Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the distinguished Senator from Virginia be willing, if Senator Roth is inclined to agree, to divide the remaining time? I ask that before a unanimous consent is agreed to. Frankly, I would like a chance----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In this case, obviously, I am not one who is going over the cliff on behalf of all States rights. I think States ought to have some flexibility in some areas, and in others, I think that there ought to be a national policy that is consistent. One of the problems that we had--and I know the Senator knew this very well because he was in Washington at that time--one of the problems we had when we tried to develop the 21 drinking age was that there were States, and some of these, not the most rural States, by the way, as one might often think, that refused to raise the drinking age because business was pretty good. By the way, one of the places was right here in the very Capital of our country. Washington, DC, was one of the last. They made a calculated decision as to whether or not they would raise the drinking age to 21 because Georgetown sells a lot of booze, and there is a lot of money spent there. So they were almost willing to trade bucks for lives, but the legislation forced them, because they would have lost a fair amount of their transportation money.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. To me, it is a fairly simple differentiation, and that is, in the case of decisions about where funds are spent on transportation, we have agreed in an amendment that we just dealt with that within the State legislature, the Governor and transportation officials within the State are qualified to make decisions about where they put their money--bridges, roadways, railroads, as I see it, mass transit. I think that is one kind of consideration. But I never believed--never believed--that when it came to the safety of our children, when it came to the helmet law, when it comes to drinking and driving, I do not believe that the Federal Government dare walk away from its responsibilities any more than we ought to walk away from equipping our service people with adequate resources if they are ever in combat, with equipping our people with the best education that they can get, equipping our young people with the best health conditions they can get with proper nutrition. I think that is a responsibility of Government. I think we ought to step forward on all issues affecting people on our roads to try to reduce the danger.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator will yield for one question, does he think the automobile manufacturers are not objecting when they want to preserve all of the funding that we could muster for highways?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. There is no way on Earth, as they say, to provide the capacity for additional highway lanes. But, further, I say to the distinguished Senator, Amtrak currently carries half of the combined air-rail market between New York and Washington, DC. Were Amtrak service to disappear, listen to this, it would add the equivalent of 10,000 fully booked DC-9's to the already congested air traffic in the Northeast. There is not enough room on the highways or on Earth. And there is not enough room at the airports or in the skies to accommodate such growth. What a disaster it would be for the economy of the Northeast as well as the country as a whole. It is already almost impossible to move on our highways and get in and out of the airports during the peak holiday seasons. The noteworthy ones, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Father's Day--you name it, it would be a disaster. If you eliminate Amtrak service in the Northeast, traffic on the highways and at the airports will come virtually to a dead stop. So we need to find ways to expand our passenger rail infrastructure, not to kill it. I am pleased to hear the Senator from Montana talk positively about Amtrak. We have to find the funding for it. The GAO estimates that productivity losses due to highway congestion each year cost our Nation $100 billion, each year. DOT estimates that in our 39 largest cities, traffic congestion costs $44 billion annually. And absent any effort to expand our rail capacity and other nonhighway alternatives, highway use is expected to grow at such a rapid rate that all the increased highway spending that we could muster could not handle the growth and the congestion. The Senator from Montana made a good point. He said if you do not claim your highway use, the construction and so forth, enough in advance, you could wind up with a patchwork quilt of things. So it is with Amtrak. That is why I think the Senator from Delaware provided for a compact arrangement between States, to be able, hopefully, to agree on a program that fits the needs of the several States in the area. The situation is just as bad at our Nation's airports. Winglock, congestion at our airports, costs our economy roughly $5 billion a year. It is expected air travel delays will only worsen over the next several years. Within the next [[Page S 8770]] 5 years, most major airports will exceed 80,000 hours of annual flight delays each year. In short, it is a major, major problem. Completing the electrification of the Northeast corridor, which is virtually underway, though not specific construction--but a lot of engineering, a lot of the planning and some of the equipment has been ordered--is expected to attract 3 million additional passengers annually between New York City and Boston to our rail system, taking them off already congested highways and airways. Completing the electrification will alleviate the need for creating highway capacity for 324,000--the numbers are staggering--324,000 drivers each year and the cost of expanding aviation capacity to accommodate 50 daily New York-Boston flights. The cost of this rail project is, as we say, peanuts compared to the Federal funds that would be required to be invested to achieve the highway and aviation capacity that would be otherwise needed. The prospect of expanding Logan Airport in Boston runs into multiple billions of dollars just in that one place. I am in contact, and have been in contact, with Governors along the Northeast corridor, almost all of them--almost all of them--Republican. They recognize the critical value of Amtrak to our region. They currently have the opportunity to use discrete amounts of their Federal formula funds for costs associated with transit service in the region, and Amtrak service should be no exception. In sum, it is very obvious that those who think in detail about transportation needs--to those who come from the northeastern part of the country, those who come from all parts of the country, because there are not any Senators that I have had a chance to talk to where there is some Amtrak service who do not want to either expand it or continue it--I have not heard any of them volunteer to eliminate the Amtrak service, as sparse as it may be within their State. So I hope we will be able to provide this flexibility. We are not taking anything away from anybody. If the question is put, is there sufficient funding for bridges? Heck, no, there is not sufficient funding for bridges in our society. Even to repair those that are functionally obsolete, there is not enough money for it. Is there enough to maintain the highways in the condition we would like to see them? No, there is not. But if we lose Amtrak and we lose the infrastructure that is associated with national rail passenger service, we will be in far worse shape because at least if we keep the intercity railroad going, we have a chance to buck the trend and be able to accommodate the traveling needs of the public. I hope this amendment will carry. I commend Senators Roth and Biden for bringing it to this point. I think it is timely. There are so many services that we would like to see operating in the transportation infrastructure network of our country that are just not going to be able to be funded. I know for some Senators in some of the Western States, something called essential air service is a critical factor. We want to try to fund it wherever we can. All of these are competing for funding. All of these modes are competing for funding, but this one, national rail service, national passenger rail service, is an essential factor if we are going to think about a balanced transportation network in this country of ours. I urge my colleagues to support the Roth-Biden amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Roth-Biden amendment, perhaps to no one's surprise, because I have long had an interest and an association with Amtrak. This amendment is fairly simple. I think it has been well stated by both of the distinguished Senators from Delaware. The central purpose of the amendment, as I see it, is to provide the States with flexibility--something we constantly urge around here--to use funds provided on two of the major Federal transportation formula programs for the cost of interstate rail passenger service. The thrust of this amendment closely resembles a provision that passed the Senate that I sponsored during the debate on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which we call ISTEA. Under the amendment, Governors and State transportation officials [[Page S 8769]] would be granted the flexibility to use funds provided under the surface transportation program [STP], the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program called CMAQ, for the costs of intercity rail passenger service. I want to make one thing quite clear. This amendment does not mandate that even one cent of highway or transit formula funds will be spent on Amtrak service. The only way one penny can even be used for Amtrak, is if the Governor and the State transportation officials want it to happen. When the Congress adopted ISTEA, we made great strides toward enhancing the flexibility of State transportation planners in directing Federal funds to the types of transportation projects that best suited their needs. However, in the final conference report, there was a glaring omission. That was the flexibility to direct Federal formula funds to the cost of intercity rail service. The Senate-passed version of ISTEA did include such flexibility for the surface transportation service. However, jurisdiction over rail programs at the time was under the House Commerce Committee. As such, it was very difficult to get members of the House Public Works Committee to accept the provision. We now have a new opportunity to address this issue, since the House has moved jurisdiction over rail matters to our companion committee in the House, the newly-named Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. All Members are aware that Amtrak has been facing especially difficult financial times over the last year. Amtrak has been required to announce several service cuts and route eliminations to reduce or eliminate an operating deficit that exceeds $200 million. These service cuts and eliminations impacted many States, including my own. We heard the distinguished Senator from Montana talk about how valuable he viewed Amtrak service in the State of Montana. They have had what to some would appear to be a modest cut, yet it was apparently deeply felt. In the wake of these service cuts, numerous States have been scrambling to find their own funding to maintain Amtrak service. Many of these same States have asked Members to explain why they can use their Federal formula funds for transit purposes but may not use them for intercity rail service. I do not believe that any Members have a good answer to that question. Amtrak's delicate financial situation was brought about largely through underinvestment, over a great many years, in our national rail network. Our national passenger rail corporation, Amtrak, covers a higher percentage of its operating costs than any other passenger railroad in the world. It benefits from an operating subsidy like every other passenger rail system in the world, but at a smaller subsidy per passenger than any of the others. Compared to our industrial competitors, we spend a pittance on our national rail network. Within the next 5 years, France plans to spend nearly $125 billion on intercity rail enhancements. If anyone has a chance to see the TGB and see it zip along the countryside at a cool 180 or 200 miles per hour in comfort, speed, attracting lots and lots of passenger, one would see why the investment is justified. Germany will spend over $70 billion during the same period. By the end of this century, Sweden, a relatively tiny country, plans to invest as much in rail enhancement as it does in highways. Just within the European Community, high speed rail investment is likely to top $100 billion by the year 2000. On average, European countries invest between 1 and 1.5 percent of their GDP in intercity rail. That compares with our country where we invest roughly five one- hundredths of one percent on our national passenger rail service, Amtrak. No one is suggesting we use highway funds to embark on a major rail investment program. However, Amtrak's recent financial difficulties make it clear that we must take action to ensure the future of a national rail network, to ensure that our Nation has a balanced transportation system. This amendment takes a small step to allow the Nation's Governors-- and we are talking about flexibility, and we are talking about decisions made within the State--the option of preserving a balanced transportation program in their States. If they do not want to use any of it for Amtrak, they need not do it. Throughout our recent political debates over the role of the Federal Government, there has been increased attention to the benefits of giving States enhanced responsibility while simultaneously giving them increased flexibility. This model, it is assumed, will provide for a more efficient public service transportation system. This is clearly one area where this model can benefit the traveling public across the Nation by giving Governors access to the full range of transportation options. I want to speak about the region of the country I come from, the Northeast. I can tell my colleagues--and Senator Biden and Senator Roth are only too familiar with this--that in my part of the country, Amtrak is absolutely indispensable. It is one of the most cost-effective investments of Federal transportation dollars in the region. Fully half of Amtrak's ridership travels on the Northeast corridor, the most congested transportation corridor in the United States. Now, all the highway spending in the world could not overcome the lack of adequate right of way to construct enough lane miles to accommodate all Northeast corridor Amtrak traffic. There is simply not the capacity in the already congested airports of the Northeast to accommodate an additional 11 million passengers annually.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Delaware. Perhaps I will use less than that. I appreciate it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Just in very brief form, because time is so limited, I sat here in amazement and I listened to what was being said very carefully. I just heard that Planned Parenthood is opposed to abstinence for teenagers. I have never seen that mailing or that program. It is absurd. What we are talking about is a man and his professional qualifications to fill this job. He did not run for office. That was not his credentials. He was not looking at how this might be one day when he was considered for a nomination to a high post. He did what his conscience and the Hippocratic oath had him do. He has been endorsed--I heard this morning on the radio, that Dr. McAfee, the president of the American Medical Association, heartily endorses Dr. Foster and his qualifications. Further, he has been endorsed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, by the Association of Academic Health Centers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Tennessee Medical Association, and the American College of Physicians. They all know he is qualified. The problem here is not Dr. Foster's qualifications. The problem here is politics at the expense of the health of the American people. The problem is that we are playing Presidential politics right here in this room. It is pitiful. Talking about the fairness of the system and how it is equitable for a minority to restrict the majority view, why can we not have a straight up-or-down vote on this without threats of filibuster? When it was Robert Bork or John Tower or Clarence Thomas, even though there was strong opposition, many Senators opposed them. The fact is that the votes were held here, up or down. So when I sit here and I listen to what the debate is about, the debate is not about Dr. Foster and it is not about fairness to the American people; it is about who can score points. And they score points, unfortunately, while Americans die. Every day, 2,000 Americans die from heart disease. Every day, close to 1,200 men and women die from tobacco-related illness, people die from breast cancer, and every day 110 men and women and children die from AIDS. These figures are tragic, but what is more tragic is these deaths result from preventable diseases. I hear people castigating this very well-qualified physician, this compassionate human being, who lifted himself up by his bootstraps, and criticize him for what he did and for what he thought was right. I am not much for biblical quotations, but John said, ``He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.'' I hear mistakes being made all over the place here. We have an Ethics Committee that hears breaches of conduct by the Senators. And, yes, this man is condemned because he did what his conscience and the law allowed him to do. I think we ought to get an up-or-down vote on this. I hope my colleagues will vote for cloture and we can confirm Dr. Foster's appointment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object, I have an amendment that I would like considered and I would like it placed on the list as well.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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.

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.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am waiting to hear the question.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be included as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be glad to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right, for all vehicles.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to cooperate. I do not mind speeding this portion along.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the debate coming from the opponents of my amendment, and, frankly, I am perplexed. I am sorry my good friend from North Carolina left the room because he and I have engaged in friendly differences before and I wanted to have a chance for this friend to respond. But he is out of the room. I will, nevertheless, respond to a couple of comments that both he and our distinguished friend from Oklahoma made. Here we are, robbing the States of their opportunity to make decisions, and, by eliminating sanctions, by eliminating reporting requirements, by getting the so- called burden off the States so they do not have to respond to Uncle Sam. They said, ``No, that is not good. Are we not responsible citizens who run our States? Governors and legislators and all that?'' Of course. I agree to that. I think they are intelligent people. And I said earlier I do not think one part of this debate wants more people dead on the highways than the other. I just think it is a terrible error to remove the speed limit rules we presently have. But it is up to the States. It is up to the States to enforce it. So, on one hand, the States are intelligent enough to do it if we just let it go. On the other hand, they are not intelligent enough to do it if we say, ``Here are the rules. You decide how the rules are played.'' Mr. President, I wrote the law on the Senate side to raise the drinking age to 21. We had a strong debate and it happened. It is said, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, that 14,000 kids are alive today who would not have been. I point out to my friend from Oklahoma, there is not one demand by the Federal Government that they do anything. We are relying on the intelligence of State governments to administer these programs. Mr. President, 14,000 families spared of mourning, spared of the pain and anguish of the loss of a loved one. We wrote the law and the law stood and we did not have to tear down the Federal Government or burn the building to make it happen. I hear these arguments all the time about how foul the Federal Government is, and I do not understand it. We built the greatest Nation on Earth. People will kill to get here--will die to get here. But we criticize this place as if it is some foreign body. This is the Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We ought not to forget that. We constantly make derogatory remarks about what it is, what bad things we do here. ``We pick the pockets of our citizens and throw the money away.'' What nonsense. This is about saving lives and it is yes or no. That is the way it is. We have an amendment here that tries to strike a compromise. It says to the States we understand you are intelligent people, caring people. We all wept when Oklahoma City saw that terrible explosion. We all shared the grief and the sympathy for the people there. This is a caring body. No matter how our opponents try to paint it, we give a darn about what happens out there. This is not just Big Brother. We are trying to do the right thing. If we disagree we disagree, but it is not hypocrisy and it is not crass politics. It is not any of those things. It is human beings. When I think about people out there I think of my four children and my two grandchildren and I say God willing, I want to protect them any time I can. So it is with other people's children and grandchildren as well. Mr. President, we have had a lot of talk about this. Frankly, I hope sense will prevail, we will be able to put up signs that say: Remember, these roads were built for safety at 65 and 55 miles an hour. If it has a chilling effect on the driver's foot on the accelerator pedal it is OK with me. All of us know that few people in this world are exactly tuned in to the speed limit. Mr. President, 65 in most States, whatever the dialect, whatever the intonation, says 75. And when it says 55, it really says 65. So we are kidding ourselves. We keep hearing from our opponents that we want no speed limits. But they are objecting to the fact that we are saying they ought not remove the speed limit. Removal is OK, as far as the opponents are concerned. But I do not understand what they mean when they say: But that does not mean we simply raise the speed limits willy-nilly. Of course they can. And that is what we would like not to see happen.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, just to be sure, I ask how much time we have left?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield to the manager of the bill, Senator Chafee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will take 30 seconds and yield 1 minute to my colleague and 1 minute to the Senator from Ohio. I would say, what I have just heard on this floor astounds me. When the Senator from Oklahoma--and I know he means no malice--suggests if we reduce the speed limit enough we could save more lives, in turn what he is saying is that it is not worth keeping it where it is to save the lives that we can save. I wonder whether that message could be delivered in Oklahoma from a platform where a youngster has died on the highway, and say, ``Listen, in the interests of speed and expediency, we had to do it this way.'' I yield the floor. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Such time as the Senator desires.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before turning to the specifics of my amendment, I want to explain its relationship to the Reid amendment which is currently under consideration. The Reid amendment is based on two principles: First, acknowledging that higher rates of speed are dangerous; second, that the Federal Government has a right to regulate dangerous speeds. If the Senate adopts the Reid amendment, it accepts those principles. The Reid amendment does not apply those principles universally; its application is restricted to trucks; it does not cover all vehicular traffic. Mr. President, I would like to argue that the principles that are included in the Reid amendment apply to cars as well as trucks. When a car travels at excessive speeds, it is as dangerous as a truck. When the Federal Government imposes speed limits on trucks, it can also impose similar limits on cars. The principles in the Reid amendment do not distinguish between types of vehicles; they apply to all such vehicles, trucks particularly in this case--all classes. That, in essence, is what my amendment does. It applies the Reid principle to cars as well as to trucks. I would like to provide some background. As my colleagues know, the current Federal speed limit law establishes maximum speed limits at 55 miles per hour or 65 miles per hour depending on the road and the road's location. Current law also requires that States certify a certain level of compliance with posted speed limits. If they do not, States are required to shift part of their construction funding to safety programs. They do not lose it, but they have to use those funds in other areas. The committee bill abolishes those requirements. It allows States to post any speed limit they want and removes the penalty if States fail to endorse those limits. Mr. President, I differ with the committee's action, which I think was wrong. I think it will directly contribute to death and injury for thousands of American citizens every year. It will cost our society billions of dollars in lost productivity and increased health care expenditures. Now, looking at some facts, in 1974, the Federal Government established maximum speed limits. At that time, we were in the middle of an energy crisis and the issue was driven by the need to conserve fuel. We also found an unexpected additional benefit. Maximum speed limits reduced the number of people who died on our Nation's highways. In fact, as a result of the 1974 law, highway fatalities dropped by almost [[Page S 8641]] 9,000, or 16 percent, while the miles traveled decreased by only 2 percent. This was the greatest single-year decrease in highway deaths since World War II. A total repeal of Federal speed limit requirements will increase the number of Americans killed on our Nation's highways by some 4,750 each year. Mr. President, 4,750 people each year will die on our highways as a result of the increased speed on our roads. Those are not my numbers, Mr. President. Those are the numbers, the projections, of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I cannot imagine that 4,700 mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters killed because they were allowed--some might say encouraged--to drive faster in order to save a few minutes, minutes that will cost them their lives. If we do not want to look at the issue in human terms, how about from the budget perspective which so many want to adopt? One need not be reminded about the stringency of budget requirements around here these days. It is estimated that the deaths and injuries caused by a total repeal of Federal speed limit restrictions will cost our country $15 billion in additional expense each year: the loss in productivity, taxes not paid and collected, and, of course, increased health care costs. If that is not a high enough cost for one, add the $15 billion to the $24 billion that we already are losing from accidents caused by speeders. Now the total cost to American taxpayers will grow to $39 billion. That is more than the Federal Government spends on transportation each year--each year. That is on our highways, it is on our rail systems, on our aviation system. We spend more in repair and damage as a result of deaths due to speeding than we spend on our infrastructure each and every year. And the lives lost, all of the money spent, just to save a few minutes of travel time. The point I want to make is that this is more than an issue of States rights or individual choice. This is an issue that affects everyone. We mourn for the dead, pay for the injured. We have a right and an obligation to do what we can, therefore, to minimize the loss and reduce the cost. The American people seem to understand that very well. A recent poll conducted by advocates of highway and auto safety asked people if they favored or opposed allowing States to raise speed limits above 65 miles per hour on interstates and freeways. Only 31 percent of the total respondents favored raising current speed limit standards. That same poll asked if the Federal Government should have a strong role in setting highway and auto safety standards, and over four out of five--close to 83 percent--said, yes, that the Federal Government--the Federal Government--should have a strong role in setting highway and auto safety standards. Still, the committee adopted the language which strikes the limits even though a majority of the American people do not support this repeal. Now, I realize that an amendment to restore current law will not prevail in the Senate. As a result, I sought a compromise. This amendment recognizes the needs and the concerns of the traveling public. It is designed to address the States rights concerns which have been raised by some Members. It also recognizes the Federal Government's legitimate role and responsibility in not only building and maintaining roads but also in ensuring that those roads are safe. Mr. President, our amendment would maintain the 55- and 65-mile-per- hour speed limits, but it would leave the issue of enforcement directly to the States. By allowing the States to have responsibility for enforcement, this amendment recognizes that States have their limited law enforcement capability and resources. I know that every day State law enforcement officers must determine how best to allocate these resources with the public's safety in mind. Mr. President, I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. It is clear that repealing the Federal maximum speed limit will, most importantly, cost our citizens their lives. I believe this amendment strikes a balance that we can all live with. That is why this amendment has the endorsement of the International Association of the Chiefs of Police. They say that there is value to maintaining speed limits on our roads. These are professionals, at the top of the ladder, chiefs of police. The law enforcement community does not want to see a repeal of Federal maximum speed limit requirements. This amendment is also supported by the National Safety Council, the American Public Health Association, the American Trauma Society, Kemper National Insurance Companies, the American College of Emergency Physicians, State Farm Insurance Companies, GEICO, and the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Additionally, we have the American Trucking Association supporting this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent letters of support from these organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I believe this is a reasonable and balanced amendment. All of us lose patience when we sit in traffic or leave late for an appointment and try to make up the time by just stepping on the gas a little bit more. But, if you know any family or in your own family have had a loss on a highway--whether it is from speeding or not the impact is the same at home, but when it is from speeding it is in many cases an avoidable death. And that is a tragedy beyond compare. We lose every year 40,000 people to highway fatalities--40,000 people. Something over 10,000 of those deaths are speed related on our highways. To repeat, if we continue along the path we are on, the removal of speed limits for trucks and cars, it is estimated that we will have almost 5,000 more deaths a year occurring. I know my colleagues, who see this as a States rights issue, do not, any more than I do, want to see people killed on our highways, people injured on our highways, or pay the expense for these accidents. But, nevertheless, this action is taken to remove constraints that we have in a lawful society, necessary to maintain our complex way of life. We are, after all--and I do not have to remind my colleagues here because it is part of their daily vocabulary--a nation founded as a nation of laws. That is what we say. We say we have laws so we can accommodate the needs of the majority of our citizens. Over 80 percent of our citizens said they want the Federal Government involved in auto and highway safety issues. So, Mr. President, I hope in this dash for States rights we continue to focus not just on the States rights but on the individual rights that each of us has to protect our families, our children, our spouses, our brothers and sisters, and say the few minutes time gained is not worth a single life. I hope that is what the conclusion is going to be. I yield the floor.