[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S9724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            THE HIGHWAY BILL

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take a few months to 
explain several of my votes concerning S. 440, the highway bill. I 
voted in favor of final passage of the bill because it would meet 
Federal transportation responsibilities while returning to the States 
much of their rightful authority to manage their own roadways.
  Many of the amendments offered to the bill concerned the question of 
whether the States should be required to enact various highway safety 
laws. Although the debate on these amendments focused to a large extent 
on the wisdom of the safety laws at issue, my votes on the amendments 
turned more on the threshold question of whether the States should 
retain the power to decide for themselves whether to enact those laws. 
As a general matter, I think the Federal Government should decide only 
those issues that, by their very nature, demand a uniform resolution 
throughout the Nation. On issues like these, a resolution of the issue 
at the State level would itself be harmful, no matter how wisely the 
State legislatures exercise their power. National defense is one such 
example; the need for central direction and economies of scale preclude 
a satisfactory resolution of the issue at the State level. But our laws 
in other areas should in the main be left to the discretion of the 
States, so that they can be tailored to the respective circumstances 
and values prevalent in each State.
  These principles led me to oppose the Reid amendment to set a 
national speed limit for trucks, the Lautenberg amendment to set a 
national speed limit for all motor vehicles, and the Dorgan amendment 
to prohibit open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles. They likewise 
explain my support for the Smith amendment to repeal Federal seatbelt 
and motorcycle helmet law mandates, and the Snowe amendment to repeal 
the Federal motorcycle-helmet law mandate. None of these issues demands 
a single resolution across the Nation. I further note that my home 
State of Michigan already has a seatbelt law, which only underscores 
the fact that my votes on these amendments turned not on my views as to 
whether States should have seatbelt and helmet laws, but rather on my 
belief that States ought to be able to decide these issues for 
themselves.
  Similarly, I opposed the Hutchinson amendment to retain the Federal 
motorcycle-helmet law mandate with respect to States that do not assume 
the cost of treating injuries attributable to a person's failure to 
wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. This amendment was presented 
as an attempt to marry States' responsibility with States' rights. And 
it is true that the Federal Government assumes certain medical costs 
through its Medicaid and Medicare programs. But that does not mean the 
Federal Government should be able to mandate motorcycle-helmet laws. 
For if it did, the Federal Government could likewise mandate laws 
prohibiting other activities--say, smoking or mountain climbing--that 
involve an appreciable risk of physical harm. The Hutchison amendment 
in fact would have been a Trojan Horse for increasing the power of the 
Federal Government at the expense of not only the prerogatives of the 
States, but also of the liberties of the people.
  My support of the Byrd amendment to encourage a national blood-
alcohol standard for minor drivers was bottomed on these same 
principles. No one argues that kids should be able to drink and drive. 
To the contrary, everyone agrees that teenage drinking and driving is a 
danger that must be addressed. When there is this kind of overwhelming 
national consensus with respect to an issue, the question of whether 
the issue should be decided at the State level in fact becomes merely 
theoretical. Under these circumstances, the existence of a Federal rule 
is not likely to frustrate the desire of a State to enact a contrary 
rule. Such is the case with teenage drinking and driving. In cases like 
these, the practical, administrative benefits of a uniform Federal rule 
outweigh theoretical concerns related to federalism.


                          ____________________