John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his generous remarks. He is right that in our long-time friendship we have worked together. It has not been a one-two relationship. It has been a partnership. He and I worked together in the Defense Department starting in January 1969 in the Navy, as Secretary and Under Secretary, and we were in those posts together for 3\1/2\ years. The distinguished Senator from Virginia then became Secretary of the Navy and went on after that to head the bicentennial commission, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1978, and he has served here with great distinction. So it is indeed a marvelous friendship and association that we have had together. And now on the Environment Committee, where he is handling this legislation so effectively, doing such an excellent job as chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this type of legislation. So I thank my long-time friend--I will not say ``old'' friend, but ``long-time'' friend--for the joys that we have had together and the joint achievements that I believe we have accomplished.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE. We are not saying anything about denying hospital care or medical coverage. States can do that.

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.

Mr. CHAFEE. I understand she is willing to let the Senator from Missouri make a statement for up to 5 minutes.

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?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. 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?

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.

Mr. CHAFEE. I now move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFEE. At the proper time, I will ask to table the amendment. Mr. PRESSLER addressed 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.

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.

Mr. CHAFEE. Can I give an answer to that?

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.

Mr. CHAFEE. No, I have not said anything to that effect.

Mr. CHAFEE. We will worry about precedents later on. The matter before us is motorcycle helmets.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from California for a question.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. This is an amendment that has been cleared by both sides and is acceptable.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Helms and Mr. Thompson, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.