John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield 20 seconds to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. May I make a point?

Mr. CHAFEE. It is important to remember that many States had passed the mandatory helmet law previous to 1993; in other words, in 1991 and 1992: Texas, Florida, North Carolina, California, New York, and so forth.

Mr. CHAFEE. Five minutes. Well, I think, due to the point the Senator from New Jersey made, we cannot get a time certain to vote. But I can say to our colleagues who are listening, it looks as if we will vote about 10 past 5. That is not a certain time but just about then. If people could stick fairly close to the times that they took, that would be helpful. We have not forestalled anybody from coming. If somebody else shows up, they have a right to speak. This is not an agreement that has been reached, but perhaps it is an indication how much time we will take.

Mr. CHAFEE. All right, 10. So there is 20, plus 6, or 26 minutes. The Senator from Maine? Does the Senator from New Hampshire want some time? The Senator from Colorado?

Mr. CHAFEE. Let us say 7 minutes. The Senator from Wyoming, how much time would he like? The Senator from Ohio?

Mr. CHAFEE. We are not going to cut anybody off. Let us say 10 minutes, and if the Senator wants more he can take more. The Senator from Montana, the ranking Member, wants no more time. The Senator from Virginia, how much?

Mr. CHAFEE. How about 10? Let us just work this out and see how we are doing.

Mr. CHAFEE. The only thing is, I am not sure how much time people will want. The Senator from New Jersey would like how much?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to see if we can allocate time out to those who want to speak so we can let our colleagues know about when we are voting.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this Jeffords-Leahy amendment deals with economic growth center cost sharing. This amendment is a technical correction which amends title 23 by striking the words ``Federal-aid system'' each place they appear and inserting the words ``Federal-aid highways.'' Section 143 of ISTEA contains outdated language referring to the Federal-aid system which ISTEA failed to amend. The term ``Federal-aid system'' limits use of the 95 percent Federal share and 5 percent State share to economic growth projects on the National Highway System. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared with the other side, and I believe it is acceptable to all.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have a letter dated May 1 from the Secretary of Transportation, and I would like to read parts of it, if I might. This is what he said. It is addressed to me: I would like to take this opportunity to present the administration's position on several vital highway safety laws that may be challenged during the committee's consideration of the National Highway System legislation. This was written as we took up the legislation in the committee. The Department of Transportation strongly supports the existing Federal provisions encouraging States to enact and enforce basic highway safety laws, such as section 153 of Title 23, United States Code-- That is the provision that deals with motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws. relating to safety belts and motorcycle helmets. We would oppose efforts to weaken these provisions. We estimate that State minimum drinking age laws, safety belt and motorcycle helmet laws and enforcement of speed limit laws save approximately $18 billion every year. If these provisions are weakened or repealed, costs to the States and Federal Government would increase. Then he talks a little bit about the minimum drinking age. Next paragraph: The other provisions offer similar savings to States. Motor vehicle crashes cost our society more than $137.5 billion annually in 1990 dollars. Many costs of motor vehicle crashes are ultimately paid by Federal and State welfare public assistance programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Between 1984 and 1993, safety belt and motorcycle helmets use saved more than $16 billion in Federal and State revenues. Nearly $6 billion of this is the result of reduced public expenditures for medical care, while the remainder represents increased tax revenues and reductions in financial support payments. The Federal provisions encouraging minimum drinking age laws, safety belt, motorcycle helmet laws and the enforcement of speed limit laws were established because of high social and economic costs to our Nation resulting from motor vehicle crashes. These four provisions address areas where State laws and enforcement are proven effective and where savings are great. For example, when California enacted its all-rider motorcycle helmet law, motorcycle fatalities fell by 36 percent and the State saved millions of dollars. Every State that has enacted such a law has had similar experiences. States that repeal all-rider helmet use laws uniformly see a substantial increase in motorcycle fatalities. For example, the Colorado Division of Highway Safety found that the State's fatality rate decreased 23.8 percent after adopting a helmet law and increased 29 percent after the helmet law was repealed. That is what we were discussing earlier about when the Federal Government in 1976 said you did not have to have the law, the States repealed them, I think it is 27 States repealed them--my State was one of them, regrettably--and up go the accidents. Wisconsin Department of Transportation data indicates that motorcycle fatalities were 18 percent lower when the State had a helmet law than after repeal. Mr. President, Secretary Pena goes on: Weakening or repealing these will lead to a tragic increase in unnecessary preventable deaths and injuries on our roads and will increase the burden on State and Federal Government. At the very least, we must oppose steps that would clearly add to Federal spending. Signed by Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation. So, Mr. President, I think in every way you look at this, whether you are looking at the tragedy that comes from accidents where people do not have a seatbelt, the tragedy that comes to motorcyclists who do not wear their helmets, or the cost to the Federal Government--everybody here is for reducing cost--I find this amendment very, very difficult to understand. Mr. President, I hope very, very much that it will be rejected.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I vigorously oppose the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from New Hampshire. I really think it is very, very unfortunate that this amendment has been brought forward because a study that has been conducted on the efficacy and effectiveness of safety belts and motorcycle helmets has come to the conclusion that they are effective. I have here a letter from the Eastern Maine Medical Center. This is what the physician there has to say about the use of seatbelts. At Eastern Maine Medical Center here in Bangor, where I am a physician, we have completed a study of the issue of seatbelt use and hospital charges of area Maine patients injured in car accidents with and without seatbelts. Our study shows that patients injured without seat belts had hospital bills almost $10,000 higher on average than patients injured while wearing seatbelts. We estimate that seatbelts would have saved $2.4 million in hospital bills for the 256 unbelted patients in our study. Those unnecessary bills were paid by all of us, of course. In the last 2 years of our study, we were able to identify the insurance status of patients admitted after car accident injuries. The medical bills for Medicaid and Medicare patients alone amounted to more than $2 million. Of the 73 Medicare and Medicaid patients in our study, only 10 were wearing seatbelts at the time of their injuries. We estimate seatbelts would have saved these patients alone $599,000, nearly $600,000. This saving of almost $600,000 would have been in just one hospital, in 2 years, and just 63 patients. Maine has a seatbelt use of 35 percent, the lowest in the United States. Our low-use rate, which then results in more injuries and higher costs, as we have identified in our study, then forces taxpayers in other States who are required to wear seatbelts, to pay for our freedom to be unbelted in Maine. Mr. President, a lot of discussion this afternoon has been about unfunded mandates and the Federal Government dictating what takes place. The answer is twofold. I think as Senators we have a responsibility to do what we can to preserve lives and prevent injuries of American citizens. And it is not enough to say, oh, leave it to the States; let them take care of it. I will show you a chart in a few minutes that shows what happens when we do leave it to the States. In 1966, we passed a law in the Federal Government that mandated motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, and in [[Page S 8663]] this chart you will see that once that occurred the number of deaths declined dramatically. Then 10 years after that, in 1976, we repealed that, and up go the deaths. Will the States pass all these laws? Will these wonderful legislators, bold and brave, step up and face up to the motorcyclists who do not want this? Well, the answer frequently is no. Now, there is another point I would like to make, Mr. President. That is that the wrong approach here is to have sanctions. The way this law works--and I was instrumental in the writing of the so-called ISTEA legislation, the highway bill of 1990, this portion of it, and what we did was we said you pass a mandatory seatbelt and motorcyclist helmet bill by such-and-such a year, and if you do not, you will have to devote some small portion of your highway money to education and safety features, such as the three Senators have been discussing here this afternoon. And it was pointed out that that is the wrong way to go; we ought to have inducements, benefits paid, rewards. Well, we do not do that. We have, as you know, a minimum drinking age bill that passed the Senate, and it says you must enact a law that says you cannot serve liquor to those under 21, and if you do not you lose 5 percent of your highway funds, and the next year you lose 5 percent more, making it 10 percent. That is the law. Now, nobody is advocating repealing that. That is not a benefit that is thrown up: That is the wicked Federal Government coming in and dictating what you have to do. That is Big Brother, as we are accused of being here. But there is no question that has saved hundreds of lives of the young people of our Nation. Now, you might say, what right do we have to say anything about motorcyclist helmets or seatbelts. We have a right because we pay the piper. We are the ones who pay Medicaid. And do not tell me that these motorcyclists, when they end up in comas because they do not have helmets, have wonderful insurance policies that take care of them. Those are not the facts. The facts are that very, very frequently they do not, and particularly if they are in a coma for a long period. There is a Rhode Islander in our State hospital who has been there 20 years in a coma, all being paid for by the State, the cost now exceeding over $2 million to take care of him during the 20 years. And so, Mr. President, I just very, very strongly hope that this amendment will not be adopted. Now, I would just like to talk a little bit about what are the benefits of safety belt and motorcycle helmet laws. There have been a slew of studies done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the States, the medical community, the safety groups, the Centers for Disease Control, the General Accounting Office, for example. They reached the same conclusion. They are as follows: First, safety belts and motorcycle helmets save lives and prevent serious injury. Everybody knows that. We do not have to be in every emergency room to know that. We know it. We have seen it. Over the past 10 years, safety belts and motorcycle helmets have saved over 60,000 lives and prevented 1.3 million serious injuries. If everyone used the safety belt, an additional 14,000 lives and billions of dollars could be saved every year. There are 40,000 people killed every year in our country. That could be cut to 26,000--14,000 lives saved if safety belts were used. If every motorcyclist wore a helmet, nearly 800 lives could be saved every year. Unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in collisions are three times more likely than helmeted motorcyclists to incur serious head injuries that require expensive and long-lasting treatment. I think the motorcyclists would acknowledge that, and indeed in the sanctioned meets of the American motorcycle clubs you have to wear a helmet. That is a mandate. You cannot be in those meets, those hill climbs, and so forth, without a helmet. That is what they think of wearing helmets. Now, the second point. The cost of motor vehicle crashes are staggering. Each year, as I say, 40,000 people die on our Nation's highways. Another 5.4 million--that is not thousand, that is million-- 5.4 million people are injured each year. These fatalities and injuries cost us over $137 billion every year for medical care, lost productivity and property damage. This represents a $50 billion annual cost to employers. The lifetime costs of one serious head injury sustained because no helmet or safety belt was used can reach the millions of dollars. Now, who foots the bill? When somebody is injured in a motorcycle or an automobile accident, a police officer, who is a public employee, responds. The municipal ambulance carries the injured party to a hospital. Medical specialists provide emergency treatment without regard to costs. And if the victim is on welfare or unable to pay, Medicaid pays, and we all know that. Now, the third point I would like to make is that mandatory laws are the most effective way to ensure that safety belts and motorcycle helmets are used. The States that have enacted mandatory safety belt- helmets have an average of a 20 percent increase in use. In other words, it is not enough to have an education program. You have to mandate it by law or it will not be followed. In the early 1980's, before safety belt laws were enacted, the use rate was 11 percent. Now, with laws in 48 States, some version of safety belts, the use rate is 66 percent. Now, I would like to read--we had hearings on this. We had doctors and others come in--what Dr. Rosenberg from the Centers for Disease Control said. Listen to what he said. We are unaware of any evidence that demonstrates that testing, licensing, or education alone leads anyone near the improvement in helmet laws that mandatory laws produce. In other words, education does not do the trick. You have to have a law. And finally: Effective safety laws require a Federal-State-local partnership. Our history shows that when Federal requirements are eliminated, safety laws are weakened or repealed and deaths and injuries increase. In other words, what they are saying there is the Federal Government really has to step in and do the trick. If we, the Federal Government, back off from this legislation, you can bet your bottom dollar that many of the States that have enacted motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws will retreat because the pressures are so strong. I have been a legislator. Many of us here have been legislators. The pressures that can come from one group, particularly if it is not something that the individual is deeply interested in himself--he might be interested in improving the economic climate of his State or doing something about unemployment compensation. And when a host of motorcyclists come after him day after day after day to repeal a law, then the individual frequently gives way. That is what happened in the different States when the Federal law mandating the helmet use or mandating seatbelts was repealed. Now, what happens when the State does pass the law pursuant to the efforts that we have made here? California enacted its all rider motorcycle helmet law and motorcycle fatalities dropped by 36 percent. That is a remarkable figure. Maryland's helmet law resulted in a 20- percent fatality drop; 20 percent fewer people were dead as a result of the Maryland law. Both States realized direct taxpayer savings in millions of dollars. Both States enacted these laws with the encouragement of the Federal law. There has been a great pressure in both States to repeal their motorcycle helmet laws. Can they maintain their laws if the Federal requirements are removed? I believe it will be difficult. I come from a State that has not enacted either of these laws. We have no motorcycle helmet law in our State. We have no mandatory seatbelt law. We have to give up money, as pointed out by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. We have to put extra money into education and safety costs that we do not want to put in. And so I say then, if you do not want to put it in, pass the law. ``Oh, we do not want the law. We think people have freedom to drive their motorcycles without helmets. If they end up on the public assistance rolls, and particularly through Medicaid, well, that is just one of those things.'' We had a State senator from Illinois talk about this business of what the [[Page S 8664]] pressure is on the States. This is what the State senator said: So even though there is no doubt in my mind that a motorcycle helmet law is something that would be favored by an overwhelming majority of the citizens of the State of Illinois-- The people would be for it. the mechanics of passing a law are such that the more vocal opponents have had their way in the general assembly. The Federal Government has played a critical role in enacting safety legislation throughout the years. The original helmet law would not have passed but for Federal action. We all know that the drinking age and seatbelt legislation was passed in many states as a result of Federal action. And we also have some experience that every time that Congress changes its mind, such as back in the '70's, death and injury rates go up. I will guarantee you, if this amendment is adopted today, you will see these States repeal the laws that they have. That is a guarantee. And you will see the number of deaths on motorcycles and from lack of using the seatbelts increase in our country. I have a chart here. What is a speech these days without a chart? Now, this illustrates what I have been talking about. In 1966, the law was passed. The Federal law mandated helmet use. And you can see the dramatic decrease in the death rate. This is per 10,000 motorcyclists. It was 13,000, then dropped down to about 8,000 and stayed at that and slid down a little more and got way down until you are about less than half or near than half of a decline in the deaths. Then the law was repealed in 1976 right here in Congress. Up it goes once again. So that shows the correlation between what happens when we repeal our laws. And, obviously, repeals were enacted in the States. Twenty-seven States repealed or weakened the helmet laws right after we said you do not have to do it. My State was one of them. We had--in my State following the 1966 Federal law, sometime in that period around 1970, we enacted in our State a mandatory motorcycle helmet law. When the Federal law was repealed, our legislature gave us, as did so many others, a repeal of the law itself. That will be the consequence. No question about it. Now, I have a letter here from the executive director of the Safety and Health Council of New Hampshire. This is what he says: Without continued Federal leadership in these critical areas of highway safety, we will see a return to the inconsistent and less effective State laws. Inevitably there will be a greater loss of life and an increased financial burden on our society. The problem is especially acute in New Hampshire which, despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits, refuses to pass either a seatbelt or a helmet law. Now, as the legislator from Illinois pointed out, these laws enjoy broad popularity except with a small but very, very persistent and energetic group that bedevils the legislators until they conform. The public supports strong safety laws. In recent national public opinion polls, 76 percent of those surveyed opposed the weakening or repeal of safety belt laws and 90 percent opposed the weakening or repeal of the motorcycle helmet laws. Now, why do we repeal this? Why is this suggestion made? The proponents argue that this section 153, which is the basic law, constitutes an encroachment on States and individual rights. Well, I disagree. When we get into our cars or hop onto our motorcycles, we do not do it in a vacuum. We become part of a complex and usually crowded transportation network. In the best interest of protecting drivers, property, and safety, we live by certain rules. Taxpayers have a right to be protected from higher taxes which result from motor vehicle crashes. Now, as I say, proponents have argued this undermines States rights, individual rights. You are entitled to drive your motorcycle with the wind blowing through your hair. The problem is that the costs associated with highway crashes are a serious national problem. Each additional injury and fatality takes its toll on hospital backlogs, regional trauma centers, tax rates, national insurance rates. All of us have spent untold numbers of hours on trying to do something about health care costs in this country. And there is not one of us who will not say we are for preventive medicine. It is a crime. Give children immunization. Prevent these accidents and diseases and illnesses from occurring. There is no clearer way of doing what we are out to do, preventive medicine, than having laws just like this that we have got on our books. And those who would vote to repeal this clearly are taking a vote to add to our medical costs in this country. There is no doubt about that. So, Mr. President, I do strongly urge my fellow colleagues to reject the amendment proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member of the committee is exactly right. This amendment permits Iowa to continue allowing bigger and heavier trucks coming from South Dakota and Nebraska to enter Sioux City, IA, on I-29 and I-129, even though these trucks are bigger than are permitted on the general highways of Iowa. This has been cleared and has the approval of the Senators from Iowa. Apparently, Sioux City, IA, is just over the border in some fashion so that the trucks from South Dakota pull in there. So, Mr. President, indeed, it has been cleared by this side.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1435 (Purpose: To revise the authority for a congestion relief project in California.)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana is exactly right. It has the approval of those on this side. We are supportive of the amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is correct, his amendment went flying through.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arizona for his amendment. I think it is good. I will support it. We will vote for it. And I also commend him for the excellent remarks he made about Senator Kerrey and Senator Kerry's splendid achievement.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Jeffords and Leahy, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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