[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8745-S8761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 440, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 440) to amend title 23, United States Code, to 
     provide for the designation of the National Highway System, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DOLE. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, under the previous order, the next 
amendment is that of the Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, as I 
understand it; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I understand she is willing to let the Senator from 
Missouri make a statement for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding. The Senator 
from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman and the 
Senator from Maine.
  Mr. President, it was a real pleasure for me on February 16 of this 
year to join the distinguished chairman of this committee, the ranking 
member, Senator Baucus, and chairman of the subcommittee, Senator 
Warner, with whom I joined in introducing S. 440, the National Highway 
System Designation Act of 1995.
  Since its introduction, the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, of which I am a member, conducted four hearings, had a 
full committee markup and moved this bill to the point where we are 
now. This is a priority measure. I am very grateful for the bipartisan 
leadership and support that this measure has obtained.
  The concept of the NHS was authorized in the big Federal highway 
bill, ISTEA, to solicit State and local input in designing a national 
transportation system which would move people and goods efficiently and 
safely across the country.
  This is something I have worked for throughout my career in State and 
Federal government, and it has always been important to those of us in 
my State of Missouri, that we who are at the crossroads of the Nation 
be included in a modern national network that would provide Missouri 
the same kind of full access to the markets that the coasts currently 
have, and it would provide our friends and neighbors from other States 
the opportunity for efficient transportation through the heartland of 
the Nation.
  NHS was developed from the bottom up. In our State, the highway and 
transportation department coordinated with metropolitan planning 
organizations, regional planning agencies, highway groups and local 
officials to determine the highway priorities.
  Missouri then acted promptly in submitting the approved plan to the 
Federal Department of Transportation for incorporation into the overall 
system. This, to me, Mr. President, is a great example of the 
cooperation between Federal, State, local governments, and private 
sector organizations, and we should encourage this kind of cooperation 
in the future.
  In its entirety, as the Members well know, NHS will be a 159,000-mile 
network of interstate highways, major arterials and key corridors 
across the United States. These highways will carry more than 75 
percent of all commercial traffic, although they comprise only 4 
percent of the Nation's highway mileage. For our State of Missouri, Mr. 
President, this means 3,490 rural and 973 urban miles of highways that 
are the most economically important roads in the State, carrying 46 
percent of all motor vehicle traffic.
  The NHS will be the backbone of our transportation infrastructure 
network. They will carry over 40 percent of the Nation's highway 
traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic, and 80 percent of our 
tourist traffic, which is vitally important to us. These highways are 
critical for both State and interregional commerce. These highways are 
the economic lifeline, especially for States like mine.
  I know that in striving to reach a balanced budget by 2002, we have 
to make tough choices and recognize that the Government cannot do it 
all. But by developing and passing the NHS, we are establishing 
priorities, priorities on our highway and transportation needs, in 
order to ensure that we invest our limited funds wisely. We recognize 
the role that the transportation infrastructure has with the state of 
our economy. It is imperative that these critical things receive 
priority attention.
  We must realize the importance of this legislation being passed and 
signed into law by September 30 of this year. Without passage, States 
will not receive their apportionments of $6.5 billion. There is $156 
million for our State of Missouri. We cannot delay or hinder the 
passage of this bill which means so much to our constituents. I join my 
colleagues in urging prompt adoption of this measure here. I also urge 
our colleagues in the House to act on this legislation before it is too 
late. This is of vital national concern.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank the 
distinguished Senator from Maine for yielding time to me.
[[Page S 8746]]

                           Amendment No. 1442

(Purpose: To eliminate the penalties for noncompliance by States with a 
            program requiring the use of motorcycle helmets)

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe], for herself, Mr. 
     Campbell, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Smith, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
     Kohl, and Mr. Kempthorne, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1442.

  Ms. SNOWE. 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.   . ELIMINATION OF PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH 
                   MOTORCYCLE HELMET USE REQUIREMENT.

       Section 153(h) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``a law described in subsection (a)(1) and'' each 
     place it appears.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am now offering an amendment today, along 
with my colleague, Senator Campbell from Colorado, as well as my 
colleagues, Senators Moseley-Braun, Smith, Feingold, Kohl, and 
Kempthorne. Essentially, what our amendment would do is to repeal the 
penalty that would be imposed on those 25 States that have yet to pass 
a mandatory helmet law.
  Yesterday, Senator Smith from New Hampshire offered an amendment that 
included both seatbelt and helmet laws. That amendment failed. So I am 
now offering today an amendment that would help 25 States--half of our 
country--who have yet to pass a mandatory helmet law.
  We had considerable debate yesterday as to whether or not it is 
appropriate for the Federal Government to intrude upon decisions that 
rightfully belong to the States. We began this Congress with a pledge 
to reduce the size and the scope of the Federal Government and to 
restore the ability of States to resolve their own problems with their 
own solutions and with their own people.
  I think we need to hold firm to that commitment. It is not a one-time 
deal or a part-time arrangement that we have for the people of this 
country to meet a commitment that they demanded in the last election. 
Reducing the size, scope, and intrusion of the Federal Government is a 
central part of our legislative agenda in this Congress. That is why I 
am introducing this amendment here today. It is one that I have worked 
on and Senator Campbell has worked on over the years. We happen to 
think that it is inappropriate for the Federal Government to impose on 
the States a mandate and a requirement that they have to enact specific 
laws, otherwise, in this instance, they lose a percentage of their 
transportation funds.
  As we know it, ISTEA was passed in 1991, and penalties took effect a 
year later, and States could enact both a mandatory seatbelt and helmet 
law. There are two States that have yet to enact seatbelt laws--Maine 
and New Hampshire. There are 25 States that have yet to enact mandatory 
helmet laws. And these penalties take effect in October of 1995, 
whereby 1.5 percent of the transportation funds from that particular 
State will be diverted to safety education programs. In 1996, it will 
be 3 percent of the transportation funds that will be diverted to 
safety education programs. All told, that represents, in the year 1995, 
a loss, as exemplified by this chart, of $48 million to those 25 States 
in badly needed highway improvement funds or bridge repair.
  In 1996, the penalty is doubled to $97 million for those 25 States. 
They will lose precious transportation funds--funds that already had 
been appropriated to the States, which I think is very unprecedented, 
and will be used for safety education programs.
  If you look at the State of Illinois, it would lose $12,480,000 in 
the year 1996. Ohio will lose, in 1996, $9,280,000. That is a 
substantial amount of money to be lost for any State when it comes to 
highway repair. Certainly, it is true for my State of Maine, which has 
more than 22,000 road miles in the State. We need every dollar we can 
use for highway repair.
  Now, under this penalty, the State of Maine will be required to 
double the amount of money for safety education programs, to more than 
$1 million, as a result of this penalty. It will be money that cannot 
be used for highway road repair if they do not pass a mandatory helmet 
law. I think that, frankly, is the wrong approach to take. It is, 
again, Federal Government micromanaging State policy. It is 
demonstrating the arrogance of the Federal Government. It certainly 
represents an excessive reach of the Federal Government and, again, the 
coercive means that the Federal Government is willing to use to force 
States to be brought into line with what the U.S. Congress considers to 
be politically correct.
  The penalties that will be levied are going to be substantial, as I 
mentioned before. But more important is the fact that the States 
already recognize the importance of safety education programs. In fact, 
44 States already have in place rider education programs for motorcycle 
riders. It was not because the Federal Government bullied the State 
into establishing those programs. No. It was something that the States 
recognized on their own as essential to improving motorcycle riding 
safety. And that is why I believe that fatalities and accidents have 
been substantially reduced over the last decade--far ahead of the time 
before these penalties even took effect under ISTEA when it was passed 
in 1991.
  Those 44 programs represent $13 million to the States, and they 
raised that funding by imposing fees on motorcycle registration and 
licenses. In my State of Maine, we have a $500,000 program. It has 
proven to be valuable, essential, and effective in reducing fatalities 
of motorcyclists. In fact, in Maine in 1993, we ranked the second 
lowest in the country for motorcycle fatalities. I think it does prove 
that those programs become very effective toward reducing accidents on 
the road and certainly fatalities.
  That is why I think the States should be allowed to determine their 
own policies with respect to safety on the highways and certainly with 
respect to motorcycles.
  Since 1983, the number of accidents have decreased from 307 per 
10,000 registered motorcyclists to 206 in 1992. Fatalities similarly 
declined from 8 per 10,000 registered motorcyclists in 1983 to 6 per 
10,000 in 1992. This shows, in my opinion, a remarkable decline. And 
this all occurred, as I said, prior to the enactment of section 153 
that went into effect,
 I think demonstrating clearly that the heavy-handed treatment by the 
Federal Government is not essential to improving motorcycle safety. The 
States are certainly better able, better prepared, and better equipped 
to address those issues.

  I was somewhat disturbed yesterday by the tenor of the debate. I 
think there is some feeling that somehow the Governors and State 
legislatures are somewhat less concerned or disinterested or 
unresponsive to what is happening on their own highways and roads.
  I do not think there is anything that could be further from the 
truth. The fact is, motor vehicle laws have always been within the 
purview of State government. It has been traditionally their 
jurisdiction. I think there is nothing wrong with the Federal 
Government creating incentives for establishing certain programs or 
passing certain laws.
  We should not be imposing heavy-handed penalties to force the States 
to do something that they do not deem appropriate or in their 
interests. That is for themselves to determine in making and creating 
State policy.
  In response to the chairman's comments yesterday, the chairman was 
saying in any of the competitions for motorcycle riders, they are 
required to wear helmets. I think we can say very safely that many feel 
that people should wear helmets. But that should not be a decision made 
by the Federal Government.
  The question of who decides who should wear helmets should be 
appropriately placed with the States. For personal safety, I certainly 
would recommend, and I have worn a helmet when I have ridden a 
motorcycle, because I think it is important.
  The chairman made the comment yesterday that there is a requirement 
at these competitions that riders wear helmets. Mr. Dingman sent a 
letter to the chairman. I quote from it:


[[Page S 8747]]

       As part of your justification for keeping in place the 
     section 153 penalties on States that do not have mandatory 
     helmet laws for all riders, you stated that the AMA requires 
     all riders to wear helmets in the competitive events we 
     sanction. I would like to point out that although regarding 
     the American Motorcycle Association races, sanctioning 
     policies are established by riders committee through a 
     democratic process.

  In seeking to repeal the section 153 penalties, we simply want to 
give the States the same ability to make a decision regarding helmet 
laws through a democratic process without coercion from the Federal 
Government.
  I think that is the bottom line here. What we are attempting to 
achieve through this amendment is to allow the decision to be made by 
the State legislatures and the people in those States. That is what we 
should be doing. That is the kind of approach, I think, that should be 
taken at the Federal level, to leave those decisions that are best made 
by the State governments to the States.
  Finally, I would also like to quote a letter by the Governor of the 
State of Wisconsin, Governor Thompson.
  Mr. President, he writes:

       Wisconsin cycling community, in their legislatures, has 
     said our State does not want or need a law requiring all 
     motorcyclists to wear helmets. The most recent efforts to 
     enact such a law was unsuccessful in the 1994 legislative 
     session. Instead, Wisconsin relies on a partnership approach 
     marked by responsible riding and effective training and 
     safety programs. This approach is working well. During the 
     past 12 years, without a mandatory helmet law, Wisconsin has 
     continued to pose one of the Nation's best motorcycle safety 
     records. Still, Federal laws require States to pass mandatory 
     helmet laws covering all motorcyclists by October 1, 1995, or 
     face strict penalties. If Wisconsin does not pass a mandatory 
     motorcycle helmet law by this Federal deadline, more than $7 
     million in Federal funds will be taken away from highway 
     projects and transferred to motorcycle safety programs of the 
     next 2 years.
       Instead of leading the charge for a mandatory helmet law in 
     Wisconsin, I am leading the fight in Washington against 
     burdensome Federal mandates. Wisconsin must have the freedom 
     to choose what works best for our State without facing 
     costly, one-size-fits-all Federal laws that tie our hands. I 
     hope you support this effort by contacting your U.S. Senator 
     or Representative, urging them to help repeal the helmet law 
     mandate. The decision on whether to require helmet use must 
     be made by individual States, not by the Federal Government.

  I think that is well said.
  Again, I want to underscore another point, as mentioned by Governor 
Thompson. The fact is, Wisconsin has a very effective rider safety 
education program and has one of the best safety records in the 
country. Yet they do not mandate the use of helmets. They are not going 
to change their law in the State of Wisconsin regardless of what the 
Federal Government does with respect to the penalty imposed on them 
through the use of transportation funds.
  The point is, even prior to the imposition of penalties, 24 States 
out of the 25 said that they had not passed mandatory helmet laws. Only 
one State, since ISTEA passed in 1991, the State of Maryland, passed a 
law. That was before the penalty was in place. That was so they could 
qualify for an incentive grant program for additional funding.
  The point is that over half of the States, or half the States, in 
this country have not adopted the helmet law because they think it is a 
decision that should not be forced upon them by the Federal Government. 
I certainly could not agree more.
  I hope my colleagues will support my amendment to repeal this 
intrusive measure so the States can make their own decisions and their 
own policies. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  They say here on some bills that everything that can be said about an 
issue has been said, but not every Senator has said it. Yesterday we 
were in debate well over 2 hours on the Smith amendment. I would like 
to point out there was a very clear difference. We had some people 
yesterday who said that if the amendment did not deal with seatbelts, 
they thought they could support it.
  I would like my colleagues to know that the Snowe amendment does only 
deal with helmets and, in fact, does not repeal anything. It simply 
stops the blackmailing by the Federal Government of States to pass 
mandatory helmet laws.
  In my opinion, the 25 States out of compliance are not going to 
change. A number of States have repeatedly voted down mandatory helmet 
laws, as has our State of Colorado. I think they will continue to do 
so.
  If a Senator is from a State that is out of compliance, I think the 
Senator will be asked by constituents, when they go home, why did that 
Senator vote to continue penalizing a State if that Senator did not 
support the Snowe amendment? Why did Senators take the right away from 
citizens in their own State to make that choice?
  Those States include Alaska, they will be penalized over $2 million, 
$2.7 million; Arizona will be penalized over $2 million; my State of 
Colorado will be penalized $1.9 million; Connecticut will be penalized 
$2.3 million; Delaware, $735,000.
  I will read all of them so those Senators who may not know if their 
State is out of compliance or not, will know at the end of this.
  Hawaii will be penalized $1.334 million; Illinois, $6.12 million; 
Indiana, $2.934 million; Kansas, $1.6 million; Maine, $853,000; 
Minnesota, $2.192 million; Montana, $1.6 million; New Hampshire, 
$800,000; New Mexico, $1.9 million; North Dakota, over $1.1 million; 
Ohio, over $4.6 million; Oklahoma, $1.9 million; Rhode Island, 
$700,000; South Carolina, over $1.734 million; South Dakota, $1.1 
million; Utah, $1.69 million; Wisconsin, the State from which we just 
had the letter introduced in the Record, Governor Thompson's State, 
penalized $2.4 million, yet they have repeatedly voted down mandatory 
helmet laws; and Wyoming, your State, Mr. President, will be penalized 
over $1 million if the Snowe amendment does not pass.
  My State of Colorado has no helmet law. We had one until 1977. Have 
not had it since then. The Colorado State Legislature has repeatedly 
refused any attempt to implement one. The last time it was up, it lost 
in committee by 6 to 1.
  We do not need the U.S. Senate or any Federal agency second-guessing 
our legislature on that issue. Yet that is exactly what we are doing in 
Colorado and the other 24 State legislatures if this amendment is not 
adopted. I do not think there is any question that helmet laws do not 
prevent accidents, nor do they make safer drivers.
 For the 14-year period between 1977 and 1990, States with mandatory 
helmet laws had 12.5 percent more accidents and 2.3 percent more 
fatalities than did States that did not have mandatory helmet usage.

  In the past decade, motorcycle fatalities have decreased 38 percent 
and accidents have plummeted 41 percent. I think those figures are 
particularly impressive because the Federal Highway Administration 
estimates that the average vehicle miles traveled by motorcyclists has 
increased 85 percent since 1975. These statistics are unmatched in any 
other category of road user, passenger, or commercial.
  The opponents of the Snowe amendment will tell you the reason those 
numbers of deaths and injuries have gone down is because of mandatory 
helmet laws. We disagree. We believe in most cases they have gone down 
because we have better trained riders, that through rider education 
training throughout America we simply are getting more people who are 
riding that understand the dangers and are better riders.
  What can account for the decrease in accident fatalities? Evidence 
clearly indicates that the most effective way to reduce motorcycle 
accidents is through comprehensive education programs. Many of us 
think, in fact, it should be established in the schools just as driver 
education is for automobiles.
  Currently, 42 States have established and funded some sort of safety 
programs. They have done that without the Federal Government mandating 
that they do so. The national average of motorcycle fatalities per 100 
accidents is 2.95 per 100. States with rider education programs and no 
helmet laws, however, have the lowest death rate, 2.56 fatalities per 
100 accidents. States with mandatory helmet laws and no rider training 
have a significantly higher rate of 3.09 fatalities per 100 accidents.
  We are talking on the floor almost every day about Federal mandates. 
I do not remember the exact vote, but some [[Page S 8748]] months ago 
we overwhelmingly passed the unfunded mandates bill on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate in which we basically said we heard from our constituents 
across America who said, ``Get the Government somewhat out of our 
business and curtail some of the mandates you are making in the U.S. 
Congress that forces States to do things against their will.'' Many 
believe in part that message in the last election was almost all about 
getting Government reduced in size and out of our personal decisions.
  I happened to see a license plate the other day from the State of my 
friend, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, that I thought was rather 
interesting. It was a license plate made by the State of New Hampshire. 
On the license plate it says, ``Live Free Or Die.'' That may sound a 
little arcane in this day and age, but the fact of the matter is many 
Americans still believe they have enough Government imposed on them and 
they should be able to make more decisions in their own private lives.
  While it can be argued that mandating these things would be good for 
America's citizens--and I am sure some of the opponents of the Snowe 
amendment may so argue--is it right to have the Federal Government 
intrude in our lives to the extent they tell us how to dress for 
recreational pursuits? I think that is absolutely wrong, and I strongly 
urge my colleagues to support the Snowe amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my 
distinguished colleagues in support of this amendment to repeal the law 
that levies financial penalties on States that have not enacted 
mandatory helmet laws.
  Mr. President, when you say the words ``right to privacy'' these 
days, most Americans think of reproductive freedom and more 
specifically of a woman's right to choose. Although reproductive 
freedom is certainly an important part of the individual liberty 
protected by our constitutional right to privacy, the right to privacy 
really does encompass much more.
  One of the best definitions of its scope and its importance came in a 
1928 dissent by Justice Louis Brandeis in the case of Olmstead versus 
United States. In that opinion, Justice Brandeis stated:

       The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure 
     conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness . . . they 
     sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, 
     their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as 
     against the Government, the right to be let alone, the most 
     comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by 
     civilized men.

  The authors of the Constitution knew all too well the danger posed by 
a Government that did not respect individual privacy. For that reason, 
privacy is protected explicitly by the 4th, 9th, 10th and 14th 
amendments to our Constitution and, indeed, by the very foundation and 
structure of that document.
  When it comes to supporting our constitutional right to privacy, I am 
as determined as they come. In fact, everything I do here in the U.S. 
Senate is dedicated to protecting and promoting the rights and 
liberties of all Americans. That is why I have cosponsored this 
legislation during both the 103d and 104th Congress, legislation that 
would strike the provision in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act 
which infringes on our right to privacy by forcing citizens to wear 
motorcycle helmets. More specifically, this provision forces States to 
enact mandatory motorcycle helmet laws by transferring highway 
construction funds to highway safety programs in States that failed to 
enact such laws.
  Since Illinois is one of only three States without a mandatory 
motorcycle helmet law, the U.S. Department of Transportation has 
already transferred more than $6 million from our highway construction 
program to the highway safety program in fiscal year 1995. It is 
expected to transfer more than $12 million out of this very important 
program, the construction program, in fiscal year 1996.
  Although I do not own a motorcycle, I ride one every chance I get, 
and sometimes without a helmet. Like many Americans all across the 
country, I love the feeling, the sensation, the enjoyment that I get 
from that experience.
  Just a few months ago, I joined 3,000 members of ABATE of Illinois on 
a freedom ride from the Illinois Department of Transportation to the 
Illinois State Capitol to remind members of our State legislature that 
our democracy is only as strong as the rights and the liberties of its 
citizens. So the question of individual freedom and privacy is 
paramount in my analysis of this issue.
  This issue is not about whether or not people should wear a 
motorcycle helmet. I, frankly, encourage everyone to do so. In fact, 
there is the old motorcyclist's shorthand phrase, ``Those who do not 
wear helmets do not have brains to protect.'' The fact is, you should 
wear a helmet when you are riding.
  The question, however, here, is whether or not the Government should 
be making that decision for me or for any other American. To that 
question my response is a resounding ``no.'' The fact of the matter is, 
there is insufficient data to suggest that, by forcing States to give 
up money by forcing States to transfer highway dollars in behalf of 
dictating what motorcyclists should wear, that there is any real public 
policy served by that. If the Federal Government wants to increase 
motorcycle helmet use, it should invest more in highway safety 
education programs like the very successful motorcycle training program 
in Illinois instead of forcing States to enact mandatory helmet laws. 
Those programs give individuals the information they need to make 
informed decisions regarding safety, training regarding the proper use 
of motorcycles, and how one should properly operate that machine.
  The fact of the matter is, however, this is a mandate that goes too 
far. This is an infringement on individual choice. This is an 
infringement on the right to privacy. I believe this amendment should, 
therefore, be supported by everyone who cares about our capacity as 
Americans to make decisions, personal decisions, regarding personal 
safety.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Snowe-Campbell-Moseley-
Braun-Feingold-Kohl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I feel very strongly this is a bad 
amendment. I regret it has been brought up. Yesterday, we debated the 
seatbelt bill containing this provision in it. It was defeated. The 
seatbelt part was dropped. And now we are strictly debating motorcycle 
helmets and whether the Federal Government has the right, as it is 
currently doing, to provide an incentive, if you would, for the States 
to enact a helmet law or, if they fail to do so, they will be 
deprived--some of their funds will be directed into highway safety 
rather than into road construction.
  I would just like to set the record straight here, if I might, 
because various suggestions have been made.
  First of all, the Federal Government is already deeply into highway 
safety. The Federal Government, through the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, sets all kinds of standards on motor vehicles. 
No one is suggesting we ought to be able to have an absence of safety 
glass in our automobiles, of course not. That is set, standards are set 
by the so-called NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
  They set standards for brakes and bumpers, safety belts, airbags, all 
of those things are by the Federal Government. Why? Because the Federal 
Government cares about the safety of our people. And, furthermore, let 
us never forget the cost to the Federal Government if people are 
injured. This particularly goes to those who are riding motorcycles 
without helmets who suffer severe head injuries that could have been 
prevented.
  Do we only get into the vehicle itself when I am talking about safety 
glass and seatbelts and airbags and so forth? Or do we get into the 
rider or the driver? Of course, we get into that in the minimum 
drinking age. We now have a provision in the law that says every State 
has to enact a minimum drinking age of 21 or else they will lose some 
funds. As a result, every State has enacted that, and there is nobody 
who gets up on the floor and says that is the wrong way for the Federal 
Government to go, we should not be doing [[Page S 8749]] this, that 
this is big, bad Federal Government, it is coercion.
 It is a fine measure.

  Yesterday, we kept the provision in there dealing with seatbelts. 
Indeed, we kept the provision dealing with helmets. But the seatbelt 
one has been dropped, as I mentioned. There is a suggestion that we 
should not be doing this. What is the Federal Government doing in this 
through the Senate and the House of the United States? Leave it to the 
democratic process. Well, I do not understand that. Is there a 
suggestion that State legislators are democratic and the Congress of 
the United States is not? I do not follow the argument that it is 
perfectly all right for a State to do it, but somehow it is wicked for 
the Federal Government to do it.
  But the principal point I want to get back to is the Federal 
Government, the Federal taxpayers, pay the bills when these horrible 
injuries occur. And there is not anybody here who has spoken to a 
physician or a nurse who has worked in an emergency room who will not 
tell you, that individual will give horror story after horror story of 
what has happened to individuals they see in the emergency room who 
suffer terrible injuries in a vehicle when they did not have their 
safety belt on, or were riding a motorcycle when the individual did not 
have a helmet on.
  One of the arguments given here is the answer is not to mandate this 
through the coercion of losing funds if you do not pass it. But it is 
to have rider education. No one argues against that. Sure, rider 
education is great. No one objects to that. All the better. But it is 
not one or the other. I have difficulty following the argument that, if 
you have rider education, you do not need helmets.
  We do not say that if you have driver education, as is required in 
the schools in my State, and I presume in many of the States, or safety 
efforts that are made on the highways. I remember we used to talk about 
the three E's: education, enforcement, and engineering. All of those 
apply: education in the driver training; enforcement, with the police 
making sure there is not excessive speeding; and engineering in the 
design of our highways. But it is not those and not something else. 
Sure, in addition to all of this, we have seatbelts for those in 
automobiles. And we ought to have motorcycle helmets for those who are 
riding motorcycles, and the passengers likewise.
  The argument somehow is made it does not do any good. I do not think 
anybody is serious about that. Nobody knows better than these riders 
that the helmet is a preventive measure. It is a safety measure.
  I listened carefully while the Senator from Maine read the letter 
from the head of the motorcycle association. And yesterday I said that 
the motorcycle association in its sanctioned meets requires a helmet to 
be worn. The letter that was read, as I understood it--and I stand to 
be corrected--did not refute what I said. It said that is arrived at in 
a democratic process. But that does not get around the point.
  The point I was making is that those who are fighting this so 
vigorously, their own activities require it. It is not up to the choice 
for each motorcyclist to do what he wants, freedom of expression, the 
chance to have the wind blowing through his or her hair. It is 
required, and it may be through a democratic process. But it could well 
be that there are 51 votes for it and 49 votes against it. But it is 
required. And if the Senator from Maine finds I am wrong in the way I 
interpreted what she said, I would be pleased to learn that because my 
understanding is--we have checked this before--that in the sanctioned 
meets by the motorcycle association, helmets are required. It makes no 
difference that it is arrived at in a democratic process. This is a 
democratic process. We are voting here on the floor.
  There is another suggestion that seems to be made here that this is a 
wicked thing we are doing, or have been doing, because after all, this 
law has been on the books for nearly 4 years because it costs the 
States money. It does not cost the States money. We do not take money 
from the States, from the amounts that they are allocated under the 
highway legislation. They get the same amount of money.
  The only thing is that in 1991, we said in the so-called ISTEA 
legislation, the Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, that if 
you do not pass a law mandating the use of helmets and seatbelts, then 
a certain proportion of that money, an increased proportion, must be 
devoted to safety measures, to education and safety training. That has 
been done in many States. Over 22-odd States that do not have this 
legislation have to put that money into education. That is their 
choice. They made that choice. If they want the highway money, they can 
pass the legislation.
  They say that is coercion. Well, I do not think it is. It seems to me 
that if you are paying the bill, as the Federal Government is doing 
through Medicaid, over 50 percent in every instance, taking care of 
these people who are so severely damaged as a result of the absence of 
a helmet, we have a right to levy some requirements.
  Do helmets save lives? I do not think anybody questions that. That is 
not to say that education does not, or driver training and experience 
does not save lives. But so do motorcycle helmets.
  Over the past 10 years, motorcycle helmets have saved over 6,400 
lives and prevented over 25,000 serious injuries. If every motorcyclist 
wore a helmet, nearly 800 lives would 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. No one will argue with that. I 
mean, that is common sense.
  These are two experienced riders. I would be interested if they, one, 
wear helmets; and, two, if they think helmets are useless and do not do 
any good.
  Second, the cost of overall motor vehicle crashes, including 
motorcycles, is staggering to the country. The only reason I combine 
automobiles and motorcycles in this particular statistic is because we 
do not have figures broken down by the National Highway Safety 
Administration. But motor vehicle crashes cost over $137 billion each 
year.
  Even for somebody from Washington, $137 billion is a lot of money. 
Over the past 10 years, motorcycle helmets have saved over $6.4 billion 
a year, according to the statistics I have.
  Let me just give you a little instance. I have used this statement 
before. But it is one that I am familiar with because it came up in my 
State. We have in our State hospital an individual who, through an 
unhelmeted accident, has been in a coma for nearly 20 years, and 24 
hours a day has to be cared for, fed and cared for, at a cost to 
taxpayers of over $2.5 to $3 million.
  What do we do? Here we all are in the Senate and in the House, always 
talking about preventive measures, always talking about the 
skyrocketing costs of medical care in the United States. We have to do 
something about Medicare and Medicaid. We have to do something about 
hospital costs. Here is about as effective a way as possible.
  Is this going to solve all the health cost problems of our country? 
Of course, it is not. But every little bit counts.
  Here is a statement from a doctor from the Centers for Disease 
Control.

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

  What he is saying here is do not leave it up to the States to do what 
they want, because what will happen is we will not have the laws.
  Now, there is objection by the Senator from Maine to the suggestion I 
made that State legislatures and State legislators are more subject to 
pressure than we are. And that is true. I served in a State 
legislature, so I know something about it. The motorcyclists of the 
country are a very, very dedicated single-issue group, and they will 
descend on a legislator and put on a full-court press. And that is the 
issue that they will vote on. It is the epitome of the single-issue 
vote. And that legislator in his or her district frequently, in their 
desire to be reelected, which is nothing unique, nothing unusual in our 
country, says OK, if you care so much about it, I will go along. I will 
vote against any effort to mandate motorcycle helmet use.
  How can I say that? Because in 1966, we enacted a law right here in 
the Federal Government that said you had to have helmets, and in 1976 
we repealed it. As soon as the Federal Government [[Page S 
8750]] repealed that incentive, the 28 States likewise repealed what 
they had on the books, including my own State of Rhode Island, and we 
have not been able to get that back on the books yet in my State 
despite the presence of this law and despite the fact that we 
desperately need highway funds.
  Now, has it worked when we have passed this legislation and States 
have adopted it? Has it worked? Well, I will quote California again. I 
suppose there are more motorcycle riders in California than in any 
State in the Nation--total. Maybe not per 100,000 people but total 
riders. The number of fatalities in California, after they enacted a 
mandated helmet law, dropped by 36 percent. The number in Maryland, 
after they adopted it, dropped 20 percent. Of course, there are 
millions of dollars in savings by the States once these accidents and 
fatalities had been reduced.
  So, Mr. President, I very much hope that we will not approve this 
amendment of the Senator from Maine.
  I have a question I would like to ask the Senator from Maine. That 
is, one, does she agree that there are substantial costs involved in 
the accidents that come to those unhelmeted riders? That is the first 
question. Second, are those costs to a considerable degree borne by the 
Federal Government? Those are the two questions I have.
  Ms. SNOWE. I appreciate them. In response to the Senator's questions, 
first of all, as I said in my statement earlier, when I have ridden a 
motorcycle, I have always worn a helmet, and I certainly would advise 
anybody who is riding a motorcycle to wear a helmet.
  The question is, Who should decide when someone wears a helmet? 
Should the Federal Government decide it or should the State decide it? 
That is the question we are trying to determine here today. It is a 
basic philosophical question that needs to be addressed. I do not 
happen to think the Federal Government should be the determining factor 
in who is going to wear a motorcycle helmet.
  The second question is in terms of incurring costs, and I mentioned 
yesterday, where do we draw the lines in terms of personal and social 
behavior and what impacts Federal health care costs? That is a basic 
question. Because, first of all, we know there is behavior that could 
result in more costs in the Medicaid Program, for example. If somebody 
smokes, it leads to cancer. If somebody does not engage in a good diet 
or engage in regular exercise, it leads to heart disease. Or chewing 
tobacco. Whatever the case may be, that results in more health care 
costs.
  Where do we at the Federal level draw that line? That is also a 
question that needs to be addressed here today.
  To even answer the Senator's question more specifically, I would like 
to mention a study that was conducted at the Harbor View Medical Center 
in Seattle, WA. They reported that 63.4 percent of the injured 
motorcyclists in the trauma center relied on public funds in order to 
pay their hospital bills. According to testimony by the director of the 
trauma center, 67 percent of the general patient population also relied 
on taxpayer dollars to pay their bills.
  A study that was conducted by the University of North Carolina 
Highway Safety Research Center found that 49.4 percent of injured 
motorcyclists had their medical costs covered by insurance, while 50.4 
percent of the other road trauma victims were similarly insured.
  So I think, first of all, we are being selective here in who do we 
determine is impacting health care costs. But secondly, the question is 
whether or not the Federal Government should intrude to such an extent 
as to require States to pass laws. And the Senator mentioned that it 
does not cost the States any money. Well, technically the Senator is 
correct. But that money is transferred to programs that are already 
well-funded.
  Does it make sense for my State to have to pay twice as much in 
safety programs when it has already determined that it is not 
necessary, that $500,000 is sufficient, not $1.3 million? That is not 
money they can spend on other things that are also essential to the 
well-being and the welfare of the residents of my State.
  So I would suggest to the Senator that by singling out motorcycle 
riders and saying that they are having the greatest effect on our 
medical costs in the country is certainly not a fair characterization. 
I just do not happen to think that this is an appropriate area for us 
to be governing here in the Congress.
  I, too, was in the State legislature in the State of Maine for 6 
years, and I do not think the pressures on a State legislature are any 
different than the pressures we face by any one group by serving in the 
Senate or the House of Representatives. I doubt anybody would believe 
it if you suggested differently.
  The fact is, looking at the merits of this question, 24 States had 
already adopted helmet laws before the ISTEA penalties took effect--24 
States. They had already decided in their own wisdom that it was 
important for the residents of their States to have that requirement. 
So they decided it on their own, to their credit.
  The Senator mentions the State of California. Well, again that is 
another example. The State of California passed its law prior to ISTEA 
passing in the U.S. Congress in 1991. It took effect before ISTEA was 
even passed in the Congress. So they determined it in their own wisdom. 
They do not need the Federal Government telling them what to do. That 
is what the whole issue is all about.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Well, Mr. President, I do not think that is what it is 
all about. Everybody can define the issue as they wish. But the real 
question is does the Congress have any interest in the safety of its 
citizens riding its roads. And I believe we do. We have a deep 
interest. We have a deep interest because of the pain and suffering 
that arises but also because of the costs.
  The Senator from Maine is familiar with the letter that came from the 
Eastern Maine Medical Center, which she herself received. It is a study 
of the Medicaid costs that arise with those who are unbelted or with no 
helmets. It is a very, very persuasive study that was done.
  What are we talking about when we are talking Medicaid? We are 
talking Federal dollars. And so for that reason alone--never mind the 
suffering that arises. I have seen it. I am sure the Senators from 
Colorado and Maine have likewise visited their rehabilitation centers 
and seen individuals who were so severely damaged because of head 
injuries as a result of not having helmets, some who end up in comas, 
some who end up in terrible physical condition. These could have been 
avoided.
  I just cannot understand that we go backward. It is on the law now. 
It is not resisting the presence of the law, the enactment of the law. 
It is repealing the law. And yesterday, thank goodness, we rejected the 
effort to repeal the seatbelt requirement, and I hope we will reject 
this effort to repeal the motorcycle helmet effort.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to respond to a few of the comments my 
friend, Senator Chafee, has made.
  First of all, since I come from the State of Colorado, I can tell him 
that I called the State agencies to try to find out if there was any 
agency in our State that kept track of people who are being paid 
because they were incapacitated under what is commonly called the 
``public burden theory.'' The public burden theory, as I mentioned 
yesterday, basically says that if you are injured and you have no 
insurance and no way to pay for your hospital bills, the public picks 
up the cost. In the State of Colorado there are no numbers whatsoever 
that define which people are incapacitated by automobile injuries, by 
motorcycles, by skiing or anything else. If they are injured, they do 
not have an insurance policy and they do not have finances to take care 
of themselves, they are put in a pool. That is what I am told by the 
State of Colorado.
  I would also like to point out that we are concerned that the Federal 
Government sometime or other is going to get involved in defining all 
forms of personal behavior that have some element of risk. That may 
include skiers in my State. We had something like five deaths this year 
on the slopes of Colorado. None of them were wearing a helmet. Perhaps 
we should mandate that they do because it is on Federal ground and, 
therefore, the Federal Government has some kind of a vested interest. [[Page S 
8751]] 
  In the State of California, since my colleague mentioned that a 
number of times, I would tell him that bicycles recently in the State 
of California came under a State law that requires everyone to wear a 
helmet that rides a bicycle. But the Federal Government did not mandate 
it. It let the State of California make its own decision. And if that 
is what the people of California want, and the legislature, their 
elected officials want, then that probably fits all right in the State 
of California. I do not think we would want it in Colorado. But clearly 
we let them make the decision.
  Now, I mention California because there is over 100 times more head 
injuries and automobile accidents than there is on motorcycles and over 
ten times more deaths.
  Recently--several years ago, in fact--there was an assemblyman named 
Dick Floyd of Hawthorne, CA, who told a radio audience in Los Angeles 
that he favored a helmet law for automobile drivers and was thinking of 
introducing a bill to mandate that everybody that drives an automobile 
in California wear a helmet, even though there have been instances 
where the California Highway Patrol have given citations for people 
that were wearing a helmet in automobiles. And the reason they gave 
them is because they cut down hearing and visibility. Mr. Floyd's 
comments came during a debate during appearances concerning a helmet 
bill which he introduced in California, and did pass, by the way, for 
motorcycles. Mr. Floyd was not reelected. So he is no longer in the 
State legislature, probably for a good reason, because I think he 
believed in taking away personal choices and personal freedoms.
  There is another thing I would like to say. I hope that my colleague, 
Senator Chafee, does not imply that within States where people elect 
their own legislators they do not have elected officials that can make 
decisions for their own constituents and that we should overrule them 
at the Federal level, because I think that is absolutely wrong.
  He mentioned something about who pays the bills under the highway 
users trust fund, the gasoline tax. But we have 3.5 million people in 
Colorado, most of whom drive, who pay money every time they buy a 
gallon of gasoline in any gas station, as your State of Wyoming does, 
the State of Maine does, where my colleague, Senator Snowe, is from. 
That money goes into a pool, the highway users trust fund, that people 
in those States have every right to expect to be paid back for 
construction in the States. There was nothing, to my knowledge, in the 
enabling bill, the bill that originally set up the highway users trust 
fund, that said we are going to collect a tax from you, however we are 
only going to give it back if you comply under this condition or that 
one, which may be a mandatory helmet law. The money is supposed to go 
back to the States for construction. As it is now, under the mandatory 
section of ISTEA that did pass--and we are trying to get repealed--they 
simply do not have that option. It is simply a Federal blackmail of the 
State governments.
  Now, we can stand, I guess, here all day and hear some of the horror 
stories, the public burden theory, who was injured, who was not, and we 
should have mandatory laws dealing with them about their recreation. 
But I would point out that the Federal Government simply cannot get 
involved in every form of behavior in which there is some risk. 
Melanoma is a skin cancer from sunbathing that kills more people than 
motorcycle accidents, yet we do not outlaw sunbathing or require they 
have certain kinds of Sun screen on, or tell them we will deny some 
funding under Medicaid or Medicare if they do not.
  Swimming and diving accidents cause more quadriplegics each year than 
motorcycling, yet we have not outlawed swimming and diving. I think it 
gets beyond ridiculous when we tell States that we are going to require 
certain things that take away fundamental rights and deny them money 
that they have every right to if they do not comply with what we think 
they should be doing with their recreation in private states.
  With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have here a document from the Colorado 
Department of Transportation, University of Colorado, Health Sciences 
Center. It is a news release dated February 15, 1994. And it says here, 
``In the past three years--1991-93--134 motorcyclists have been killed 
in traffic crashes in Colorado. Ninety-six of the victims--72 percent--
were not wearing helmets.'' So whatever is happening in Colorado, 
apparently it is not encouraging the use of helmets very much, as of 
the date of this, anyway. ``Young riders are overly represented in the 
motorcycle fatality figures. Sixteen to 20-years old represent about 4 
percent of the licensed motorcyclists in the state, yet during the past 
three years they have accounted for 15 percent of the deaths. Twenty of 
the motorcyclists killed--1991-93--were aged 16 to 20.''
  And then a quote from Dr. Steve Lowenstein, associate director of the 
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.

       Motorcycle crashes almost always have dire consequences.
       In 1991 and in 1992, there were 3,668 crashes involving 
     motorcycles in Colorado. Of those, 80 percent resulted in 
     either the death or injury to the motorcycle rider. Helmets 
     could have prevented many of those injuries, saving taxpayers 
     millions of dollars in health care costs.

  And then it goes on to point out in 1991 and in 1992, just 2 years, 
2,824 motorcyclists were injured in crashes in Colorado with about 600 
of those riders suffering traumatic brain injuries. The 1993 injury 
data was not yet available.

       Studies have documented that unhelmeted motorcycle riders 
     sustain serious to critical head injuries three to five times 
     more often than helmeted riders.

  So I do not think this should be an argument about States rights or 
the Federal Government imposing demands, requirements. We are dealing 
here with human beings, human beings all across our country. And these 
young people or those who are not so young could have been maintained 
in far greater health and prevented terrible injuries that could have 
been prevented with the presence of helmets. And we should do 
everything we can to encourage helmet use. I think we should do that. 
So, Mr. President, I would very much hope that this amendment would not 
be approved.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a letter from the Colorado Department of Transportation that 
lists the three highest priorities for the Colorado Department of 
Transportation, one being the repeal of the mandatory section of ISTEA 
which the Snowe amendment does. I would like to point out again for my 
friends who are watching this debate in their offices on television, 
this is not a question of whether you should or should not, as my 
colleague implies.
  It is a question of who makes the decision, whether it should be done 
in the U.S. Senate or whether it should be done at the State level.
  There also is no question that we are getting sidetracked a little 
bit, because it seems to me that his statements imply that somehow 
helmets prevent accidents. They do not. They do not prevent accidents. 
They may prevent some deaths, but clearly we have a number of studies 
also that say rider education training prevents more.
  So somewhere along the line, we have to define what it is we are 
talking about, and we are not talking about whether you should or 
should not, we are talking about who makes the decision.
  I do not want to monopolize the time. I see my colleague from South 
Dakota on the floor, so I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. If my friend will yield.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the Senator can speak on his own time.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to discuss briefly the 
important issue of motorcycle safety. I have been a motorcyclist for 
many years. I had a motorcycle when I was a second lieutenant in the 
Army, and have ridden many times over the years. In fact, I am the 
owner of a Harley-Davidson Heritage Softail Classic. I enjoy riding [[Page S 
8752]] it on the weekends when I am home in South Dakota.
  While much debate has focused on the safety of motorcycle helmets, I 
do not want us to overlook another very important issue: motorcycle 
rider training. In my view, proper motorcycle training is even more 
critical to safety.
  To update my license, I recently completed one of the motorcycle 
rider training courses endorsed by the National Motorcycle Safety 
Foundation. This 2\1/2\-day course--which took place Friday evening, 
and all day Saturday and Sunday--consisted of both classroom and hands-
on instruction. It is a very rigorous course designed to teach even a 
beginner how to handle a motorcycle safely. I must say, I learned a lot 
of things about motorcycles that I did not know, and about safety.
  Mr. President, according to statistics, about 62 percent of all the 
accidents involving motorcycles involve some sort of use of alcohol. I 
also want to point out the accident rate is very low in those States 
where motorcyclists have completed motorcycle safety courses. That is 
because the training courses strongly emphasize safety. Congress should 
emphasize safety education too.
  In South Dakota, motorcyclists are urged to take rider training 
courses. I think that is a very important. Across the Nation, if we had 
more people taking motorcycle training courses, we would have more 
skilled riders. In my judgment, Congress can best promote safety by 
encouraging motorcyclists to enroll in motorcycle rider training 
courses.
  As many of my colleagues know, the Sturgis motorcycle rally is held 
in my home State every summer. We have thousands of motorcyclists 
coming to South Dakota for this annual event. Some wear helmets and 
some do not. We do not have a helmet mandate. It is a matter of 
individual choice.
  So I join with my friend from Colorado in the remarks that he has 
made, and I hope to soon ride my new Harley-Davidson Softail with him.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota added an 
element that has not been discussed, and that is the financial 
implications.
  I point out--he probably already knows this--according to the South 
Dakota Tourism Council, motorcyclists put $57 million a year into the 
South Dakota economy. Three years ago, a study was done by the town of 
Sturgis that he mentioned, at which about 150,000 to 200,000 people 
show up every summer for a big celebration. The Chamber of Commerce did 
a study of the people that were there 3 years ago, and they asked the 
people that came to South Dakota if they would come back to South 
Dakota to Sturgis if the State of South Dakota had a mandatory helmet 
law.
  I do not have the exact statistics, but the number was very close to 
50 percent said they would not come back to South Dakota if they passed 
a mandatory helmet law.
  There are a lot of other elements to the financial picture, too. My 
friend from Rhode Island mentioned California--he mentioned that 
several times--and the reduction of deaths after helmets were 
introduced. What he failed to mention was that it was also at the same 
time that the same training that my colleague from South Dakota went 
through was implemented and expanded in California. It is one of the 
leading States for motorcycle training. So deaths also went down 
because of the training.
  In addition to that, he also failed to mention in the 3-year period 
of time, registrations of new motorcycles in California dropped by 50 
percent. There were simply fewer people riding fewer miles, so that 
also would have an impact on the injuries and deaths. I point that out 
because it is something that has not been discussed in this whole 
debate about choice. I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I just want to make a couple of additional 
points. I think a lot of the debate has centered on many of the issues 
that also were raised yesterday and are important to reiterate. But I 
think it is important since we are talking about the issue of safety, 
in terms of the statistics that have been given with respect to 
motorcycle safety.
  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 
1993, the motorcyclist fatality rate per registered vehicle has 
decreased by more than 50 percent since 1966. Senator Pressler 
mentioned, and Senator Campbell, who has taken the rider education 
course, how effective and valuable it is, and that is why the States 
have decided unilaterally, without any coercion by the Federal 
Government, to establish those programs because they know it is 
essential to reducing fatalities and accidents on the road.
  I also would like, as I did yesterday, because I do think it is 
critical, since the chairman is from the State of Rhode Island, to read 
part of a statement that was given by a State senator before his 
committee back in March. He says in his statement that:

       In a year when unfunded mandates are a target of Federal 
     legislation, it may be said that section 153 is an unfunded 
     suggestion.
       Section 153 also has a negative economic impact on the 
     State of Rhode Island. The Federal Highway Administration has 
     stated that every $1 billion in highway construction monies 
     creates 60,000 jobs. Although the funding is not being 
     rescinded, the transfer of funds will result in the loss of 
     approximately 40 construction jobs. These are difficult 
     economic times, and Rhode Island has been hit hard by defense 
     cutbacks, as well as national recession. If each job paid 
     $30,000, the impact on the Rhode Island economy could be 
     greater than $1.2 million.

  The State senator goes on to talk about how there has been a dramatic 
reduction in fatalities and accidents in Rhode Island. He said:

       . . . the number of deaths related to motorcycle accidents 
     have declined significantly in proportion to the number of 
     motorcycle riders on the road. In 1976, the last year that 
     the motorcycle helmet law was in effect, there was more than 
     1 death per every thousand riders. In 1994, there was less 
     than .5 deaths per thousand riders. . . .
       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 applied strict helmet 
     wearing standards for motorcycle riders, has a fatality rate 
     a full point higher than Rhode Island. . . .
       Much of the success can be attributed to motorcycle rider 
     education programs, which were first implemented back in 
     1980. . . .
       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.

  So I think it goes to show that the experiences in various States 
that have been through the rider education program in making a 
difference and having an impact on highway safety with respect to 
motorcycle riding.
  I also would like to read a paragraph from the Bellevue News 
Democrat, in Illinois, from September 14 titled ``Independent of 
Blackmail, Summed Up the Issue":

       If the Federal Government is so hot on motorcyclists 
     wearing helmets, why doesn't it adopt a national policy? 
     Because it realizes this is the type of decision that 
     rightfully belongs to the individual States, as long as the 
     decision is the one that the Federal bureaucrats want, that 
     is.

  I think that appropriately sums up the problem we have here today 
with these kinds of penalties. It will not end here. It will continue, 
somehow thinking that we know more than the States in terms of what is 
occurring on their highways.
  I also will mention that the States have debated these issues at 
great length. There were 109 bills introduced on helmet laws and zero 
adopted, since ISTEA penalties became effective--109 different bills. 
So it was adequately debated in the States. They will determine their 
own wisdom whether or not they should adopt a helmet law. That is where 
that decision belongs.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, 
Senator Wellstone from Minnesota, and Senator Brown from Colorado as 
cosponsors of my amendment, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. At the proper time, I will ask to table the amendment.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator from South Dakota.
  [[Page S 8753]]
  
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to cosponsor the 
Snowe-Campbell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of debate. I think we 
are pretty close to a vote. I do not think there is anybody on this 
floor who is not worried about highway safety, or about deaths of 
motorcycle riders from head injuries. But that is not the issue. The 
issue we are deciding here is, who should make these decisions? Should 
it be the U.S. Federal Government by way of the U.S. Congress that 
should decide whether people should wear helmets? Or should it be State 
legislatures, the Governor, and the people in their own jurisdiction?
  I think the time has come, Mr. President, where it is important to 
gain public confidence in Government. I think a lot of people today 
feel alienated from Government. They feel Government is too distant, 
too remote, maybe arrogant and heavyhanded. I do not think there is 
much doubt about that. That is a more prevalent feeling in America 
today than in the last 10 to 15 years.
  Why has that happened? There are a lot of reasons. One reason is 
because the world is much more complex. The cold war is over, which 
caused a certain anxiety in this country. A lot of people are concerned 
about their jobs, and there are a whole host of reasons why people tend 
to be a little bit alienated from and inclined not to believe their 
Government is doing what should be done.
  This amendment is one opportunity for us to address a small part of 
that. We can give the decision making ability on helmets to the States. 
Let the people decide for themselves whether they want to live free or 
die. Let people decide whether they want to wear a helmet. Let people 
decide, according to the State legislatures, what they want to do. They 
will debate this issue and come to a reasonable conclusion. Some of us 
may not agree with that conclusion, and some of us may agree with that 
conclusion. Different States will reach different conclusions. But at 
least the people at home in the States we represent will be a little 
closer to the decision that is made.
  We are not going to solve all of our country's problems today--not 
even a large portion of our country's problems. We have to take each 
step at a time. Today we are faced with a very small step, but 
important step. Let people in our own States decide for themselves 
whether there should be a helmet law. It is that simple.
  The issue is not whether we are concerned about safety on the 
highways. That is not the issue. The issue is not whether--with all due 
respect to my good friend from Colorado--there is a greater incidence 
of bike fatalities with persons who do not wear helmets compared with 
those who do. We should not be debating that issue today. The issue is: 
Who should decide, the Congress or the States? I believe it is an issue 
for the States themselves to decide.
  I am glad the Senator from Maine is offering this amendment. I think 
it is an opportunity for people in our States to get a little closer to 
the decisions that are made, and maybe in a small way help restore a 
little bit of confidence they have now in Government generally.
  I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. He 
enjoys great respect in this body and is looked to by many of the 
Members for his leadership. I think he has spoken in very clear terms 
on what this debate is all about. It is really a State rights issue. An 
implication has been made that if we repeal this mandatory section of 
ISTEA, there is going to be a pell-mell rush by States to repeal 
whatever they have in place now. Some States have helmet laws for 
everyone; some have it for 18 and under; some have it for under 1 year 
of experience. It is a hodgepodge of things now. Very clearly, 25 
States do not have full compliance. I do not see them changing.
  I think that in a number of States, they have dealt with this over 
and over, and they simply see this as a Federal blackmail system, and 
they are not going to give up. I can tell my colleagues on the other 
side of this issue that I do not intend to give up, and I am sure 
Senator Snowe will not. The people who believe in States rights and the 
10th amendment will not give up.
  We talked almost 3 hours on this issue yesterday, and another 2 hours 
today. I say to my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island, that I am 
willing to stay here all night, and I am sure others are, too. I would 
like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island if he will consider some kind 
of a time agreement on which we can end this debate and have a vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We are ready to vote now. If this amendment is adopted, 
it is absolutely clear that the States, just as they did in the period 
of 1976, will repeal the mandatory helmet laws they have on the books. 
That is the next objective of the motorcycle association. They will be 
on every legislator's doorstep pressuring, demanding, and the result 
will be that the States that have it will repeal their helmet laws. And 
the result of that will be increased deaths on our highways from 
motorcyclists not wearing helmets, not having helmets. I think it is a 
very unfortunate step.
  If the Senator is through speaking, I will move to table.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first, I wanted to ask unanimous consent to 
include somebody as a cosponsor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include Senator 
Cohen of Maine and Senator Thomas of Wyoming as cosponsors of my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in 
sponsoring an amendment to eliminate the penalties on States that do 
not require the use of motorcycle helmets. I do not support efforts to 
force States to institute helmet laws, particularly States like 
Minnesota that already have effective motorcycle safety education 
programs.
  I would have preferred to join in an alternative amendment that would 
have repealed current requirements that States enact helmet safety laws 
and replaced it with a requirement that States enact helmet safety 
education programs. However, that alternative amendment, which had been 
prepared by one of my colleagues, was not actually offered. I am 
therefore supporting the amendment before us, and as I pointed out, 
Minnesota does have a motorcycle safety education program.
  Mr. President, Minnesota had a mandatory helmet law for 10 years--
1968-1977. Proponents in favor of this law stated, ``A mandatory helmet 
law will dramatically reduce motorcycle fatalities.'' During the 10-
year period Minnesota had a mandatory helmet law, fatalities did not go 
down per 10,000 registered vehicles. In fact, fatalities continued to 
increase almost every year.
  Mr. President, Minnesota has not had a mandatory helmet law for 10 
years. Our 1993 fatality rate plummeted an incredible 72 percent in 
spite of doubling the number of licensed motorcyclists. Since the 
inception of Minnesota's Rider Education and Public Awareness programs, 
motorcycle fatalities have been reduced 54 percent.
  Mr. President, the Minnesota legislative body has analyzed and 
debated the helmet law issue many times in the 18 years since the 
helmet law was repealed. Legislators have repeatedly concluded; 
Minnesota does not need a mandatory helmet law.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I now move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 64, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 274 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers [[Page S 8754]] 
     Byrd
     Chafee
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon

                                NAYS--64

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1442) was 
rejected.


                Amendment No. 1443 to Amendment No. 1442

 (Purpose: To limit the repeal to apply only to States that assume the 
Federal cost of providing medical care to treat an injury attributable 
   to a person's failure to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree 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 himself and 
     Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 1443 to 
     amendment No. 1442.
       Before the period at the end of the amendment insert the 
     following: ``and inserting `a law described in subsection 
     (a)(1) (except a State that by law assumes any Federal cost 
     incurred in providing medical care to treat an injury to a 
     person in a motorcycle accident, to the extent that the 
     injury is attributable to that person's failure to wear a 
     motorcycle helmet) and' ''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, let me explain this amendment, if I might.
  This is an amendment to gratify the hearts of all the believers in 
strong States rights and get the Federal Government off our backs and 
out of things.
  This amendment says that the current law involving the dedication of 
certain funds for highway funds for safety and training will go into 
effect unless that State passes--and seatbelts and motorcycle helmets 
will be required--unless that State passes a law saying that none of 
the medical care to treat an injury to a person in a motorcycle 
accident, to the extent that the injury is attributable to that 
person's failure to wear a helmet, no Federal funds will be used to pay 
for that health care.
  In other words, what we are saying, and I said right along here on 
the floor, is that the Federal Government should not be caught with the 
cost if the State does not want to mandate motorcycle helmets. Other 
people say it ought to be left to the States. That is fine. But let us 
not have the Federal Government caught with the cost. So this means 
that the Federal share will not be payable if a State does not enact 
such a helmet law.
  It seems to me that it is a very fair thing. We are saying if we pay 
the piper, we ought to have some say. But people do not want that. They 
do not want the Federal Government to have any say requiring motorcycle 
helmets. So we say, OK, you do what you want, but we, the Federal 
Government, will not pay our portion of the Medicaid, principally, and 
it will apply to Medicare likewise.
  So, Mr. President, I think it is a good amendment. The Senator from 
Texas has been active in this. I commend her for it.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this amendment. I 
voted not to table the Snowe-Campbell amendment because I do believe in 
States rights. But I also have a concern about the States lifting this 
helmet law and then expecting the Federal Government, through Medicaid 
or through other public grants, to pay for the cost of their lifting. I 
am a States righter. I think this should be a State issue. But I also 
think that with the right comes the responsibility.
  So, if the States decide within their rights to lift the laws 
requiring the use of helmets on motorcycles, I then think it is 
incumbent on the States to take the responsibility if the person does 
not have private health insurance.
  The statistics show that 64 percent of the inpatient charges for 
motorcycle-related accidents are provided for by private health 
insurance. But that leaves 19 percent for public, and 17 percent from 
other sources, including Medicaid.
  So you can see that there is a large percentage of these injuries 
that could be publicly paid for. I think people do have the right to 
enact State laws that govern how people on highways perform and how 
they protect themselves and what kind of safety issues you should have. 
I am a believer in States rights, and I also think with that right goes 
responsibility.
  So I am cosponsoring the amendment, and I appreciate the work that 
everyone has done on this issue. I thought this might be acceptable to 
both sides. But I think maybe it is not. I would like to reserve a 
little time at the end of the debate to finish in closing.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before I make any comments, I would like 
to make a parliamentary inquiry. If the Hutchison amendment is adopted, 
then is this further subjected to a second-degree? Does this become a 
first-degree?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Snowe amendment, as amended, if this were 
to prevail, would then be open to further amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Further question: Are we to assume that it would then 
be open to further amendments dealing with Medicare or Medicaid?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that the relevancy of 
further amendments would be determined by the Chair on a case-by-case 
basis.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I tell you, with all deference to my friend and 
colleague, Senator Hutchison, for whom I have great admiration and 
respect, I think, very frankly, this is a terrible amendment.
  First of all, if we are trying to deal with helmet use, we do not 
want to fool around with the money that goes through our Medicare 
system to States. I think it is a real mistake to open up that issue 
because we would have to have a whole bunch of amendments dealing with 
that. I can tell you that I am not a constitutional attorney, but I 
think when you discriminate against one class of people, when you tell 
them that they will be denied funding under these programs because they 
do not wear helmets, but they will not be denied the same money if they 
get injured through any other kind of pursuits. I think in the courts 
it would be fairly unconstitutional. I look forward to finding that 
out, if this amendment does pass.
  Second, I do not know where it would leave the 25 States that are not 
in compliance now. Are we going to tell millions, if not hundreds of 
millions of Americans, in those 25 States that we are going to add 
another burden and we refuse to grant them some kind of Federal help 
under these services if they do not comply with the mandatory helmets 
under ISTEA?
  So I just tell you, I think it is a terrible mistake, and opens up a 
can of worms that could be amended further and further dealing with all 
kinds of recreational pursuits.
  I hope that my colleagues will reject it.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to speak to this amendment.
  I would be in opposition to the amendment, it seems to me, for these 
reasons, unless it can be clarified: If a motorcyclist were simply 
stopped at a light and a car made an illegal turn or in some other 
manner struck him, or her, as the case may be, then I understand this 
amendment would apply.
 Would that be correct?
[[Page S 8755]]

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No, it is my understanding of the amendment, if the 
injury is attributable to the person's failure to wear the motorcycle 
helmet.
  Mr. WARNER. Suppose they did not have a helmet on. They are standing 
there motionless and a car violated some law and struck the person.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think it would be very easy to determine if the 
person was injured by not having a helmet on or not.
  Mr. WARNER. Well, they might go off the bicycle and, indeed, suffer a 
head injury. That person then would fall within the statute?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If a helmet would have prevented the injury, 
absolutely, and that is the purpose of helmet laws.
  Mr. WARNER. Even though the cyclist is totally innocent of 
malfeasance or negligence?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. The reason that some States do have helmet laws--and 
this is, of course, I believe, a State issue--is because it is a 
protection. Whether you are hit or whether you fall or whether you are 
thrown from a motorcycle, the purpose is to try to keep down the 
injuries because you do not have the protections of a car. So 
regardless of fault, if you are injured because you did not have a 
helmet on, yes, you would fall under this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, if the injuries were a combination of head injuries 
and, say, torso or limb injuries, you could get the Federal 
subsidization through Medicare or Medicaid for the injuries other than 
the head injuries, would that be correct?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, I think so. We are talking about the States 
taking the responsibility for not having a helmet law for what might 
happen for people who do not use them.
  Mr. WARNER. So a cyclist could receive compensation, Federal 
compensation for any injury other than a head injury?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, I would say so.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would say to my two good friends here, 
it seems to me we had what I would characterize as an honest, fair 
debate on the underlying amendment, and with some reluctance, because I 
have always tried to myself be concerned about the expenditures of the 
Federal taxpayers for these types of accidents, I support the 
prevailing side on this amendment. I do so because it seems to me this 
is a clear question of States rights to this Senator, and I find that 
on the other votes on this bill, where I stood toe to toe to try and 
protect the Federal speed limit and stood toe to toe to protect the 
requirement to wear seatbelts, even though I am a strong States rights 
person, in this instance it is different.
  Why is it different for this Senator? Because in the case of speed 
limits and seatbelts, I find there is a direct correlation to other 
drivers of automobiles, because they could be injured innocently as a 
consequence of excessive speed by another driver or that driver in 
another vehicle not wearing a seatbelt and thereby losing some control 
over the vehicle and causing injury to an innocent person.
  We lost on that speed limit. But it seems to me this is a case where 
we let the States decide, like let the riders decide to wear or not to 
wear a helmet. And therefore I find the amendment, in my judgment, 
begins to open up a series of legislative moves in an attempt to 
undermine the underlying amendment when we had a perfectly fair and 
open fight and discussion and debate on the underlying amendment.
  Therefore, I would have to associate myself with those who will be in 
opposition, I regret to say to my distinguished chairman. We are both 
chairmen. He is the chairman of the committee. I am the chairman of the 
subcommittee. But at this point, he is in the chair.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, throughout the discussion yesterday on the 
amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire and the amendment today of 
the Senator from Maine, there was great accent on freedom, freedom to 
choose--we should respect the State legislatures in that they will do 
the right thing and that the Federal Government should get out of it. 
And the Federal Government was chastised in many of the remarks made 
here as a big, overpowering force; that we should do everything to 
avoid bringing the Government closer to the people.
  That was the argument. All right. But the argument we were making on 
the other side was that the Federal Government has to pay the bill 
frequently through Medicare and Medicaid. In every instance in 
Medicaid, the Federal Government is paying more than 50 percent. So 
that argument was blown away by a very, very heavy vote.
  Now what we are saying is, OK, let the States decide, let the States 
forgo the so-called mandatory helmet bill, but if they do, then the 
Federal Government will not step in and pay the medical costs of an 
individual injured as a result of not wearing a helmet.
  So this is a very, very simple amendment. I should think it would 
thoroughly satisfy the States righters because they get everything they 
want, and indeed they are avoiding the problem of the big Federal 
Government coming in and paying some of the bills, if that presents a 
problem.
  So all we are saying is that where there is an injury attributable to 
that person's failure to wear a helmet, and the State does not have a 
helmet law, the Federal Government should not have to pay either 
Medicare or Medicaid. Let the States pay it. I think it is a very fair 
deal.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It 
reminds me of something a very famous journalist, H.L. Mencken, once 
said. He said for every complicated problem, if there is a simple 
solution, it is usually wrong. This is a very simple solution, but I 
think it raises a lot of important questions. I would like to ask if 
the Senator from Texas might respond to some of these questions.
  As I understand it, this amendment deals with the treatment of States 
that do not have a helmet law. For those States, that do not have a 
helmet law, that State could not use Federal Medicaid funds to pay for 
unhelmeted riders injured in motorcycle accidents. Is that correct?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No. It goes toward the State that decides to make 
that decision to also take the responsibility for injuries caused by 
making that decision.
  Mr. BAUCUS. No, no. As I read the amendment, it says in the last 
words in the last few lines ``to the extent that the injury is 
attributable to that person's failure to wear a motorcycle helmet.''
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct. But we are putting the 
responsibility on the State, if they decide not to have a helmet law.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Let me ask another question. What happens if a person who 
is injured is not wearing a helmet and the physician then has a hard 
time determining the degree to which the injury the person suffers is 
attributable to not wearing a helmet, and then other injuries that 
would otherwise occur. Let us say it is a neck injury; let us say this 
person is thrown from the bike, for example, and falls on the pavement. 
It is partly a head injury; it is partly a shoulder injury; there may 
be another injury. So is the doctor then supposed to write out a form 
as to what percent of the cost is attributable to the head injury and 
what percent of the cost is attributable to the other injuries that 
occur?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think it would be very reasonable to do that 
actually. I think whether you have a head injury or do not have a head 
injury is easily ascertainable. And yes, I think you could devise a----
  Mr. BAUCUS. Let us ask the next question. Let us say there is a 
superficial head injury, a cut, but the person goes into shock, and the 
hospital bills are very extensive but there appears to be just a 
superficial scrape to the head.
  Now, which portion of the hospital bills would be paid and which 
portions not?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think a doctor is going to be able to easily 
discern what is caused by not wearing a helmet. I do not think that is 
going to be a big deal for a doctor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. But it is true that, if this amendment were to pass, the 
hospitals, nurses, doctors, and other health care providers involved 
with this patient would have to go through a lot of hurdles in 
determining what portions of the injuries are attributable to not 
wearing a helmet. This [[Page S 8756]] will require a lot of paperwork 
to document all this. Is that not correct?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No. I think you are obviously making something that 
is not there because you do not think this is a good amendment, which 
is your right. But I think the issue here is, if a State wants to pass 
a law that says people do not have to wear motorcycle helmets, they 
have the right to do it. All we are saying is, they also have the 
responsibility to pay for it. I think that is fairly simple. I think it 
is fairly clear.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Let us think about the additional paperwork required to 
meet the demands of this amendment. Paperwork for hospitals, doctors, 
and nurses.
  Has the Senator made an assessment of how much more paperwork this 
would cause?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. The State has the option. This is not something we 
are forcing them to use. The States have the option. They can decide to 
not have a helmet law and take the responsibility for the injuries, or 
they can have a helmet law and try to prevent those injuries. It is 
just a matter of whether the Federal Government is going to pay for 
this State right. You know, I am very much for States rights. I am very 
much against unfunded mandates. But I think it is very important when 
you are dealing with the highways and safety on the highways, which we 
do with seatbelts and helmet laws, if States are going to take the 
responsibility to make the decision, which I think they have a right to 
do, I think they should have the responsibility to pay for it rather 
than send the bill to the Federal Government.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with that. As I read this amendment, it would 
apply to injuries that might occur due to lack of a helmet whether the 
motorcyclist was riding on the interstate highway or on private 
property.
  I ask the Senator from Texas, there are a lot of wide open spaces in 
Texas, a lot of ranches. Would this apply to someone on a ranch in 
Texas who is out on his place trying to chase down a stray steer, not 
on any road? He falls off his bike on his own place and gets a head 
injury. Would this amendment apply to that person as well?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. The underlying----
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is how I read it.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think it depends on what the State does. I think 
the State has a right to say that you need to wear a helmet on a 
highway but private property is exempt, or the State can also require 
it on private property. I doubt it would apply on private property. But 
that is a State right. And I would think that probably private property 
is exempt.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator's 
responses. I think that, to be totally candid, this is an amendment 
which is well meaning and well intended. But has not been thought 
through enough. It opens up horrendous difficulties. No. 1, it is an 
impossible burden to place on the doctor, nurse, or provider to 
determine the portion of total injuries, which is often very difficult 
to do.
  For instance, there may be a massive head injury and not much other 
injury to the body or maybe massive injuries to other parts of the 
body. It may be a head injury, and it may be a head injury that is 
causing the huge medical bills or it may not. It is very difficult for 
a doctor or nurse to determine and answer that question.
  Second, Mr. President, it is the incredible paperwork that it will 
cause. This is a horrendously complex issue. I think the answer that 
the Senator from Texas said, ``It is up to the States,'' the way this 
is written, ``to the extent the injury is attributable to that person's 
failing to wear a motorcycle helmet,'' does not seem to give a lot of 
discretion to the States.
  If it gives discretion to the States, the Senator is making our 
argument. This is States rights. Let us give discretion to the States 
and give discretion for what makes sense for them in their own States.
  And to the private property point. As I read this amendment, it does 
not appear to give the State discretion to limit it to injury to 
persons without a helmet on public roads. As I read this amendment, it 
says, ``To the extent that the injury is attributable to that person's 
failure to wear a motorcycle helmet.'' And that is just another problem 
I see with this amendment. But if we are going to go down this road and 
limit Federal dollars, we might as well say, ``OK, States, why not? We 
are going to limit your Federal dollars if you don't pass handgun 
legislation outlawing the use of handguns.'' We all know that handguns 
cause some deaths in this country. Many emergency rooms in hospitals 
around this country see patients because of gunshot wounds. Does the 
Senator from Texas think we should apply the same logic to legislation 
of that kind?
  What about passive smoke? Some people think that more people get 
cancer because they breathe passive smoke. Are we to say there should 
be no public funds to States if they did not pass legislation 
restricting public accommodations for passive smoke?
  There is no end to this. I know this is a well-meaning amendment, but 
I think it is very complex. I think it would be wise for us, Mr. 
President, to summarily vote it down.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there is an old technique in debating and 
arguing, if you will, to get into analogies. And pretty soon you are on 
the analogy instead of the basic point. In other words, suddenly we are 
on handguns here. There is no suggestion of handguns in this 
legislation. This is very simple.
  And I commend the Senator from Texas and join her as a cosponsor, as 
has been pointed out. What she is saying is, if everybody wants the 
State to have all its rights, and they do not want to subscribe to a 
Federal law which says you have got to wear a motorcycle helmet, fine. 
That is the ultimate of States rights. What we voted on here today, 
they do not want any of those Federal people interfering.
  What she is saying is, if we cannot have any control over what takes 
place, why should we have to pay the bill, any portion of the bill? And 
that is all it does. And you can get into all kinds of arguments about, 
``Oh, who is going to decide?'' We have decisions made all the time in 
connection with health care. There is no problem there. The whole 
Medicare system is based upon a doctor making a decision, categorizing 
the extent of the illness. That is the way all the charges are done. 
This is not anything unique. It is very, very common. It is the same 
with Medicaid and the eligibility requirements for Medicaid. They are 
all there. And so I do not think we want to get bogged down.
  If he is not wearing a helmet in a stationary position getting 
injured, does it count? Of course, it counts, because he ought to have 
been wearing a helmet under the law. If the State does not have that 
law, OK, fine. And there is no requirement that they have the law. And 
there is no requirement for the Federal Government to pay anything 
either.
  So, Mr. President, I think this is--I thought we might get this 
amendment accepted. I thought every States righter would think this is 
great. And perhaps they will. Perhaps the distinguished Senators from 
Maine and Colorado will say, ``This is good. This is what we like.'' I 
look for a favorable response.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I do not blame the 
distinguished chairman for not wanting to get into the details of this 
amendment because once you do and understand the implications and the 
impact, it certainly would be unprecedented from a Federal standpoint.
  I ask the Senator from Texas, why stop here? Why just stop with those 
who do not wear helmets? Why do we not deny individuals who are on 
Medicaid any medical care if they smoke and end up getting cancer? Why 
do we not deny people who are on Medicaid and do not engage in 
exercise, good diet, and do not get preventive medical checkups on an 
annual basis? Why do we not deny them medical care?
  I mean, we can go on with endless possibilities. Why do we not deny 
those who ski and do not wear a helmet when they get injured? Why do we 
not deny them medical care? How about those who go rollerblading? If 
they do not wear a helmet, do we deny them medical care? [[Page S 
8757]] 
  I think the Senator from Virginia raised a very important point. If 
somebody is riding a motorcycle and does not happen to be wearing a 
helmet because that person is abiding by the State law because they are 
not required to wear a helmet and they get broadsided by somebody who 
might be intoxicated or driving recklessly, that person who is driving 
recklessly or intoxicated would be eligible for Medicaid if they were 
in that category.
  But the person who was a law-abiding citizen riding the motorcycle 
and gets broadsided by that individual who is driving recklessly would 
be denied medical care. I do not think that is the approach we want to 
adopt in Congress, sort of a two- and three-tiered system as to who is 
going to be denied or who is going to have access to medical care.
  I think, and I said before, when the Senator from Rhode Island raised 
the issue about, well, this is going to add to our costs, I would ask 
the Senator, why not offer legislation that denies medical care for 
anything we think is going to affect health care costs to the Federal 
Government? Why are we stopping with just wearing helmets? I ask either 
the Senator from Texas or the Senator from Rhode Island that question. 
What about horseback riding? Rodeos?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Can I give an answer to that?
  Ms. SNOWE. I will be glad to yield for that purpose.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The measure before us is a bill dealing with helmets, 
motorcycle helmets and seatbelts. That is the legislation. We do not 
have legislation before us dealing with skiers or with rollerbladers or 
with horseback riders.
  So what the Senator from Maine has done, if her amendment is 
adopted--by the way, her amendment has not been adopted but what she is 
striving to do is to change the law. The current law says that a State 
must pass legislation to mandate the use of motorcycle helmets and 
seatbelts, except if they choose not to, then they suffer certain 
penalties. You are the one who brought up the legislation, not us.
  Ms. SNOWE. This Senator, in hearing the Senator's answer to the 
question, then assumes the Senator supports denying all these 
categories for access to medical care on other pieces of legislation.
  Mr. CHAFEE. No, I have not said anything to that effect.
  Ms. SNOWE. That is the question I am asking because this is the kind 
of precedent that this amendment is establishing. What is the point?
  Mr. CHAFEE. We will worry about precedents later on. The matter 
before us is motorcycle helmets.
  Ms. SNOWE. So the Senator is not prepared----
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Maine seeks to change that, and I am 
saying if you change that and are unsuccessful, why should we have to 
pay the bill?
  Ms. SNOWE. I reclaim my time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We are not saying anything about denying hospital care or 
medical coverage. States can do that.
  Ms. SNOWE. The States can do that at great cost, as the Senator well 
recognizes, and it was the Senator from Rhode Island who raised the 
question of medical costs. So let us discuss the issue of medical 
costs. I think it is a very relevant issue, and if it is right for 
motorcycle riders, then it should be right for everybody else in all of 
these categories, if we are talking about medical costs. It was the 
Senator who raised that issue.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield? Is it the Senator's 
understanding, as it is mine, if this amendment is adopted, it then 
becomes amendable?
  Ms. SNOWE. Absolutely.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. What is to stop amending it saying anyone not wearing 
seatbelts is denied Medicaid or what is to stop amending it to say we 
do away with Medicaid altogether, or something of that nature?
  Ms. SNOWE. That is correct. There would be endless possibilities in 
terms of what could be offered here to deny medical care to people in 
various categories, in various forms of personal behavior.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. A further question. The Senator mentioned a drunken 
driver. Let me see if I have the scenario right and maybe the Senator 
can inform me.
  Let us say there is a man driving down the road and is dead drunk and 
runs over 10 people. One he happens to run over is a motorcyclist 
parked by a stop sign who does not have a helmet on. The drivers are 
also injured in all these wrecks. As I understand the Hutchison 
amendment, the drunk that runs over the 10 people is going to get 
Medicaid, if he needs it, because he is injured, but the guy he ran 
over who was just sitting there will not because he does not have a 
helmet. Is that the way the Senator from Maine reads it, too?
  Ms. SNOWE. That is the way I interpret this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. In my opinion, this opens up Pandora's box of 
amendments we do not want to deal with. I have to tell you, as I 
understand the amendment of the Senator from Texas, it would deny 
Medicaid to people who are not wearing a helmet. I am going to prepare 
an amendment to hers, if it is adopted, that simply would require 
Medicaid for everybody who is riding with a helmet, if we are going to 
open up that Pandora's box. I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for his comments, because I think his 
amendment would be very relevant under the rules of the Senate, and I 
think that it does, as the Senator from Colorado indicates with his 
amendment, open up all kinds of possibilities. This is unprecedented. 
We will start determining who will have access to medical care 
depending on their personal or recreational choices. That is the 
decision we will be making with this amendment.
  I also suggest it is a strange form of States rights that almost does 
not pass the straight-face test.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator further yield? I know the Senator from 
Maine has a pretty considerable background of law. I do not. Does the 
Senator also see this as a singling out of one class of people that 
could question the constitutionality of the amendment?
  Ms. SNOWE. I say to the Senator, I am not a lawyer, but I certainly 
think that would have a great impact. It certainly would, in my 
opinion, in terms of the impact it would have on a specific category of 
recipients, potential recipients if they are eligible for any of our 
medical programs in the Federal Government.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator.
  Ms. SNOWE. But I would say, I mentioned earlier that it would be a 
very strange form of States rights. We are saying to the States, ``You 
decide whether or not you want a helmet law.'' However, if somebody who 
is abiding by the fact that their State does not have a helmet law, so 
is not wearing a helmet and gets in an accident, regardless of whether 
or not it is his or her fault, they will be denied medical care; is 
that what we are really saying and want to say by adopting this 
amendment? I hope not, because I think you would all agree there are 
other areas that we could examine, as far as having a tremendous impact 
on medical care that adds to the cost year in and year out.
  So I hope that we reject this amendment, because otherwise, as the 
Senator from Colorado, Senator Campbell, has mentioned, there will be 
other amendments to address these very issues that come within the 
scope and relevance of the amendment that has been offered by the 
Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison.
  Mr. President, I ask for a recorded vote on the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The yeas and nays have already 
been ordered on the underlying first-degree amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have listened to this debate with 
interest, curiosity, and amazement, because what I hear is, ``If you do 
that, I'm going to punish you. If you do that amendment, I'm going to 
punish you with other amendments.''
  This floor is wide open. You can make as many amendments as time will 
allow, and no one ought to be cowed or frightened by the prospect of 
another amendment that drags in some extraneous issue. We are now 
discussing whether or not these benefits apply universally and whether 
we will be able to take it away if someone stubs their toe in a 
bathtub. [[Page S 8758]] 
  The fact of the matter is that what these discussions are about did 
not get on the books willy-nilly because someone had it in for 
motorcycle riders or someone had it in for nonseatbelt users or someone 
had it in for speeders. These things developed because this was the 
safest way for our country to operate.
  For those of us who are not regular motorcycle riders--I say regular. 
The first time I rode a motorcycle was when I was 17 years old, which 
was more than 20 years ago.
 I got a few pieces of gravel in my knee and my arm. My father talked 
to me, as only fathers and sons used to talk in those days; it was 
direct, no exceptions. He did not mind striking a blow for intelligence 
and maturity. I listened carefully. That was the end of my motorcycle 
career.

  But the fact of the matter is that this is not a vendetta against 
motorcycle riders. What it is is a carefully thought out program to 
save us money--all of the American taxpayers. Motorcyclists, as a 
class, have more accidents and more costly accidents than do automobile 
riders. And, thusly, we are saying, hey, if you want us to make 
contributions, to pay into the pot for Medicaid, then please take some 
precautions. Even if you do not use a seatbelt in the car, you are 
protected by the frame and structure of the car, and now by airbags in 
almost every car. But you see it almost automatically--people buckle 
up. Machismo says: I do not buckle up; I ride free and easy. Well, that 
is up to the individual. I went through a story yesterday about my 
visit to a trauma center, which was an urban trauma center in a very 
poor, high-crime city, and the doctor in charge of the center said that 
the only thing that exceeds disastrous injuries from motorcycles are 
gunshot wounds. And we know that needs attention of and by itself.
  But, in this case, what we are saying is that helmets ought to be 
used because it saves society money. Those who choose to run the risk, 
obviously, they are the ones who decide how much pain their families 
will have, how much anguish their loved ones will have; they are the 
ones who will decide that the risk is worth the ride. That is up to the 
individuals.
  But I say, if you want to use Federal roads, then you ought to do the 
things that guarantee a modicum of safety. I think the Senator from 
Texas has come up with a brilliant idea, which says that if there are 
additional expenses involved as a result of your not taking appropriate 
precautions, then do not ask us, the Federal taxpayers, to pay the 
bill. That is standard in almost everything in life that we do. We are 
a Nation of laws. If you obey the laws and something happens, 
typically, it does not cost you anything, other than that which you pay 
in the normal array of taxes. But if you fail to obey the laws, if you 
want to jump out of an airplane in a parachute in the middle of a city 
and you cause all kinds of disruption, today you are going to pay a 
price for it. If you choose to violate the rules for safe passage in 
the mountains or in the oceans and you require service from the Federal 
Government, you pay for it. We, the citizens and taxpayers, are not 
required to do that.
  So when we talk about what it is that centers this focus on helmets, 
we have to ask ourselves: What was the mission of the law as it was 
originally developed? The mission was not to punish States. The mission 
was not to add expense to the operations of State or local government. 
The mission was to save lives. And yesterday, we heard a fairly 
astounding statement, which when thought about carefully, suggested 
something. The suggestion was that if we slow the cars enough on our 
highways, we would save lots and lots of lives. But that was implied, 
and that was, therefore, a calculated risk. So that if we increase the 
speed limit a little bit more and a few more people die, as they say in 
France, ``c'est la vie''--that is life. That is the price you pay for 
more speed.
  If one wanted to extend that argument, one could say that when this 
airline is scheduled to leave at 9:05 in the morning from Newark 
Airport, regardless of whether the skies are crowded or not, that plane 
takes off. It is the most ridiculous proposal anyone could conjure up. 
But it is the same as saying, well, sure, if you want to make things 
more efficient, you simply slow down the traffic, and the reverse of 
that--if you want to get someplace, then you may lose some lives. That 
argument hardly holds water when it comes to discussing a tragic 
result, whether it is a motorcycle rider or car rider or somebody 
falling down and getting hit by the car. It does not matter. The cost 
relates to lives. That is what we are discussing here--whether or not 
we are interested in saving lives, or whether the mission is to save 
the States dollars that do not want to comply with the rules.
  We have had a vote and it was very clearly established that the 
majority here prefers that helmet laws be revoked. But I think that the 
proper response to that, having seen that overwhelming support, is that 
if more costs result from injuries that obtain from no helmets, and the 
Federal Government ought not to have to pay for that. If a State 
chooses to remove the requirements for helmets, then the State ought to 
pay for it. There ought not to be Medicaid for it. Private insurance is 
another thing. But there ought not to be public insurance for those 
States that violate sensible safety rules.
  So I commend the Senator from Texas. I think she has an excellent 
idea. I rise as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that I be included 
as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will see the 
wisdom of her recommendation and that we will respond to what is an 
attempt to remove the safety precautions and replace it with a ``if you 
want to play, you pay'' kind of thing. I think that is quite normal and 
I think that is quite acceptable.
  I will close by saying that I do not think this opens up a Pandora's 
box or other things. If we want to discuss other things, we are going 
to discuss them, regardless of the outcome of this amendment.
  I hope that this amendment is agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey. I 
appreciate the fact that he wants to be added as a cosponsor of this 
amendment, because I think it is a good, sound amendment. There was one 
technical answer that I wanted to give to the Senator from Montana in 
his request for information, and that is, the underlying helmet law 
applies to public roads.
  Private property is really not an issue here. It is a matter of what 
we do on public roads.
  I was a member of the National Transportation Safety Board at one 
time. I am very safety conscious. There is no question about that. I 
would like to encourage people to wear helmets, because I know that 
makes a difference in safety.
  Safety belts make a huge difference in injuries in car accidents. I 
think that is so well settled that the Senate showed overwhelmingly 
yesterday that they did not want to lift the safety belt requirement.
  The issue of helmets is a closer call. I think it really is a States 
right issue. Yet, I do hope that the States will think very carefully 
before they enact a law that would do away with the helmet law, because 
I do think it is a safety issue.
  We do not want to hamper the rights of States in this instance. In 
fact, the American College of Emergency Physicians also believes this 
is a good amendment, because they see the effects of the differences in 
injuries when a person does not have a seatbelt or is not wearing a 
helmet while riding a motorcycle.
  When people choose to ride motorcycles, as my wonderful friend the 
Senator from Colorado does, and we are proud that he does--when a 
person chooses to do that, that person is choosing to ride a vehicle 
that does not have the same protections as an automobile. A person 
should have that right.
  I also think that there is an issue of, if you are going to do that 
unprotected, without a helmet, which we know will not only save lives 
but have far fewer injuries, I think that there is a responsibility 
there.
  I just think that if a State decides that it is going to do away with 
the helmet law on public roads, that State should also take 
responsibility. This is not hampering States rights, but it is [[Page S 
8759]] saying that when you have the right and you choose to exercise 
that right, you also take the responsibility for that action, rather 
than having the Federal Government do it.
  I think it is a very simple issue. I think it is an issue of States 
rights and State responsibilities. I am a cosponsor of the amendment 
that would not allow the Senate to send costs to the States. I think 
this is just a reversal of the same treatment.
  If the States decide they do not want to go with a national policy 
that has been set, they have the right to do it, but they should pay 
for the consequences of exercising that right. Thank you.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Colorado 
would respond to a question. We are trying to get a time agreement here 
and wind this up. I was wondering if the Senator would agree to a 
certain length of time?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. No, not without my colleague. I would like to retain my 
time.
  Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey is still here. Senator 
Lautenberg talked about missions and our mission here.
  I can say that missions change, because when the 55-mile-an-hour 
speed limit was implemented, it was not to save lives. It was to save 
gasoline--everyone knows that--because of the energy crunch. Somehow 
the mission changed as people began to look at their relationship to 
speed and safety. Missions change.
  I would like to point out what I guess in my old-fashioned way is 
still considered to be the original mission of this body, and that was 
to uphold the Constitution. As I read the 10th amendment--not having 
the background and a lot of the legal skills as some of my colleagues 
do--the 10th amendment still says: ``The powers not delegated to the 
United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States 
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''
  There is nothing here that says we will mandate helmet laws. Nothing 
says we will be punitive and deduct money that they paid in their gas 
tax if they do not comply with some kind of an arbitrary rule we set 
back here. It does not say anything like that. It says we will not take 
away the States' rights to decide. That is the original mission. That 
is why we are here.
  I think that the Hutchison amendment opens up a Pandora's box of any 
further amendments. If her amendment passes, it can be amended. Is 
somebody going to offer an amendment that, if they do not have a 
helmet, we do away with their food stamps? Or we do away with their 
farm subsidies? If they are not wearing a helmet, they will not receive 
money under the crime bill? The list can be endless. That is why this 
amendment is a killer amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment or to table it 
when that motion is offered. I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments made 
by the Senator from Colorado, because I think some of the questions 
that have been raised with respect to the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Texas really does embark the Senate on a different course 
with respect to, for example, the Medicaid Program.
  The Medicaid program is a State-Federal Program. States design their 
programs within the Federal guidelines. Do not underestimate for a 
moment that we will not be pursuing a different and an unprecedented 
approach with respect to our medical programs. Once we decide that 
behavior is going to dictate whether or not an individual has access to 
medical care costs, we have opened, as the Senator from Colorado said, 
Pandora's box.
  It will not stop here. I know the Senator from Rhode Island would not 
answer the question as to whether or not he would support other forms 
of social, personal, or recreational behavior as a determining factor 
for an individual eligible for our medical programs to receive those 
medical benefits.
  I now would ask the Senator from Texas as to whether or not the 
Senator thinks that we should adopt a standard of behavior that will 
determine whether or not an individual should receive medical care in 
this country. I ask the Senator, does the Senator think that we should 
draw the line, for example, on what people do--whether they are skiing, 
skateboarding, rollerblading, smoking, improper diet, lack of exercise? 
We could go on in terms of the number of critical choices that are made 
as to how we will spend our money. And those people who are recipients 
of these programs could be denied based on this amendment. This is 
setting a precedent.
  Does the Senator think that we should design our Medicaid or Medicare 
programs according to people's personal and social and recreational 
behavior?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in a way, we do that in many 
instances. I think it is well settled that the U.S. Congress has the 
right to make laws as they affect our public roads and highways. If a 
State gets Federal funding, then we have certain laws that we must 
comply with.
  There are safety laws in the way we construct highways. Insurance 
companies do have standards that are adopted by States, very often, on 
who can get insurance and who cannot. I think we have to take 
everything on a case-by-case basis.
  I certainly think the Federal Government has the right and has made 
laws that are contingent upon receiving--Federal funds are contingent 
on those laws for States to receive those Federal funds. I sort of 
messed that up, but basically there are standards that have been set.
  I do not think it is out of line at all. I think we have a Federal 
law. We have set a Federal standard. We are giving States the right to 
go against that standard, just like we did on the speed limit 
yesterday.
  So I think we have just said if the States exercise the right, they 
take the responsibility.
  Ms. SNOWE. Getting to specifics, I think it is important, because we 
are talking about medical costs.
  We are saying if somebody does not wear a helmet and gets in an 
accident, regardless of whether or not it is that individual's fault, 
they will not have access to medical care if they happen to be eligible 
for a Federal program.
  Now, we know that smoking is a cost. Does the Senator think that if 
somebody who happens to be on the Medicaid or Medicare Program, 
smoking, and happens to get lung cancer, do we deny that individual 
medical care?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maine is 
asking for a personal opinion when, in fact, there very easily could be 
Medicaid standards that say if you smoke, you do not get treatment.
 Now, whether I think that we should have those standards or not is 
really irrelevant here.

  Ms. SNOWE. No, I think it is relevant. I reclaim my time. I think it 
is relevant because the Senator's amendment is setting up drawing 
distinctions for the first time. I think it is very relevant.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator is doing what Senator Chafee 
mentioned earlier, and that is using a debate tactic. I think it is 
well within the rights of an insurance company or the Federal 
Government, under Medicaid, to set standards for when you will receive 
that care. Absolutely, it is within their rights.
  Ms. SNOWE. We know its within their rights.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We are saying in this instance we think the State 
should pick up the responsibility if they are going to exercise their 
right. It is very simple.
  Ms. SNOWE. This is not a hypothetical amendment. It is reality. That 
is, what we are talking about is a very real possibility that will open 
a number of doors in terms of who will be eligible and who will be 
ineligible for medical care. We know the Federal Government has every 
right in the world and every prerogative to design the programs the way 
we see fit. But that is not the point.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Well, it is the point. That is absolutely the point.
  Ms. SNOWE. Let me have--it is my time.
  The point is in terms of what is right. Now we are saying that, 
because somebody happens to be abiding by their State law--and my 
colleague calls it a States rights issue, and I find that a very 
interesting interpretation of States rights because it is no different 
than what we are trying to fight over the helmet law or even the 
seatbelt law. We are saying let the States determine it but do not 
penalize us with transportation funds. [[Page S 8760]] 
  So now the Senator's amendment is penalizing States in a different 
way. She is saying we are not going to give you medical care costs if 
somebody gets in an accident because you are not adopting that 
amendment. That is the bottom line of her amendment. Because now she is 
giving the States the choice, if you do not pass that helmet law, and 
if something happens to an individual abiding by the State law that 
does not require them to wear a helmet, they will not have access to 
medical costs. The Senator knows the State is going to have to pick up 
the tab, so it is an unfunded mandate and she is a cosponsor of the 
unfunded mandate bill--but this is an unfunded mandate.
  The hospitals are not going to deny that care to that individual. The 
Senator would not suggest a 16- or 17-year-old on a motorcycle who gets 
in an accident is going to be denied medical care because they were 
abiding by the law of their State?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. SNOWE. I hope that is not the approach we are taking with this 
legislation because it opens up, I think, very incredible questions 
about the propriety of procedures in a policy from the Federal 
prospective.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  Ms. SNOWE. It is my time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask if the Senator will yield?
  Ms. SNOWE. I will be glad to yield.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator is raising a red herring here 
because the issue is, if we are going to provide the service, we have 
the right to set the standards. If we are going to say the States can 
exercise their rights, we have a right to also give them the 
responsibility.
  I am glad we are going toward eliminating unfunded mandates to the 
States, but I think if we are going to give States the rights to do 
these things, they are going to have to pick up the responsibility, 
coming the other way, just as we are giving them the right not to have 
unfunded mandates from the Federal Government.
  Ms. SNOWE. To answer the Senator's statement, yes, we do have the 
right. But the question is, what is right? I do not think the Senator's 
approach is the right approach. I do not think it is appropriate for us 
to begin to determine in a number of different areas how we are going 
to provide that medical care because we decide on what is appropriate 
and what is inappropriate.
  If we are going to do that, then I think it is only fair to look at a 
whole host of areas that have an impact on the cost to the Federal 
Government of medical care. That is what this amendment is suggesting. 
That is the door it is opening.
  It is everybody's right to interpret how this amendment is going to 
be applied. It is not a hypothetical situation. It is very real. While 
the Senator might think she is granting States the right to make those 
decisions, it is not any different than what we are trying to fight 
with this legislation. We are saying to the States, you ought to make 
those decisions. We have decided in our wisdom that something should be 
decided rightfully by the States. That was the vote we just had on my 
amendment, to allow the States to make those decisions, not to penalize 
them through transportation funds. But the Senator is coming through 
the back door and saying, all right, if you do not adopt this amendment 
then you are going to be denied medical care cost reimbursements by the 
Federal Government.
  Yes, it is definitely going to be an unfunded mandate, but I think it 
raises some other very serious questions about exactly how far we are 
willing to go to begin to make those distinctions on medical care costs 
and who is going to have access.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. SNOWE. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The Senator from Texas referred several times to 
Federal funding.
  Is it the belief of the Senator from Maine, as it is mine, that there 
is no funding here, that this money that is here comes from the 
taxpayers?
  Ms. SNOWE. That is absolutely correct. The Senator raised that 
earlier in terms of the transportation funds.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. That was the point I was going to make. Is it my 
colleague's belief, as it is mine, that people who pay into the highway 
users trust fund under the gasoline tax, whether it is Texas or Maine 
or Colorado or wherever, if they have the right to get that money back 
unfettered? They paid it in. Do they have a right to get it back 
without us putting a whole bunch of strings attached to it before they 
get their money back?
  Ms. SNOWE. I say to the Senator, he is exactly correct. My colleague 
is exactly right. Providing strings and requirements to the money 
before it is returned to the States or otherwise, they do not really 
get it because they cannot use it for the purposes they require. It is 
only the purpose which the Federal Government, the Congress, requires, 
but not for what the States need.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator.
  Ms. SNOWE. I hope, as I conclude my own remarks with respect to this 
issue, that we reject this amendment because, while some would say this 
is a red herring, it is not. We all too often find that we have 
amendments that have real implications. This certainly is one of them.
  We are saying on the one hand the States have the right to make 
decisions about their helmet laws, but on the other hand, if you do and 
it is not the right decision, we are not going to allow eligible 
recipients to have access to medical care if they abide by that law. It 
does not stop there.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  Ms. SNOWE. Does the Senator have a problem?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I was appealing to the Chair for time. I thought the 
Senator was finished.
  Ms. SNOWE. The fact of the matter is, we are going to be denying 
individuals medical care under this amendment. But it will not stop 
here. It will go on into other areas. As the Senator from Colorado has 
indicated, he will offer an amendment. There will be other amendments, 
there will be other legislation, and we will be continuing to draw 
those lines in terms of who will be able to get medical care.
  It can go on and on, because there are a number of behaviors that 
people engage in that have implications to our medical costs. I cannot 
imagine we are saying now, if somebody is skiing or skateboarding or 
rollerblading, playing touch football, and has a head injury and is not 
wearing a helmet, and may be on Medicaid--that has implications, too.
  But what we are doing is isolating a certain group and imposing a 
punishment on them because they are abiding by State law. So I hope we 
will reject the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from 
Texas, Senator Hutchison.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the occupant of the chair for 
giving me recognition.
  I listened carefully to the Senators who are opposed to this 
amendment and I am struck by the response to what I think is a very 
carefully thought out, very specific amendment that addresses a problem 
that is going to be created.
  What I heard was that the 10th amendment says that powers not 
relegated to the Federal Government are relegated to the States. What I 
heard is that, if this happens, ``I promise you I will have amendment 
after amendment after amendment'' that will kind of ``make you pay'' 
for supporting her amendment. I heard that this opens Pandora's box, 
that we are going to be discussing all kinds of things that relate to 
taking away people's benefits. I remind our distinguished friends that 
it has been the tradition in promoting safety in this country that you 
get incentives or that you get penalized by not complying because we 
are, after all, a Federal Nation.
  Yes. We can debate how much of a particular issue is a State issue 
exclusively or the Federal Government issue exclusively. But the fact 
is that we are an inextricably linked society, and that we have 
transportation programs that transcend State borders one after the 
other.
  I cannot tell how many requests I have gotten from the State of Maine 
over the years when I was chairman of [[Page S 8761]] the 
Transportation Subcommittee to have Amtrak extend to Maine to get this 
little bridge fixed up to there, to get that little road fixed up 
there. Never was it said in these requests, ``Now I know that we are 
asking for more than we should based on what we paid into the fund.'' 
The request was a legitimate one to the Federal Government.
  Colorado--I know Colorado well. It is a State I love and have visited 
many times. I have recommended funding for Colorado highways, 
viaducts--the 23d Street viaduct in Denver, CO, because it was 
recommended. I recommended supporting the funding there. And it goes on 
place after place after place.
  So this sudden shock that suggests that, ``Well, you want the States 
to pay for their miscreants? You want States to pay for their deeds 
that they commit that cost the Government money?'' Yes. Of course. 
Everybody pays their fair share. That is the way the game gets played. 
We are not talking about taking away food stamps or farm subsidies. We 
are talking about a very specific thing related to a very specific 
group which has a high incidence of injury and death relative to other 
types of transportation--very high incidence, often long-term illness, 
lifetime in many cases, for whom we pay extraordinarily high costs.
  What the amendment of the Senator from Texas says is, if you do not 
take the appropriate precautions, that is a right that apparently is 
yours. But you have no right to assess the rest of the country bills 
for decisions that you make that cost us money. We have all kinds of 
laws regulating behavior.
  I am surprised that we are debating this. We have laws against 
drinking and driving. We have laws against driving without a license. 
We have all kinds of laws that say this is the way society ought to 
conduct itself. We are, I remind my friends, a nation of laws. That 
means that there is a structure of conduct of behavior, to use the term 
of the Senator from Maine. There is a structure of behavior that you 
have to have in a society that has 250 million people, many with 
different interests, different backgrounds, different ideas about how 
we ought to conduct ourselves.
  So we are a nation of laws. As a consequence of that we are going to 
be subject to some laws that we do not like. We are going to be subject 
to some restrictions that we may disagree with. But it is an essential 
factor in a complex society, in a complex world.
  So we can disagree on a particular thing or another without 
suggesting that the sky is falling down, and that, if you do one thing, 
it is going to hurt everything else. Each one of these subjects is fair 
game. If someone wants to propose an amendment that would have 
penalties for not using sensible safety rules within a State, they have 
the right to do it. That is the nature of things. But let not the 
Senator from Texas be cowed by the threat that perhaps there will be 
other amendments to follow.
  We are here. We are here to do what we have to do in the interest of 
this highway bill. And if these amendments affect that, then I think we 
just have to proceed ahead.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________