Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Not at all.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have not sought the yeas and nays on the amendment. I take it, it is proper to register our interest in a rollcall vote? I ask the manager whether it will be in order? The Reid amendment, I understand, is going to be the first amendment voted on. Were the yeas and nays agreed to on that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Our colleague from North Carolina did want some time, and in the remaining 20 minutes, if we had 5 minutes to wrap up, I would agree for the Senator from North Carolina to have 15 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Ohio for his statements. He comes from a background in law, served as a prosecutor, and I think certainly has the qualifications and the knowledge to understand what happens when speed is permitted to accelerate at the will and the whim of a driver. My friend from Montana and I often joke about my visit to beautiful Montana, and since I have been for a long time an outdoor person and hiker and spend time out there, I am always attracted, enchanted by the magnificence of the mountains of Montana, the beautiful countryside, and of course I know the sparseness of the population there but remind my colleague, since he always remembers the story about my looking for signs of life on the ground and not seeing them when we flew over Montana, that in New Jersey we have more horses per square acre than any State in the country. So we live with the wild western life as well as our heavy population density. But, Mr. President, I say this to you, that an incinerated vehicle, whether it is in Oklahoma or Montana or Wyoming or North Carolina, is no less a tragedy than it is in New Jersey or any of those States. The families still feel the same pain when they lose a loved one. The community still feels the absence of that citizen when they hear about it, when they know about it. I recently lost a good friend up in Maine, a good friend of mine, a very close friend of our former majority leader, Senator Mitchell, when he was hit head on by a car passing at a very high speed on a two-lane road. The other vehicle was so incinerated that they had to take it to the capital of the State, Augusta, ME, so that they could get the remnants of the bodies out of the vehicle and decide who these people were, the driver and his passenger. Mr. President, we have many responsibilities in this place of ours but none--none--exceed that of protecting life and limb of our citizens. We maintain a huge defense apparatus to do that. We invest-- insufficiently in my view, but we invest--large numbers in our infrastructure--highways, rail, aviation. We have the best aviation system in all of the world because we have put money in it. And we have said that even if there is a delay at your airport, too bad, because that takes second position to that of safety. So they spread the distance between flights, and they make sure that airplanes, too many airplanes, are not in the same area in the sky at the same time. Safety. Safety is the primary concern. And so what we are saying here is that we are interested also in safety. We talk about raising speed limits, but I have seen in my travels out West or in mountain country runouts for trucks. Now, sometimes it is because there is a failure in the driving system, but other times it is because the driver is going too fast, his judgment was faulty, and he has to seek the high-risk opportunity to go up a truck runout. If you look at some of those things, you know that when it is snowing on the ground or the truck is going too fast, there has to be a prayerful moment for the driver. Mr. President, I have a report here that is developed by NHTSA. Its source is the fatal accident reporting system. It is a segment of the structure. They project a 30-percent increase in fatalities if we remove the speed limits. When we look at some of the States that are represented in the Chamber at this moment, a State like North Carolina can expect the fatalities within a year to increase by 243 persons if we remove the speed limits as proposed--243 people in the State of North Carolina.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. A 30-percent increase in the fatalities that occur from excessive speed right now, yes. [[Page S 8646]]

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield? In the earlier unanimous- consent request we had an agreement that a technical change to the Lautenberg amendment would not affect the structure of the amendment, but would reflect the response to whatever the outcome is on Reid would be acceptable. I would like to have that in there.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. As I was saying, the increased force and energy causes more severe injuries to the drivers and occupants of cars. Now, if professional truck drivers and the trucking industry are going to be allowed to use the public infrastructure, then they should be held to the highest public safety standards. So I would encourage my colleagues to support the Reid amendment. I hope that it will be successful. I think that its value can be expressed in the number of lives saved, costs reduced, and a more efficient and constructive use of our highway facilities. I commend the Senator from Nevada for bringing this amendment forward and hope that when the Lautenberg-DeWine amendment comes to the floor, he will be equally enthusiastic about that as I am about his. But we will have to wait and see. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in the unanimous-consent agreement that we had before, it said that I would have an opportunity to send a technical modification of the amendment to the desk, and I do that, and then the vote will take place.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator will permit me to respond, 40,000 total fatalities. Some of those, many of those, maybe 30,000, 25,000 are not related to speed but related to other things, perhaps ice, snow, faulty vehicles, other conditions, grade crossings, et cetera. But those attributed to excessive speed range about 14,000 persons a year, and NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, projects a 30-percent increase if speed limits are removed. In Oklahoma, for instance, it would go from 388 persons up by 110, with the projected increase of 30 percent. So I think the case can be made, Mr. President--once again, I want it to be clearly understood I do not think there is anyone in this room, any Senator or any individual in this room who is saying abandon restraint regardless of consequence; not at all. I would never suggest it. My colleagues are too intelligent, too caring, and work too hard to protect the public. But in this case, I think it is an error to simply resort to the States rights argument and say that we ought not to have any Federal restrictions. I submit, as I said before, the Federal Government is involved in aviation. We have the safest system anyplace on the globe. And so it is with many other parts of our society. But in this case, I think it is essential because the Federal Government makes the investment, the Federal Government does direct taxpayer money to our infrastructure development, and we will assume not only the tragedy and loss of life but can expect an increase of $15 billion a year in cost to the community and the Government as a result of these accidents. And so, Mr. President, once again, I appreciate the support and the help of my colleague from Ohio and hope that we will be successful. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have no time. I have a minute.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator DeWine and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support to the amendment presented by Senator Reid to maintain the current Federal maximum speed limit requirement for trucks. In fact, I support the current national speed limit along with the distinguished occupant of the President's chair for both cars and trucks. It is a proven fact that the law will save both lives and money. Unfortunately, the bill before us eliminates Federal speed limits altogether, and I recognize that the total removal of that provision, the abolition of speed limits, is not possible in this Congress though I hope that the amendment that the Senator from Nevada is offering will pass. And I hope that the amendment that I will be offering soon with the distinguished Senator from Ohio also will get favorable attention. But at the moment, in considering just the speed limit for trucks, boy, I could not be more emphatic in my belief that we do our country a service if we maintain speed limits on trucks. As a matter of fact, there is not anybody, I do not care how barren your State is of population, I do not care how wide the roads are, who has not been upset at a point in his time or in his or her day when a big behemoth comes rolling down the highway, either gets behind you, wants you to move over or pulls up alongside you at what could be described at almost a totally death-defying speed. It is so surprising when it happens. It is unpleasant. I authored a piece of legislation some years ago and have been involved in [[Page S 8639]] safety issues, along with the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, and with Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for many years. I was the author on the Senate side of the bill to raise the drinking age to 21. And whether they know it or not, 10,000 families were spared having to sit and grieve and mourn over the loss of a child because they did not experience it as a result of raising the drinking age to 21. Ten thousand kids were spared from dying on the highways in the last 10 years. Mr. President, I also was a principal author of the legislation to ban radar detectors in trucks. I saw no earthly reason why we would condone the use of a device to thwart the law. What is the difference between saying you can use cop-killer bullets when in fact they ought to be outlawed, banned wherever the possibility occurs that they could be used because we want to protect people? We ought to make sure that trucks do not exceed proper speed limits on the highways over which they travel. As a matter of fact, I learned just this morning that in Europe and Australia the crash rates for trucks on some of the roads are far in excess of ours. By the way, the countries in Europe are long known for their excellent highways, high-speed driving, lots of fun tearing down the autobahn at 100-plus miles an hour. It used to be fair game until there were too many deaths, too many injuries for people to stand. So they said enough of that, and they imposed speed limits. They still have roads that do not have speed limits on them, and they are now considering putting speed limits on those roads as well and they do limit truck speeds in most of these countries. So we have an opportunity here to correct a wrong. I think what we ought to do, and we traditionally do as we consider legislation, is offer amendments to correct what each or any of us thinks is wrong. In this case, I think there is a terrible wrong in lifting the speed limit caps off of our roads. Senator Reid is trying to take care of part of that with his amendment today. And I hope that when the Senator from Ohio and I offer our amendment later on, that we will get the support of the Senate. The evidence is clear. Speed kills. When trucks are brought into the equation, speed is even more deadly. In 1992, over 4,400 men, women, and children were killed in truck crashes. And every year over 100,000 Americans are injured, many very seriously, in accidents involving trucks. That is true although trucks make up only 3 percent of the vehicles on our Nation's roads and highways and 12 percent of the traffic on interstates. They are, however, involved in 38 percent of motorist fatalities in crashes involving a truck or more than one vehicle. When large trucks weighing more than 10,000 pounds--and that is not a lot, Mr. President--collide with passenger vehicles, it is the people in the passenger vehicles who are killed most often. Only 2 percent of the deaths in such collisions during 1992--I repeat this even though the Senator from Nevada said it earlier because I think it is worth the emphasis--only 2 percent of the deaths in collisions between a truck and another vehicle were the truck occupants. When it came to the outcome, 2 percent of those killed were occupants of the trucks. The other 98 percent were occupants of the passenger vehicles that collided with the trucks. In 1947, a truck was 35 feet long and it weighed 40,000 pounds. By 1990, the normal truck on our highways was 70 feet long and weighed 80,000 pounds. And during that same period, cars were getting smaller and continued to retain a much more compact size, indeed. The general driving public does not like to share the roads with the trucks because it scares them. It scares them because trucks move so rapidly and take so much of the room. The fact is that trucks play a vital role in our economy. They move vast amounts of goods throughout our country, and we do not want to ban trucks from our highways, but we can and should take responsibility to ensure that trucks are operated in the safest manner possible. Now, Senator Reid's amendment takes responsibility for public safety as it relates to trucks, and by requiring trucks to follow the current speed limit requirements we are decreasing the potential frequency and severity of truck and car accidents. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more commonly known as NHTSA, the chances of death or serious injury doubles for every 10 miles per hour that a vehicle travels over 50. Why? Because speed increases the distance the truck travels before a driver can react in an emergency situation. Speed also increases the force of the energy released in an accident.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Smith amendment to eliminate Federal mandatory motorcycle helmet requirements and seatbelt requirements. I want to say something at this moment that I said earlier in the debate on a couple of amendments, and that is that though I may differ with colleagues on the floor as to the application of law, I do not differ with them on their interests in saving lives and protecting their citizens. I want to make that clear, because though I think they are wrong, I do not think they intentionally want anybody to be hurt as a result of it. I would like to point out why I think their logic on the amendment is entirely antithetical to protecting life, limb and property. Mr. President, I have heard so many arguments on the floor here, and many of them revolve around whether or not we are discussing life, health, safety, and I heard the Senator from Maine before say, ``No,'' in response to the Senator from New Hampshire, ``No, that is not the issue, what we are talking about is States rights.'' I do not understand that because people's lives and well-being are involved. Are we discussing process or are we discussing reality? Are we discussing the penalty that is paid for the lack of helmet use on motorcycles? Even though I am not a resident of New Hampshire or Maine I have a deep interest in what goes on with people in our entire society. The facts are that helmet use reduces fatality rates and severity of injury. Universal helmet rates increase helmet use and reduce deaths, and the public bears higher costs for nonhelmeted riders when they are crash victims. In 1975, 47 States had motorcycle helmet laws covering all riders. In 1976, the Highway Safety Act was amended to remove the Federal helmet requirements. After the act was changed, 27 States, which contained 36 percent of the American population, either repealed or seriously weakened their helmet laws. In the 5 years that followed, motorcycle fatalities increased 61 percent, while motorcycle registrations increased only 15 percent. When Colorado repealed its mandatory helmet use in 1977, its motorcycle fatality rate increased 29 percent. Conversely, States that have passed mandatory helmet laws since 1989 have seen a significant reduction in their motorcycle fatality rate when compared to the motorcycle fatality rate in their State before passage of the law. In Oregon, there was a 33 percent reduction in motorcycle fatalities the year after its mandatory helmet law was reenacted. California experienced a 36-percent reduction when its law went into effect. In total, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, estimated that 600 riders a year are saved as a result of motorcycle helmet use. More than 80 percent of all motorcycle crashes result in injury or death to the motorcyclist. Head injury is the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. Compared to a helmeted rider, an unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury and 15 percent more likely to incur a head injury when involved in a crash. At my request, one of the leading trauma hospitals in my State reviewed its data on motorcycle accidents over the last 3 years. According to the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey located in Newark, the deaths for motorcycle accident patients that entered their hospital was 11.5 percent, and this compared with only a 7.5 percent death rate for seriously injured automobile and truck accident patients, even though the absolute number of car and truck victims was far fewer than the motorcycle accident victims. The failure of the motorcyclists to use helmets also has placed a huge financial burden on society. NHTSA estimates that the use of helmets saved $5.9 billion between 1984 and 1992. Repeal of mandatory helmet requirements would increase the death rate for motorcycle riders by 391 people per year and would increase costs to society by $380 million a year. In these days when we are discussing skimpier budgets I do not understand what it is that makes a Federal mandate so onerous that we all ought to pay extra funds for taking care of hapless victims of motorcycle accidents. When motorcyclists say they want Government off their backs and they want to ride bareheaded against the world, it is important to realize that there is a bill that has to be footed. Now, I know that each of my friends here on the floor has not dissimilar experiences to me and you have visited hospital trauma wards and seen what happens with motorcycle riders who are involved in crashes. I have seen many in my State. The most serious of injuries. My State is no different than any other. We are a little more crowded, but we are normal people just like anybody else. The most serious injuries are those incurred by motorcyclists, often paraplegics or quadriplegics. There is nothing worse for a family to endure--nothing worse--than to see a child or a family member wind up a paraplegic. But it happens, and motorcyclists do have a different risk than automobiles. We cannot use helmets, as was suggested. We do not need them in automobiles because we have roofs, we have roll bars, we have airbags, we have seatbelts. We have all kinds of devices to protect the driver and the occupants. That is why we continue to see declines in fatality and injury rates in automobiles, despite increasing traffic. This amendment also eliminates federal seatbelt requirements, I find it amazing. Seatbelt use reduces the risk of a fatal or serious injury by 40 percent down to 55 percent--that much of a difference, Mr. President, 40 to 55 percent. National seatbelt rates have gone from 13 percent in 1982 to 67 percent in 1994. Four States now have these laws. We, as a country, still travel virtually every developed nation in the world in seatbelts. In those States with seatbelt laws, use rates average 67 percent. With strong enforcement and extensive public education, some States have been able to reach the use rate of 80 percent. Use of safety belts saved more than 40,000 lives and prevented more than 1 million injuries from 1983 to 1993. It saved $88 billion. Each year, safety belt use prevents an estimated 5,500 deaths and nearly 140,000 injuries. It saves taxpayers more than $12 billion annually. Mr. President, 76 percent of Americans oppose weakening or repealing safety belt laws, and 61.9 percent believe doing so will place a greater burden on taxpayers. I get that information from the Advocates for Highway Auto Safety, who prepared that data. We see all kinds of savings of lives and savings of injuries as we encourage helmet use, as we encourage seatbelt use. I know one thing that saved a lot of lives--young lives--was the mandatory drinking age, at age 21. That law was written in 1984, and since that time we have saved more than 14,000 youngsters from dying on the highways. It is a good law. It also is under attack, not at the moment, but it is under attack. We have heard it from the House that there are Members, one from Wisconsin, who want to eliminate the 21 drinking age bill, as well as seatbelts, as well as speed limits, as well as motorcycle helmets. He would eliminate [[Page S 8672]] all those things because it is a matter of pride and States rights. Who foots the bills? Every citizen in America pays the bills for these removals. I will resist it, and I hope that this Senate will resist it. What I have heard is that this State or that State stands to lose money. For heaven's sake. How about the lives that they lose if they do not have the laws in place or have the requirements in place? Talk about mandates, mandates saving lives, saving injuries, saving the health and well-being of their citizens. Is that such an onerous burden, that we will take away these protections that we have developed over a long period of time? When it comes to the statistics, we hear them kicked around here pretty good. We hear about the reduction in fatalities or injuries in this place; then I hear just recited the number of injuries, fatalities, and destruction of property in another place. The question is, are we comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges? I am not sure. Mr. President, I hear the words, I listen to the debate. Frankly, I do not understand what it is we are trying to do here. I think we ought to hold fast to the laws that have been developed. So I think the argument is bogus. I think the States rights argument is hollow when it comes to saving lives and reducing injuries and reducing costs. I hope, Mr. President, that we will be able to defeat this amendment. Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will tell the Senator this. I would not agree at this moment to a unanimous consent agreement that cuts off debate. I have stayed here, in all fairness, and listened to the debate from the other side, and I think there are people in opposition to it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from New Jersey would like probably around 10 minutes, maybe an extended 10.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. She cannot yield, Mr. President; I am sorry.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Parliamentarian whether the floor is now obtained by the Senator from Maine, or do both Senators have the floor at the same time?

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on June 5, 1995, the Bergen Record, the flagship of one of New Jersey's most successful family- owned businesses, turned 100 years old. Since John Borg bought the paper in 1930, it has flourished to become New Jersey's third largest daily newspaper with a daily circulation of 172,000 and a Sunday circulation of 246,000. New Jersey's readers have been well served by an editorial policy that encourages thoughtful, objective reporting on issues of importance to our State's most populous county. [[Page S 8622]] The Bergen Record is the cornerstone upon which the Borg family built its burgeoning media business, Macromedia Inc., which includes the Bergen Record Corp., the News Tribune, Magna Media Advertising, Inc., and Gateway Communications. But what is special about this company is that, through all of this growth, the Borg family has continued the tradition started by John Borg of fostering an employee-oriented business. The chairman of the board, Malcolm Borg, is known by his first name and all 1,200 employees know that he has an open-door policy. This attitude extends outward to the community with programs such as the in-house tutoring program for Hackensack Middle School Students and the scholarship program for the children of Record employees. In addition, advertising space is regularly donated to benefit and promote such worthy causes as Food Action of New Jersey and Help the Heartland. Employees are encouraged to volunteer their time for worthy causes. A commissioner on the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, Malcolm Borg has taken a lead role in moving to protect Sterling Forest, the largest contiguous forest in New York. The aquifers in this forest supply one quarter of New Jersey's population with drinking water. Mac Borg's commitment to this project is instrumental in our fight to protect this land from a planned development which includes 14,000 homes and light industrial and commercial space. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the enormous contributions to Bergen County and New Jersey made by the Borg family, the Bergen Record and the employees of the paper. They have served their community well and I congratulate them.