and prevented more than 1 million injuries 
from 1983 to 1993. It saved $88 billion. Each year, safety belt use 
prevents an estimated 5,500 deaths and nearly 140,000 injuries. It 
saves taxpayers more than $12 billion annually.
  Mr. President, 76 percent of Americans oppose weakening or repealing 
safety belt laws, and 61.9 percent believe doing so will place a 
greater burden on taxpayers. I get that information from the Advocates 
for Highway Auto Safety, who prepared that data.
  We see all kinds of savings of lives and savings of injuries as we 
encourage helmet use, as we encourage seatbelt use.
  I know one thing that saved a lot of lives--young lives--was the 
mandatory drinking age, at age 21. That law was written in 1984, and 
since that time we have saved more than 14,000 youngsters from dying on 
the highways. It is a good law. It also is under attack, not at the 
moment, but it is under attack.
  We have heard it from the House that there are Members, one from 
Wisconsin, who want to eliminate the 21 drinking age bill, as well as 
seatbelts, as well as speed limits, as well as motorcycle helmets. He 
would eliminate [[Page S 8672]] all those things because it is a matter 
of pride and States rights.
  Who foots the bills? Every citizen in America pays the bills for 
these removals. I will resist it, and I hope that this Senate will 
resist it.
  What I have heard is that this State or that State stands to lose 
money. For heaven's sake. How about the lives that they lose if they do 
not have the laws in place or have the requirements in place? Talk 
about mandates, mandates saving lives, saving injuries, saving the 
health and well-being of their citizens. Is that such an onerous 
burden, that we will take away these protections that we have developed 
over a long period of time?
  When it comes to the statistics, we hear them kicked around here 
pretty good. We hear about the reduction in fatalities or injuries in 
this place; then I hear just recited the number of injuries, 
fatalities, and destruction of property in another place. The question 
is, are we comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges? I am not 
sure.
  Mr. President, I hear the words, I listen to the debate. Frankly, I 
do not understand what it is we are trying to do here. I think we ought 
to hold fast to the laws that have been developed.
  So I think the argument is bogus. I think the States rights argument 
is hollow when it comes to saving lives and reducing injuries and 
reducing costs.
  I hope, Mr. President, that we will be able to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of 
motorcycle helmet laws just referred to by my colleague from New 
Jersey. Senator Snowe apparently plans to offer her amendment at a 
later time to the legislation, an amendment to repeal the penalties 
levied under section 153 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act [ISTEA] on the States that do not impose mandatory 
helmet use by motorcyclists.
  I find the statement just made somewhat ironic: What about all of the 
fatalities suffered by those who ride motorcycles, what about the loss 
of a limb, the serious accidents, the productivity losses attributable 
to accidents?
  It would seem to me that States would have an equal interest. States 
are not immune to concern for their citizens. Why is it that one-half 
of all the States in this country do not have mandatory helmet laws? 
They have a vested interest in keeping Medicaid expenses from being 
excessive and going up. They have an interest in not having their 
citizens become paraplegics. They have an interest, it seems to me, in 
helping to protect their citizens' lives.
  Why is it that they have refused to impose helmet laws? I think it is 
because there is a division of opinion on the issue of helmet laws. 
With regard to safety belts, there seems to be a general consensus that 
they do, in fact, help reduce fatalities and the severity of injuries 
in serious accidents. But there still is dispute with respect to 
motorcycle accidents and helmets.
  Between 1980 and 1993, motorcycle accidents and fatalities declined 
by some 53 percent each, Mr. President. Now, these downward trends in 
accidents and fatalities were well underway before we passed ISTEA and 
section 153 in 1991.
  So the decline in the accidents and the fatalities cannot be 
attributed to the passage of a law in 1991.
  Mr. CHAFEE. May I make a point?
  Mr. COHEN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is important to remember that many States had passed 
the mandatory helmet law previous to 1993; in other words, in 1991 and 
1992: Texas, Florida, North Carolina, California, New York, and so 
forth.
  Mr. COHEN. If that were the case, then it seems to me that the States 
which had the mandatory helmet laws would have the best safety records. 
But that, I think, as Senator Snowe has clearly pointed out, does not 
seem to be borne out by the facts.
  We would assume those who have the mandatory helmet laws have the 
best records. In fact, over one half of the States with the lowest 
fatality rates per 100 accidents over the past several years have not 
had helmet laws.
  Even though Texas, California, and other States have mandatory helmet 
laws, we cannot draw a causal connection in this case, because Maine, 
which does not have a mandatory helmet law, had the second lowest 
fatality rate in the country in 1993, which is the last year for which 
statistics are available.
  I think a lot of it is due to the fact that we have safety education 
programs. Senator Snowe has talked at length about this, but back in 
1991, Maine started requiring all applicants for a motorcycle learner's 
permit to take an 8-hour safety course. Anyone who offers the safety 
instruction must be certified by the State.
  Senator Snowe has talked about the United Bikers of Maine [UBM]. UBM 
members have taken the lead in developing and offering the safety 
course to beginners. They have augmented it with a road training 
course, which most beginners take, although the State does not require 
it.
 Now, the UBM offers refresher and advanced safety courses and road 
training for experienced riders, as well. So I think what we have in 
Maine is a very serious education program and, as a result of that 
program, we have seen fatalities drop.

  In 1991 we had 30 motorcycle fatality accidents. In 1992, the number 
dropped to 21. In 1993, fatalities declined to 10. We had the second 
lowest fatality rate per 100 motorcycle accidents in 1993. It is due, 
in my judgment, to motorcycle safety training, these courses that are 
being conducted.
  I have met with the UBM members on a number of occasions, I must tell 
you, both here in Washington and back home. I would say I have been 
struck, as I know my junior colleague has, by the seriousness with 
which they approach motorcycle riding. These are serious-minded men and 
women who take what they are about very, very seriously. They have 
taken the leadership role in our State to ensure that concomitant with 
motorcyclists' freedom to ride without a helmet is the responsibility 
to ride safely.
  They have pointed out that there is great division within their own 
membership. Many of the members wear motorcycle helmets all on their 
own. They are not required to do so. They wear them. But there are 
others who maintain that wearing a helmet obscures their vision, it 
obscures their hearing, it produces fatigue and whiplash, and induces a 
false sense of security, especially among younger, less experienced 
riders.
  You can debate that. They are out riding. You and I are not out there 
on the bikes riding every day. Were I to do so, in all likelihood I 
would probably wear a helmet. But I must defer to those who ride on a 
regular basis, since there is a division of opinion on this.
  If we look at the record, the record would seem to indicate that 
Maine does all right. Maine does all right by any standard. The 
question is, Why is it necessary now for the Federal Government to 
mandate that Maine impose a mandatory helmet law or divert funds 
necessary for road repair and maintenance to a safety programs that is 
sufficiently self-financed by motorcyclists already? Why are we going 
to penalize the State of Maine? Maine needs all of the money it 
receives to address a growing backlog of road repair, maintenance and 
improvement projects, a backlog that threatens all motorists. We want 
to penalize the State in order to force its compliance with this law, 
when the State is making pretty good progress all on its own? The State 
of Maine is doing all right in terms of its safety programs.
  So I intend to support the Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, when 
she offers her amendment later today or tomorrow, because I believe the 
States feel an obligation to look after their citizens. Many of them 
feel the same commitment to safety as we do here in Washington. It 
would seem to me Senator Snowe makes a valid point when she talks about 
what the elections of last November revealed. Many people feel that we 
in Washington intrude too frequently upon decisions that they feel they 
can make at the local or State level just as adequately or better than 
we can.
  So when she offers her amendment, I intend to support it at that 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. I understand the philosophical argument, the States rights 
argument that [[Page S 8673]] has been made on this floor. I think it 
has, certainly, some validity. It's a philosophical argument. It is an 
argument about what the Federal Government should do and what the 
States should do.
  But as I concede to the other side on this issue, I hope they would 
also understand that does not tell the full story. This is not an 
abstract debate about States rights. As I said this morning in the 
debate, what we do in this Chamber has consequences. There is no 
greater example than what we are about today. There will be 
consequences, and they are not just philosophical. They are not just 
abstract. They are practical, life and death consequences based on what 
we do today.
  So let us not just say it is a philosophical debate and you are 
either for States rights or you are against States rights. I do not 
think too many people would look at my record over the years and say I 
am against the States. I spent over half of my career at the county 
level and State level, not here in Washington. But I think this debate 
is about a lot more than just philosophy and a lot more than just 
States rights. I think it is about lives.
  We debated earlier today my amendment and the amendment of Senator 
Lautenberg that we offered to deal with speed. We lost that amendment.
  Basically what this Senate said, what the will of the Senate was this 
morning--and I certainly respect that--is the Federal Government is 
going to back off. The green light is out. We no longer have any 
national interest in the issue of speed on interstate highways. I 
respect that. I disagree with the decision by the Senate, but I 
certainly respect that.
  Now we are back on the floor with an amendment that says the Federal 
Government has no interest, we have no interest as a nation, in the 
issue of seatbelts. I really cannot believe we are here talking about 
this.
  I was not going to become involved in this debate. I thought enough 
this morning was enough. But as I listened to the debate on the floor, 
I frankly felt compelled to come over here and talk, and talk about an 
issue I feel very, very deeply about. Do we really want the legacy, or 
one of the legacies of this Congress, of this Senate, to be for the 
first time in years we will say we do not care about seatbelts, who 
wears them and who does not? We do not care about speed? I think that 
would be a sorry legacy for this Congress. It may occur, but it will 
not occur with this Senator's vote.
  I mentioned I have spent over half of my career at the county level 
and State level. One of my elected positions over the last 20 years was 
as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Ohio. My job as Lieutenant 
Governor was to oversee our anticrime and our antidrug efforts. I had 
at various times five or six different agencies that reported directly 
to me on behalf of the Governor. One of the departments that reported 
directly to me was the department of highway safety. So I have been 
intimately involved with this issue over the last 4 years. Prior to 
that time I was a State senator in Ohio. I wrote our drunk driving law. 
So I have lived with this.
  We used to say, when we went around and talked about highway safety 
when I was Lieutenant Governor and when we tried to institute 
programs--we used to say there were three things that caused auto 
fatalities. This was kind of an oversimplification, but I think it did 
not miss it by far. There were three things: use of seatbelts, drinking 
and driving, and speeding. You can just about categorize every single 
auto fatality into one of those categories. So, if you are trying to 
cut down on auto fatalities, you have to deal with those three issues.
  We have already said we do not care about the issue of speed. Now we 
are preparing, possibly, to say we do not care about the issue of 
seatbelts. I think that would be a tragic mistake.
  I understand that my colleagues, for whom I have a great deal of 
respect, the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Maine --their 
argument is really that is not what we are saying. We are not, by this 
action today, repealing any seatbelt law. We are not by this action 
today repealing any speed laws. Mr. President, that is technically 
true. That is true. But that does not tell the entire story, and I 
think it misleads a little bit to only say that, because I think we 
know what the consequences of our actions are.
  Is there anyone in this Chamber who believes that virtually every 
State in the Union would have passed seatbelt laws when they did but 
for the action of the National Congress? I do not think anybody here 
would claim that. Just as I do not think there is anybody here who 
would stand up here with a straight face and say that with the action 
we took this morning, the action we may take this afternoon, the action 
with speed, the action with seatbelts, that some States will not change 
what they are doing. They clearly will. We will have a retrenchment. We 
will have a retrenchment in two areas that every expert that I have 
ever heard from, anybody I have ever talked to who knows anything about 
this issue, has said: These are key--speed, seatbelts--you will save 
lives. Cut down the speed and if people wear seatbelts, you will save 
lives.
  I have yet to hear in the debate today anybody come up and cite an 
expert who says that is wrong. So I think this would be a sad legacy 
for this Congress. I think for those who say it is a philosophical 
debate, I again emphasize it is more than a philosophical debate. It is 
a question of lives.
  For those who say we are really not repealing the speed limit, we are 
really not repealing seat belt laws--yes, that is technically true. 
But, no, it does not tell the full story.
  So the action we take today will affect lives. As I said this morning 
when we talked about speed--and I will say the same thing again about 
seatbelts--if you have less use of seatbelts, if you have higher speed, 
more people will die. And that is the natural consequence of what we 
appear to be about ready to do.
  So, I will in a moment yield the floor. But I believe this is a 
debate of great significance. I have been a States rights supporter for 
years. I do not think anyone would look at my record and argue with 
that. But that is not the entire debate today. The entire debate today 
has to look at what works and what does not work; what makes a 
difference and what does not make a difference. Let me say the evidence 
is absolutely overwhelming, the jury has returned. The jury is back. 
Seatbelt use makes a difference, and that is why I oppose the amendment 
of my colleague, Senator Smith.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Brown as a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would just like to take about a minute or 
two to conclude here, to say I listened very closely to my colleague 
from Ohio. We are not opposed to the use of seatbelts. This amendment 
does not preclude the State of Ohio or any other State from having 
seatbelts.
  Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield on that?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. DeWINE. Does the Senator believe this amendment--I do not think 
he would have offered the amendment, though, if he did not think there 
would be some consequence to it? That there would be a change by the 
States?
  Mr. SMITH. There is no change.
  Mr. DeWINE. I am sorry?
  Mr. SMITH. I say to my colleague----
  Mr. DeWINE. The States will take no--no actions will be changed at 
all?
  Mr. SMITH. No, nothing. Nothing. We are simply asking that States 
like Maine and New Hampshire that choose not to have mandatory seatbelt 
laws and/or helmet laws, in this case Maine and New Hampshire, 
mandatory helmet or seatbelt--we are simply asking that we not be 
penalized and be told to spend additional dollars on safety programs 
that we are already spending dollars on. We would rather use that money 
for highways to save lives.
  Mr. DeWINE. If the Senator will continue to yield for just a moment?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. DeWINE. I understand his position. But does the Senator believe, 
though, that with the other 48 States there will not be some change? 
Just as there will be change in action in regard to the speed?
  This is not just a philosophical debate. This is a practical debate 
for your [[Page S 8674]] State but it is also a practical debate for 
the other 48 States as well.
  I cannot believe that this amendment will not lessen the use of 
seatbelts or at least the laws on the books, just as the debate this 
morning on the bill, the way it is written, will not--some States will 
not change speed limits?
  I mean, the amendment would not have been offered this morning or the 
bill would not have been written this way if people did not think that 
was true. So I mean it is not just a philosophical debate. It has 
consequences, it seems to me.
  Mr. SMITH. The point is the amendment which I have written in 
conjunction with others is not to punish anyone. It is the opposite. It 
is to stop punishing. The State of Ohio, for example, was penalized 
over $9 million because the Senator's State does not have a helmet law.
  Mr. DeWINE. That is right.
  Mr. SMITH. And my point on that is it does not matter to me whether 
Ohio has a helmet law or not. That is up to Ohio. It is not up to 
Washington. So if Ohio chooses not to have a helmet law but chooses to 
spend a lot of money in safety to enhance and to educate people to wear 
helmets, I would like them to have that $9 million to spend on the 
highways in Ohio, to repair bridges, potholes, and other things in 
Ohio, because that is the State's decision. That is all my amendment 
does. It does not stop Ohio from having seatbelts. It does not stop 
Ohio from getting money for having seatbelt laws or educating people to 
wear them or not wear them--not at all.
  Mr. DeWINE. If the Senator will yield, I was directly involved in the 
spending of that $9 million. That money was, in fact, as the Senator 
can tell by the legislation, used on highway safety issues. Many people 
in Ohio were very upset about that, obviously, and have been upset 
about it.
  My only point in asking the question is a statement was made, 
basically, we are not telling anybody what to do. I understand that. My 
only point though is that there are consequences to what we do. There 
are consequences to what we do not do.
  My point is pretty simple. My point is that there will be a change in 
the use of seatbelts. There will be a change in what States do, just as 
there will be a change in regard to when we took the red light off and 
put the green light on this morning on speed limits. We are going to 
see a change. Because you will see that change, there will be other 
changes, and the other changes, I believe--the evidence is absolutely 
overwhelming--means that more people are going to die. There is no 
doubt about it.
  Mr. SMITH. Does the Senator from Ohio believe that his decision 
should take precedence over the Governor of Ohio, or the Lieutenant 
Governor?
  Mr. DeWINE. I have not talked to the Governor about this issue.
  Mr. SMITH. I have not either. But my point is these are decisions 
that ought to be made at the State and the individual level. Let me 
give an example, because the Senator asked about the record.
  In New Hampshire--I am not sure the Senator was here on the floor at 
the time this was discussed--in 1984, 16 percent of the people in New 
Hampshire, according to statistics that we had at the time, used 
seatbelts. Without a mandate, with spending money on safety programs, 
we now have about 55 percent of our people in the State of New 
Hampshire using seatbelts. There was no Federal mandate. I would be 
willing to bet you that in the next 10 years, that number will increase 
even more because we are spending money on education programs. But if I 
said to you, you need to build a fence between your neighbor's yard and 
your yard, and it is going to take five post holes, if I said to you, 
``You have to dig a sixth post hole or you don't get the money for the 
fence,'' what is the point of digging the sixth post hole? You need the 
fence, you need the money for the fence, but you do not need the extra 
post hole. That is all we are doing here.
  You are simply mandating the State of New Hampshire and the State of 
Maine and other States who do not have the one law or the other to 
spend money where they do not want to spend money, where they are 
spending enough money, and they simply want to put that money somewhere 
else. That is the issue.
  Mr. DeWINE. If the Senator will yield one last time, the Senator has 
been very generous with his time because I realize he has the floor. I 
just believe all those Senators were eloquent on the issue that we have 
come so far in this country in reducing fatalities, we have done it in 
many ways--with seatbelts, airbags, with better designed highways and 
cars. We have come a long way. I do not see how this debate can totally 
be viewed as a States rights debate. To me, yes, it is partially a 
States rights debate. I happen to have some feelings about that in 
regard to the Interstate Highway System that we build with the tax 
dollars. It is an Interstate System in interstate commerce. Clearly, 
Congress can have some uniformity in this area. That is really not my 
point.
  My main point is we have come a long, long way in trying to save 
lives. I think we are turning the clock back with what we did this 
morning, and what we may do in a moment, if we pass the Senator's 
amendment. We would be turning the clock back, having sent the wrong 
signal. I think it is moving in the wrong direction, and I think it is 
ill-advised.
  I respect the Senator's position. I will yield back to him at this 
point.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator. Let me finish on this point.
  I am certainly not interested in rolling back the clock on highway 
safety or on saving lives. My amendment does not do that. I just point 
out to my colleagues that of the 10 safest States in which you ride a 
motorcycle, 7 do not require a mandatory helmet use for adults. In New 
Hampshire, which does not have mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws, it 
has been ranked as one of the five States with the best highway safety 
record in the Nation on a per capita basis.
  So I do not think the connection is there. It is not an issue of 
whether we want to save lives or not. No one is even hinting that we 
are not interested in saving lives. I hope the people look at the 
amendment for what it says, and not what the emotions of the argument 
are. But look at the facts, and the facts are do not punish anybody. We 
simply ask that we be allowed to receive the funds that we are entitled 
to and to spend it on repairing highways so that we can have safer 
highways in the State of New Hampshire and the State of Maine and the 
State of Tennessee, and every other State, and not be penalized by 
forcing us to either spend money for something we do not need to spend 
it on, or not getting it to spend it all.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from 
Ohio because I think he put his finger right on the point. It is not 
that nobody wants to have more highway deaths. It is not that anybody 
wants to see more people terribly injured. But the facts are that, if 
this bill passes, the States will be under tremendous pressure, just as 
they were in 1976 after 10 years of experience with the mandatory law--
the mandatory law was repealed in 1976--and 27 States repealed the laws 
they had dealing with mandatory seatbelts and helmets.
  It follows as night follows day. It is not the intention of the 
Senator from New Hampshire, but that is what is going to happen as sure 
as we are standing here.
  So, therefore, a vote for the amendment of the Senator from New 
Hampshire, inadvertent though it might be in his judgment, is clearly 
going to result in increased deaths on motorcycles and in automobiles 
in our country. The statistics show it. There is no difference between 
what we are doing here than what took place in the 10-year period from 
1966 to 1976. Sometimes, you learn from experience. This is clearly a 
case where we can learn from experience.
  I know the Senator feels that in his State--and the Senator from 
Maine and some other States--they ought to have the privilege to do 
what they want. But I think we have some responsibilities as Senators. 
Yes, it is a financial drain on us and our Nation if we do not pass 
this law. I do not think there is any debate about that; that is, if we 
do not maintain the laws dealing with seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.
  We had testimony. Just talk to anybody, to any physician who serves 
in an emergency room, for example. They all [[Page S 8675]] will tell 
you that absent seatbelts, accidents are 10 times more grievous. It is 
the same with helmets.
  It is so ironic that the motorcyclists will campaign to get rid of 
mandatory motorcycle helmet use, and yet in their meets, in their 
sanctioned meets, they will require it. They require the use of a 
helmet. But for us to impose it--it is all right for them to do it in 
their meets, but if we say you have to have such a law or you lose some 
money, obviously an inducement to pass a law, somehow we are infringing 
on their freedoms.
  Mr. President, there are various bills that come through here which 
we all vote on at different times. I suppose so far this year maybe we 
have had, I do not know, 100 rollcall votes, or something like that. 
Sometimes we vote on bills, and, ``Oh, well. It could go this way or 
that way. We don't have much deep feeling about it.'' But I tell you, I 
have a very deep feeling about this legislation. I think we would be 
making a terrible mistake if we approved the amendment that we are 
going to vote on in a few minutes.
  I know the Senator from Colorado wanted to speak.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. To shorten the debate, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
New Hampshire. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, 
and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and 
the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Washington [Mrs. Murray], would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 271 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Dole
     Domenici
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coats
     Inouye
     Murray
  So the amendment (No. 1437) was rejected.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1438

    (Purpose: To prohibit the funding of new highway demonstration 
                               projects)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Feingold, and Mr. Smith, proposes an amendment numbered 1438.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . PROHIBITION ON NEW HIGHWAY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other law, neither the 
     Secretary of Transportation nor any other officer or employee 
     of the United States may make funds available for obligation 
     to carry out any demonstration project described in 
     subsection (b) that has not been authorized, or for which no 
     funds have been made available, as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Projects.--Subsection (a) applies to a demonstration 
     project or program that the Secretary of Transportation 
     determines--
       (1)(A) concerns a State-specific highway project or 
     research or development in a specific State; or
       (B) is otherwise comparable to a demonstration project or 
     project of national significance authorized under any of 
     sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 
     105 Stat. 2027); and
       (2) does not concern a federally owned highway.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to explain the amendment. I 
apologize to the Senator from Maine if there was a misunderstanding on 
the sequence.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I offer, along with Senators 
Feingold and Smith, would prohibit the use of highway funds for 
future--and I emphasize ``future''--demonstration projects which have 
not already been authorized or started upon the date of enactment of 
this measure. Let me say it again. No demonstration project now 
authorized for which money has been appropriated will be affected by 
this amendment.
  The amendment states that Congress will approve no new highway 
demonstration projects. This is strongly supported by the National 
Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste, two 
organizations which exert a great amount of energy trying to reduce 
wasteful spending.
  The problems associated with diverting Highway Trust Fund money to 
pay for congressionally earmarked highway projects are well documented 
and have been debated before. But, regrettably, the practice of taking 
taxpayer dollars that would otherwise be allotted to the States fairly 
for their priorities, so that Members can fund hometown projects--
projects which may have absolutely nothing to do with the States' 
transportation problems--continues, and it demands our attention. Over 
the last 2 fiscal years, Congress has earmarked more than $2.7 billion 
for highway demonstration projects in select States--that is $2.7 
billion which could have and should have been distributed to all States 
on a fair and equitable basis.
  The President's budget request recommends the cancellation of these 
so-called demonstration projects. As stated in the President's budget:

       Such projects have been earmarked in congressional 
     authorization and appropriations laws. These projects limit 
     the ability of the States to make choices on how to best use 
     limited dollars to respond to their highest priorities.

  Vice President Gore has also raised serious concerns about these so-
called demonstration projects. As he stated in Reinventing Government:

       GAO also discovered that 10 projects--worth $31 million in 
     demonstration funds--were for local roads not even entitled 
     to receive Federal highway funding. In other words, many 
     highway demonstration projects are little more than Federal 
     pork.

  The Reinventing Government report went on to say:

       Looking specifically at the $1.3 billion authorized to fund 
     152 projects under the 1987 Surface Transportation and 
     Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act, GAO found that ``most 
     of the projects . . . did not respond to States' and regions' 
     most critical Federal aid needs.

  Unfortunately, Congress continues to avail itself of its most favored 
projects. The amendment I am offering does not go as far as the 
President's recommendation. It would not cancel any current highway 
demonstration projects or projects which have been authorized. It would 
only prohibit future demonstration projects.
  Now, Mr. President, I want to be clear. I have tried before to kill 
these things. I have tried to get rid of them. I have had amendment 
after amendment to try to stop these. I am aware if I try to stop 
projects that have already been authorized and appropriated, I would 
fail. But I appeal to [[Page S 8676]] the good sense and decency of my 
colleagues to at least stop this in the future. That is what this 
amendment is all about.
  I am not asking the Senate to go as far as last year's amendment. I 
realize that Members from States with projects in the pipeline find it 
very hard to vote for cuts. I am only asking that we state clearly that 
earmarking is not how Congress will do business in the future.
  Mr. President, I recently asked the Federal Highway Administration to 
calculate, by State, the amount of highway funds which have been 
earmarked over the last 2 fiscal years and to identify how this money 
would have been distributed if subject to the normal highway allocation 
formula. The results are hardly surprising. Thirty-three States 
received less money because of the earmarks. The taxpayers of these 33 
States, who sent their money to Washington in the form of taxes, did 
not get an equitable amount in return because of the inequitable 
practice of earmarking highway demonstration projects.
  Listed here are the 33 States which have been shortchanged. That word 
``demo'' here has no reference to political party. It means 
demonstration projects. Of these 33 States, I notice the State of 
Washington is missing, I say to my friend from the State of Washington.
  Mr. President, 33 States receive less money because of the earmarking 
practice. The taxpayers of these 33 States have not received their 
equitable share of highway funds. Every year they send their tax 
dollars to Washington with the expectation that the funds for highway 
projects will be distributed fairly. Something happens before the money 
is distributed. The process is twisted by the process of earmarking. I 
am not saying all congressionally earmarked projects are without merit. 
Many have great merit. Many others, however, do not.
  Surely, no one in the Congress is without blemish. If a project has 
merit, it should be a priority under the State transportation plan. As 
President Clinton said, highway aid should be distributed fairly 
according to the established formula so the taxpayers' dollars could be 
spent according to the priorities established with such great care and 
expertise by those best qualified to do so--the individual States.
  Mr. President, the amendment is a modest step toward reform. The 
current process, in my view, does not serve the public. It should be 
stopped.
  I hope my colleagues will support me in this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum from the 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 
concerning distribution of earmarked demonstration funds, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION:   
        TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE OFFICE OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN       
   [Distribution of earmarked demo Funds based on the fiscal year 1995  
  distribution of the Federal-aid obligation limitation, June 15, 1995  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hypothetical                  
                            Actual        distribution                  
                       distribution of    based on the                  
        State            fiscal year      fiscal year       Difference  
                          1994-1995         1995 FAH                    
                       earmarked demos     limitation                   
                                          distribution                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..............       63,844,784       46,248,098     (17,596,686)
Alaska...............                0       37,230,992      37,230,992 
Arizona..............        4,389,600       34,031,360      29,641,760 
Arkansas.............      139,470,486       28,305,175    (111,165,311)
California...........      140,881,126      225,435,520      84,554,394 
Colorado.............        1,067,200       32,723,857      31,656,657 
Connecticut..........       29,887,200       56,883,084      26,995,884 
Delaware.............                0       12,001,264      12,001,264 
District of Columbia.        8,132,800       15,592,153       7,459,353 
Florida..............       72,526,891       90,744,077      18,217,186 
Georgia..............       44,693,584       71,767,571      27,073,987 
Hawaii...............        5,708,000       19,494,218      13,786,218 
Idaho................       25,907,200       20,495,039      (5,412,161)
Illinois.............      153,438,774      104,048,256     (49,390,518)
Indiana..............       49,048,200       53,509,800       4,461.600 
Iowa.................       56,030,827       35,367,547     (20,663,280)
Kansas...............       25,641,400       33,250,933       7,609,533 
Kentucky.............       46,498,800       39,206,485      (7,292,315)
Louisiana............       36,647,123       42,562,594       5,915,470 
Maine................       68,852,800       14,546,001     (54,306,799)
Maryland.............       61,164,800       57,501,218      (3,663,582)
Massachusetts........        1,959,168      128,102,623     126,143,455 
Michigan.............       92,117,080       68,433,290     (23,683,790)
Minnesota............       81,441,320       46,551,977     (34,889,343)
Mississippi..........       11,833,197       30,166,296      18,333,100 
Missouri.............       55,931,864       57,244,683       1,312,819 
Montana..............        7,124,000       28,259,211      21,135,211 
Nebraska.............       11,207,360       22,815,133      11,607,773 
Nevada...............       41,252,914       18,069,114     (23,183,800)
New Hampshire........       11,812,800       13,838,602       2,025,802 
New Jersey...........       98,667,200       86,770,076     (11,897,124)
New Mexico...........       14,274,400       30,789,792      16,515,392 
New York.............      150,313,547      157,276,319       6,962,772 
North Carolina.......       65,051,600       66,112,858       1,061,258 
North Dakota.........       26,128,000       18,084,249      (8,043,751)
Ohio.................       61,064,880      100,514,361      39,449,481 
Oklahoma.............       29,737,220       36,242,397       6,505,177 
Oregon...............       21,928,000       34,699,182      12,771,182 
Pennsylvania.........      345,858,280      144,496,236    (201,362,044)
Rhode Island.........       21,126,880       16,786,071      (4,340,809)
South Carolina.......       14,241,600       30,789,683      16,548,083 
South Dakota.........        8,888,960       20,473,729      11,584,769 
Tennessee............       16,196,192       55,184,502      38,988,310 
Texas................      109,697,114      168,356,581      58,659,467 
Utah.................        7,011,200       21,684,270      14,673,070 
Vermont..............        7,360,000       12,864,339       5,504,339 
Virginia.............       61,636,000       61,668,894          32,894 
Washington...........       39,280,800       38,727,527        (553,273)
West Virginia........      212,335,480       27,595,907    (184,739,573)
Wisconsin............       26,312,000       47,489,922      21,177,922 
Wyoming..............        7,360,000       18,724,203      11,364,203 
Puerto Rico..........                0       13,223,382      13,223,382 
                      --------------------------------------------------
  Total..............    2,692,980,651    2,692,980,651               0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I had a couple more charts here.
  President Clinton, in his budget request, said, ``Such highway 
demonstration projects should compete for funds through the normal 
allocation and planning processes within the Federal-aid highways grant 
program.''
  Mr. WARNER. Could I ask the Senator if he desires a rollcall vote on 
this? If so, I would suggest he order the yeas and nays and let the 
Senate know.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Virginia.
  I will not take any longer on this issue. It is one that has been 
debated in this body for quite a while. I want to emphasize again, this 
does not affect any already authorized or appropriated highway 
demonstration project.
  Mr. President, in February 1994 there was a very interesting article 
in the Orlando Sentinel. It had some very interesting information where 
it says:

       The money used for demo projects amounts to less than 5 
     percent of the $20-billion-a-year federal highway program. 
     But transportation experts--including those at the General 
     Accounting Office--say this is money not well spent.
       ``In 1991 we found that about half of the demonstration 
     projects we reviewed did not appear on state or regional 
     transportation plans,'' GAO official Kenneth Mead told a 
     congressional committee last year. As such, the demo projects 
     leapfrogged what local transportation officers had set as 
     priorities.
       ``Some (demo projects) are probably questionable, and I'm 
     being charitable with that description,'' said Florida 
     Transportation Secretary Ben Watts. ``I think a lot of times 
     the only thing they demonstrate is that you can get a 
     demonstration project.''

  Mr. President, I would not be quite that harsh in my description of 
what a demo project is, but it is time we really restored equity to all 
the States in this country.
  I believe we can do that through an equal distribution through the 
existing highway formula rather than earmarking demonstration projects. 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senator from 
Arizona. He and I have talked about some of these things before.
  We have done studies. We have had GAO studies done. And every time we 
come to something like this, we do this and we say we do not want to 
offend somebody over in the House or here that has one of these special 
projects that is not really needed.
  The President has addressed this. He did not want these types of 
things in the budget this year. The Senator from Arizona cited from 
several studies that have been done on this as one of the most wasteful 
things in the budget.
  I hope we can support this. I am glad he called for the yeas and 
nays. I plan to support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I 
thank you.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I, too, urge the Senate to support the 
Senator from Arizona.
  I remind the Senate we would not be here tonight debating this bill 
if this amendment in effect were law. That is, last year we had the NHS 
bill up. It did not pass the Congress. Why? Because it got loaded up 
with demonstration projects.
  I just think that the day has now passed--it should be past--that we 
load the bills up with demonstration projects. States can decide for 
themselves how to spend highway funds.
  I strongly urge the support of this amendment. It will be a good day 
for, frankly, good government and for cleaning up the appropriations 
process and even cut down a little bit of deficit reduction if we adopt 
this.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like the attention of the Senator. 
I support the amendment. If there is no further debate, I would urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. KYL. If the Senator would yield, I would like to express my 
support for the amendment of my colleague from Arizona. [[Page S 
8677]] 
  For all of the reasons that he stated, it is about time we did this. 
I think everyone who has spoken has confirmed the need for this 
amendment.
  I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, the 
managers will remain on the floor in the hopes to clear such amendments 
that will not require rollcall votes. I anticipate that the leadership 
will soon be advising the Senate with respect to rollcall votes.
  Tomorrow, it would be my recommendation to the leadership that the 
Snowe amendment be the first amendment up for purposes of a rollcall 
vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arizona for his 
amendment. I think it is good. I will support it. We will vote for it. 
And I also commend him for the excellent remarks he made about Senator 
Kerrey and Senator Kerry's splendid achievement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 1438, offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] and 
the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and 
the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 272 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--21

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Reid
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Specter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coats
     Inouye
     Murray
     Shelby
  So, the amendment (No. 1438) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, that was the last vote of tonight by 
rollcall. It is the desire of the managers, however, to try and clear 
up a few amendments which have been agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1439

  Mr. WARNER. At this time, Mr. President, I send to the desk an 
amendment on behalf of Senator Thurmond, Senator Helms, Senator 
Faircloth, and myself, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Thurmond 
     for himself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Faircloth, and Mr. Warner, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1439.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 34, strike lines 17 through 24 and insert:
       ``(dd) United States Route 220 to Untied States Route 1 
     near Rockingham;
       ``(ee) United States Route 1 to the South Carolina State 
     line;
       ``(ff) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South 
     Carolina; and''.
       On page 35 between lines 13 and 14, insert:
       ``(ee) United States Route 220 to United States Route 74 
     near Rockingham;
       ``(ff) United States Route 74 to United States Route 76 
     near Whiteville;
       ``(gg) United States Route 74/76 to the South Carolina 
     State line in Brunswick County;
       ``(hh) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South 
     Carolina''.
       On page 34, strike lines 8 and 9 and insert:
       ``(iii) In the states of North Carolina and South Carolina, 
     the corridor shall generally follow--''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the national highway map will make 
reference to I-73, and that route will traverse Virginia, North 
Carolina, and South Carolina. The Senators of these three States have 
now reached an agreement with respect to the course it will follow in 
each of the three States. This amendment recites specifically facts 
relating to the route in North Carolina and South Carolina. I know it 
has been cleared on the other side. I do not think further debate is 
necessary. Therefore, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1439) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1440

   (Purpose: To clarify the treatment of the Centennial Bridge, Rock 
            Island, IL, under title 23, United States Code)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. The amendment is on behalf of Mr. Simon, Ms. Moseley-
Braun, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Grassley.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Simon, for 
     himself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Grassley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1440.

  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1 . TREATMENT OF CENTENNIAL BRIDGE, ROCK ISLAND, 
                   ILLINOIS, AGREEMENT.

       For purposes of section 129(a)(6) of title 23, United 
     States Code, the agreement concerning the Centennial Bridge, 
     Rock Island, Illinois, entered into under the Act entitled 
     ``An Act authorizing the city of Rock Island, Illinois, or 
     its assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a toll 
     bridge across the Mississippi River at or near Rock Island, 
     Illinois, and to a place at or near the city of Davenport, 
     Iowa'', approved March 18, 1938 (52 Stat. 110, chapter 48), 
     shall be treated as if the agreement had been entered into 
     under section 129 of title 23, United States Code, as in 
     effect on December 17, 1991, and may be modified in 
     accordance with section 129(a)(6) of the title.

  Mr. WARNER. This is to extend the collection of tolls on the 
Centennial Bridge between Illinois and Iowa in perpetuity as long as 
excess revenues are used for transportation purposes. Current law would 
require the toll authority to remove the tolls when the bonds are paid 
in the year 2007.
  Mr. President, I do not see the need for further debate on this 
amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1440) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1441

     (Purpose: To place a moratorium on certain emissions testing 
                 requirements, and for other purposes)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senator Gregg and Senator Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S 8678]]

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Gregg, for 
     himself, and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 1441.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN EMISSIONS TESTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Moratorium.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall not require adoption or 
     implementation by a State of a test-only or I/M240 enhanced 
     vehicle inspection and maintenance program as a means of 
     compliance with section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7511a), but the Administrator may approve such a program if a 
     State chooses to adopt the program as a means of compliance.
       (2) Repeal.--Paragraph (1) is repealed effective as of the 
     date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Plan Approval.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall not disapprove a State 
     implementation plan revision under section 182 of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511a) on the basis of a regulation 
     providing for a 50-percent discount for alternative test-and-
     repair inspection and maintenance programs.
       (2) Credit.--If a State provides data for a proposed 
     inspection and maintenance system for which credits are 
     appropriate under section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7511a), the Administrator shall allow the full amount of 
     credit for the system that is appropriate without regard to 
     any regulation that implements that section by requiring 
     centralized emissions testing.
       (3) Deadline.--The Administrator shall complete and present 
     a technical assessment of data for a proposed inspection and 
     maintenance system submitted by a State not later than 45 
     days after the date of submission.

  Mr. WARNER. This is to place a moratorium on certain emissions 
testing requirements. And it has been cleared by both managers. There 
is no indication that further debate is needed. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1441) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to speak on the matter 
currently before the United States Senate which designates the National 
Highway System [NHS]. This legislation not only identifies the 159,000-
mile NHS, but it provides greater flexibility to the States and 
attempts to reduce administrative burdens. I believe this is an 
important step forward in planning for our Nation's infrastructure 
development and that the Senate should act quickly in passing the 
National Highway System Act.
  The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA] 
requires Congress to designate the NHS by September 30, 1995. The House 
and Senate each passed different NHS bills during the last Congress 
and, unfortunately, a compromise between the two could not be crafted. 
Without this measure all NHS and Interstate Maintenance funding, which 
totals approximately $6.5 billion per year through FY 1997, for the 
states would cease on that date. Consequently, by acting on this 
important measure at this early date we are helping to ensure that a 
bill is passed into law before repercussions are felt by the states.
  For Americans across the country, our emerging transportation crisis 
is made apparent by the increasing number of traffic jams, delays, 
potholes, and road erosion in rural areas. Oregonians are no less 
afflicted by these growing problems than those in the rest of the 
Nation. As frustrating as they are, these problems represent only the 
tip of the iceberg.
  Many do not realize the true importance of our tremendous network of 
roads and bridges to our economy, national security, and way of life. 
The health of our citizens, the education of our children, the movement 
of our perishable food and access to employment all depend upon a 
reliable and efficient transportation network. The National Highway 
System is a vital investment in our transportation infrastructure which 
will allow our society to continue to prosper.
  Mr. President, the people of Oregon have long understood the 
importance of land use planning that incorporates transportation needs. 
The residents of Portland have frequently made their resounding support 
for the city's light rail project abundantly clear. As with most 
Western States, the people of rural Oregon rely constantly on an 
effective highway system which allows them to access educational, 
economic, and health care facilities.
  Even though my support for this important legislation is extremely 
clear, there are several specific provisions of this bill which I 
cannot endorse and I will address these concerns through the amendment 
process. I continue to believe that in the aggregate this is an 
excellent piece of legislation and I intend to support its final 
passage.
  I commend Senators Chafee, Warner, Baucus and Moynihan for their 
leadership on this issue. As the chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Transportation Subcommittee, I look forward to working with them on 
this measure in the future.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I wish to make a few remarks about the 
highway bill that we are considering today. The highway bill is so very 
critical for my State of Wyoming. We need to complete action on this 
legislation prior to October 1st of this year in order that funds can 
be released for badly-needed projects in all the States.
  In the West our highways have become more and more important as we 
have observed the effects of airline deregulation and the reduction in 
rail service in our rural States. Airline deregulation has led to a 
dramatic decrease in the number of carriers and flights into Wyoming 
and we have lost Amtrack service. So the Interstate and State Highways 
System was and is--and always will be our great lifeline.
  Because highways are so very important to us the State of Wyoming has 
proposed to add three significant road segments to the National Highway 
System in order to link several other primary and secondary highways. 
The Wyoming delegation has contacted the Federal Highway Administrator 
regarding this proposal and we trust he will give it every proper 
consideration.
  When people travel in Wyoming--for the most part they drive--and they 
usually drive for long distances. We have highways that stretch for 
miles with no habitation at all in between. It is understandable that 
we are a so put off by a national speed limit. I am so pleased to see 
that the committee bill repeals the national speed limit. I think that 
the individual States are quite able to set speed limits that provide 
for a safe speed given local conditions. The same holds true for seat 
belt laws and helmet laws. I believe the States are able to determine 
on their own if they want these laws and how they should be 
administered without the intrusion of the Federal Government and the 
threat of Federal sanctions.
  I trust we will swiftly pass this legislation and get it onto the 
President's desk so that we can get about the business of maintaining 
our present National Highway System and constructing the additional 
mileage as we require it. Those of us from the Western States of high 
altitude and low multitude understand the real necessity of passing 
this important legislation and I would urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that concludes all matters relating to the 
pending bill, S. 440.

                          ____________________