Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, for the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to announce the Senate schedule. Leader time is reserved. There will be a period of morning business until 10 a.m. this morning. At 10 a.m. the Senate will resume consideration of S. 343, the regulatory reform bill, with the Glenn substitute amendment pending. The Senate will then stand in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m., to accommodate the respective party luncheons. At 2:15 p.m., under a previous order, there will be two consecutive rollcall votes. The first will be a 15-minute vote on the Glenn substitute amendment, followed by a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Dole-Johnston substitute amendment, which will be 10 minutes in length. The votes ordered for 2:15 p.m. are not necessarily the first votes of the day. Rollcall votes are expected throughout the day and a late night session is possible in order to make progress on the regulatory reform bill. Finally, Senators are reminded that under rule XXII, second-degree amendments to the Dole-Johnston substitute must be filed by 12:30 p.m. today in order to qualify postcloture. Also, in connection with the third cloture motion, filed yesterday on the Dole-Johnston substitute, any further first-degree amendments must be filed by 12:30 p.m. today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund Waste Control and Risk Assessment, and as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have been closely following the progress of the pending regulatory reform legislation, S. 343, as it pertains to Superfund. I believe this is an important bill, and I think it makes a significant improvement in modernizing an outdated regulatory system. I have to admit that I have some concerns about Superfund being specifically targeted for reform in this legislation. Before I outline these concerns, however, I think it is important to recognize how we have gotten to this point. Everyone in this Chamber can agree that our Nation's system of environmental regulations has had its successes: Americans are breathing cleaner air, and drinking cleaner water today than they did a generation ago. Nonetheless, there is uniform consensus that the Superfund program, however well intended, is not living up to its promises. Over the last 14 years we have spent over $30 billion dollars on this program, yet today, we have completed the cleanup at only 70 of the more than 1,300 sites on the national priorities list. Clearly we can and must do a better job of cleaning up these sites. Beginning this past January, I conducted a series of 7 hearings and received testimony from more than 60 witnesses in an effort to formally incorporate a wide variety of views on the issue of Superfund reform. In addition, Congressman Mike Oxley, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials, and I met with numerous groups in candid, off-the-record meetings. Participants included: environmental groups, potentially responsible parties, representatives of the environmental justice movement, State and local governments, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, think tanks, and insurance companies. After taking the time to digest and analyze the information provided by these groups, I released, on June 28, 1995, a Superfund reform outline which is a comprehensive effort to radically reform the Superfund program. At this time, I ask that a copy of my proposal be entered in the Record after my statement.

Mr. SMITH

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

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a long time friend, Nils M. Sander, of Kingston, NH. Nils was a deeply religious man, a devoted husband and father and a true American patriot. Although he would not immediately be recognized by millions of Americans, he embodied the essence of the American people and their spirit. Nils Sander died on March 17, 1995, but it is his life that I want to share with my colleagues today. Nils was born in 1917 in Stockholm, Sweden, the second son of John and Maria Sander. It was soon after Nils' birth that the Sander family began immigrating to America. Initially it was several aunts and uncles and then as word spread among the family that in America the jobs were plentiful and opportunity was boundless, Nils' parents, John and Maria, brought their whole family. Nils, his brother, Arnie, a pregnant mother and a hopeful father disembarked from the boat at Ellis Island. Nils' sister, Nana, was later born in America and it was her birth as a U.S. citizen that enabled her to sponsor the rest of the family into citizenship. Nils' father, John, the industrious and hard-working Swede, found work as a machinist and was soon able to buy his family a home. Nils grew up in a generation that knew the value of a strong work ethic. He saw the Depression. He saw it devastate the lives of his neighbors, family and friends. Nils' brother left home so there would be one less mouth to feed. His mother pawned her wedding ring to feed her family. Nils learned the value of saving and he learned the machinist trade from his father. He learned to love America. In 1942, Nils married his high school sweetheart, Ruth Seaburg. While his wife was expecting their first child, World War II was raging. Nils joined the Navy because he knew that freedom was not free. Nils put his life on the line to preserve that freedom not only for his generation but for his children and grandchildren for generations to come. He served as a machinist mate on board the U.S.S. Doyle C. Barnes in the Philippines and New Guinea. It was in 1944 that Nils returned from the war. He came home to a son who was ready a year old. Nils found work at the Watertown Arsenal and then later at MIT as a tool and die maker. In 1947, Nils moved his family to Kingston, NH, and a second son was born. He rode his bike 2 miles to the train station in the next town in order to make his way to and from Haverhill, MA, where he taught at a trade school. The family was soon able to buy a car and life became easier. The agreement at Yalta removed forever any lingering Socialist ideas that had been brought from Sweden with his parents. No man or nation had the right to determine the sovereignty of another nation. Individual freedom with responsibility began to root itself deep into Nils' beliefs. Those beliefs formed the basis for his conservative philosophy. Nils' family remembers very clearly the lengthy conversations around the dinner table had about communism, his compassion for people imprisoned within the Communist state, and his determination that freedom must prevail against those tyrannies. For Nils, there was never a problem with defining right or wrong. His faith in God and knowledge of biblical lessons were all he needed to direct his life and to teach his family, his students, and all who came to know him. Nils was a founder of the Kingston Community House, a volunteer organization formed to help those in need in the community. They provided food and clothes to those who were without. They provided Christmas gifts for needy children, and they ran a weekly meal program. The success of the Kingston Community House brought Nancy Reagan to Kingston because of her interest in voluntarism. Nils became active in the New Hampshire Republican Party and campaigned tirelessly for those conservative candidates who shared his ideals. Those he worked for included Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Gordon Humphrey, Mel Thomson, and Bob Smith. Nils was not only our supporter--he was our friend. Nils was there for me in the beginning when it was tough going. He did not have to help me but he did, and he never asked for anything in return. Not one thing did he ever ask in return. Nils helped to craft the conservative platform which now guides the party. He was one of the quiet people who never asked for anything but good government--and the less the better. He believed with all his heart that government should do only what people cannot do for themselves. Nils never ran for public office. So you would not know him. Instead he preferred to serve from the sidelines. He was always there when a void needed to be filled which could further his conservative beliefs in the preciousness of freedom, the sanctity of human life, and the importance of family. Nils and his wife, Ruth and his daughter, Asta, and the rest of the family, were quiet but active Americans who deserve a great deal of credit for the revolution which took place in last November's election. They never sat back and let the liberal agenda destroy the fragile freedom we enjoy. They went to work every day. They taught their families right from wrong and they taught them to love God and to love America and to take their responsibilities seriously, to save for the future, and not to be a burden to society. As I indicated, Nils passed away a short time ago. He suffered from Alzheimers, a cruel disease that has also stricken one of his beloved political leaders, Ronald Reagan. Because he was in the final stages of Alzheimers, Nils was unable to witness the November elections and enjoy the fruits of his labors. Nils--I know that you are watching now and smiling as you see your old friend in the majority in the U.S. Senate. I am a U.S. Senator today because of Nils Sander. Nils believed in me at a time when it was tough. And I believed in him. I will miss my friend, and I intend to honor his memory by continuing to fight for the conservative principles he espoused. Yes, Nils Sander, one man can make a difference * * * and you did. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this is truly a historic debate. At no point in recent times have the differences between the two major political parties been more apparent. The choice is clear and defining. You either: support $200 plus billion deficits through the next century, or you do not; support balancing the Federal budget by the year 2002, or you do not; want to pass along a greater debt to your children and grandchildren, or you do not; want to let working Americans keep more of what they earn, or you do not. Mr. President, this country is $4.8 trillion in debt. There were some interesting budget facts in the Wall Street Journal a few months back. Shaquille O'Neal--the basketball star who plays for the Orlando Magic-- earns about $30 million each year in salary and endorsements. Shaquille O'Neal would have to play 158,400 seasons to earn $4.8 trillion, our current national debt. The O.J. Simpson trial has captivated many in this Nation. Again, according to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Simpson is paying about $55,000 a day in legal fees. The trial would need to last 78 million days before Mr. Simpson paid $4.8 trillion. Mr. President, this is not a laughing matter, far from it. It is of the most grave concern to all Americans. If we do not balance the budget soon, we won't have a country to pass along to our children. That's what this debate is all about. I have three children. Like most Americans, I would like to pass along to them my assets, my wealth, when I leave this world. They should not inherit a mountain of debt. We must stop thinking about the next election, and start thinking about the next generation. Mr. President, if the Senate does not pass this balanced budget plan, there is no coming back. If we do nothing: the national debt will exceed $6 trillion in 2002; Interest payments on that debt will be $331 billion in 2002; The federal deficit will exceed $200 billion, with no end in sight. That should be unacceptable to every American. This budget conference report is bold, and it is fair. It would balance the Federal budget in the year 2002. It would provide incentives for Americans to save and invest, and help the economy to grow. It would allow for penalty free withdrawals from IRA's for first time home buyers, education, and medical expenses. It would cut the capital gains tax rate, and index it for inflation. It would provide tax relief for families in the form of a $500 tax credit per child. Most important, Mr. President, the tax cuts are paid for with additional spending cuts. Cutting taxes is not a sin. It is not wrong or irresponsible to let Americans keep more of their hard-earned dollars. After all, it's not the Government's money. History shows that tax cuts create jobs, a goal we all share. But history also shows that unless we cut spending, no amount of growth will [[Page S 9400]] balance the budget. I believe this budget proves that we can, and should, do both. In 1993, every Republican Senator and House member voted against President Clinton's $250 billion tax increase. The tax cuts included in this package total $245 billion. We don't even get as far cutting taxes as the President went in raising taxes. This is clearly an issue that unites Republicans. I would like to praise the hard work of Senator Domenici, and others on the budget committee, for a job well done. Many of us have waited a long time for this day. I have been talking about balanced budgets for 11 years. Now we have a rare chance to act. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I have been here. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. I will not yield. I will be happy to yield when I finish and engage in questions and answers on your time. In the first illustration, the abortionist, guided by ultrasound, grabs the baby's leg with forceps. As you see in illustration 2, the baby's leg is then pulled from the birth canal. So you see the forceps now have grabbed the legs, pulling the baby from the birth canal. In the third picture, in this so-called partial-birth abortion process, the abortionist delivers the entire baby, with the exception of the head--the entire baby. So I ask my colleagues to think about this, as to whether or not this is some impersonal thing or whether this is a child now in the hands of the abortionist. It could be a doctor, Mr. President. If it were a doctor who wanted to save that life, the life would be saved; the baby would be born and the life would be saved. The only difference is it is an abortionist. In illustration No. 4, the abortionist takes a pair of scissors and inserts the scissors into the back of the skull and then opens the scissors up to make a gap in the back of the skull in order to insert a catheter to literally suck the brains from the back of that child's head. That is what happens in the so-called partial-birth abortion. Anywhere from the 19th or 20th week up, this can happen. It is unspeakably brutal, and yet some say the child does not feel this. Take a pair of scissors and slowly insert them into the skin in the back of your neck a little way and see how that feels to you. According to neurologist Paul Renalli, premature babies born at this stage may be more sensitive to painful stimulation than others. I would think my colleagues would be repulsed by this and most Americans would be appalled, sickened, and angered that such a brutal act could be carried out against a defenseless child. This is a child, I say to my colleagues. This is a child; a defenseless child. I ask you, would you put your dog to sleep by inserting scissors in the back of the neck and using a catheter to suck out its brains? Yet, under the Supreme Court Roe versus Wade decision, the brutal partial- birth abortion procedure that I just described is legal in all 50 States--all 50 States. And, in fact, the National Abortion Federation has written: Don't apologize, this is a legal abortion procedure. Exactly my point and exactly the connection with Dr. Foster. And before my colleagues stand up and accuse me of saying it, I am not accusing Dr. Foster of doing this. What I am accusing Dr. Foster of is ignoring the fact that it is taking place and accepting the fact that by any means, any means legal--and this is legal--by any means legal, a life can be taken. So lest my views get misrepresented on the floor of this Senate, I am making it very clear. So when Dr. Foster says he wants to prevent the erection of barriers to late-abortion access, he is tolerating and condoning this. That is a late abortion, and he is tolerating it and allowing it to happen. Based on Dr. Foster's own statement, one can only conclude that he would oppose, and oppose strongly, the very bill that I have introduced. I have not heard otherwise. The grotesque and brutal partial-birth abortion procedure that I just described and illustrated on the floor of the Senate today can and should be outlawed. And if the Surgeon General of the United States, whoever he or she may be, spoke out against it, it would [[Page S 8863]] be outlawed, and that is the kind of Surgeon General that I want. The bill that Senator Gramm and I have introduced would outlaw it, and our bill amends title 18 of the United States Code so that: Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus should be fined . . . Not the woman, the doctor--called a doctor--the abortionist. So, Mr. President, when Dr. Foster speaks of these barriers, he is talking, in effect, about bills like mine, like the bill that would ban partial-birth abortions. He is providing, when he says a woman's right to choose, a woman's right to choose partial-birth abortions. This is what it means. Let us put some meaning to the words, because that is what it means. Out of all of the controversy surrounding Joycelyn Elders, all of the unbelievable statements and the controversy that we endured during her all-too-long and lengthy tenure, I cannot understand why the President would choose as his successor someone whose past record and policy views on the pressing social questions of our time are so out of tune, so far out of sync, with the rest of the American people. The Surgeon General should be someone that the American people have confidence in, someone who would put the intense controversy of the Elders years behind us. Yet, President Clinton apparently, without even reviewing carefully Dr. Foster's record, which places him, unfortunately, in this debate, did not do a good job of investigating his past and even recklessly went ahead and made this nomination. Mr. President, there are over 650,000 physicians in the United States of America--black, white, male, female, Asian, Hispanic, Indian. Surely, surely there is one out of 650,000 that could be brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate that would not have this kind of controversy and this kind of debate following the Elders reign. My friend and colleague, Senator Mikulski, a few moments ago said on the floor that she could not understand why this whole thing was about abortion, why the debate was so focused on abortion. In the Washington Post this morning--I might answer the Senator from Maryland by saying this--here is what President Clinton said: Make no mistake about it, this was not a vote about the right of a President to choose a Surgeon General. This was really a vote about every American woman's right to choose. That is why it is about abortion, because the President is making it about abortion, because he wants this kind of thing to occur. Mr. President, I am confident that when the votes are counted, it is going to be the same result as yesterday, and Dr. Foster will not be the next Surgeon General. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from Kansas for yielding me this time. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to Dr. Foster being confirmed as President Clinton's nomination to be Surgeon General of the United States. I also at this point would like to thank Senator Kassebaum for the fine job that she did with the hearings that were conducted very fairly, and I thank Senator Coats for his leadership in bringing information to the forefront regarding this nomination. As Senator Coats has ably pointed out during this debate, there are many troubling issues surrounding the confirmation of Dr. Foster. And I always feel somewhat sad to have to be involved in these debates when individuals like Dr. Foster are brought into the arena, so to speak, because appropriate research was not done on the [[Page S 8862]] nomination prior to placing that person in the arena, which has happened in this case, I believe. The issues that I am concerned about include the credibility of Dr. Foster's responses to questions about his knowledge of the Tuskegee syphilis study, the infamous experiment with hundreds of black men with syphilis where they were deliberately left untreated in the name of medical research. In addition, several members of the Labor Committee have indicated they remain unconvinced that Dr. Foster was, as he claimed, ``in the mainstream'' of medical practice when he performed hysterectomies on mentally retarded women without securing independent-party written consent and even years after the State and Federal courts, as well as the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare had proscribed those and similar practices. One of the principal issues surrounding this nomination is the credibility of Dr. Foster with respect to the number of abortions that he has performed. Various times since he was chosen by the President to be Surgeon General, Dr. Foster has claimed 1, 12, 39, and 55 abortions. And there is even a transcript of a public proceeding in which he appears to have claimed that he performed 700. The interesting thing about this, whether it is 1 or whether it is 700, one of those individuals, you never know, could very well, had they had the opportunity to live a full life, been the nominee for Surgeon General of the United States of America at some point in the future. All of these doubts about Dr. Foster were summed up just right I thought by the New York Times editorial entitled ``Ending the Foster Nomination,'' calling Dr. Foster a flawed nominee whose nomination involved sacrificing the principle that candidates for high office must fully disclose relevant facts and attitudes. The Times concluded that Dr. Foster's nomination deserves to be rejected. Mr. President, even though there are many reasons to oppose the nomination other than his performance of and advocacy of abortions, let me focus my remarks this afternoon on just how extreme--I emphasize the word ``extreme''--Dr. Foster's abortion policy views are. Polls by Gallup and others have consistently found that over three-fourths of the American people believe that abortion should be prohibited except to save the life of the mother after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Yet in the 1984 speech to Planned Parenthood of Eastern Tennessee, Dr. Foster expressed his strong opposition to restrictions on abortion after 12 weeks, about 150,000 of which are performed annually. Dr. Foster said--and I quote--``We in the movement must work to prevent the erection of such barriers to late abortion access.'' That is after 12 weeks. In other words, Mr. President, Dr. Foster's view is that abortion should be legal, on demand, throughout pregnancy at any time. Let us explore for just a couple of moments what that means. Last Friday Senator Gramm and I introduced S. 939, the partial-birth abortion ban of 1995. Our bill is companion legislation to a bill called H.R. 1833 reported favorably by the House Judiciary Subcommittee yesterday. Mr. President, partial-birth abortions are first performed at 19 to 20 weeks of gestation, very often much later. To give my colleagues a clear understanding of how well developed an unborn child is that late in pregnancy, I have with me an anatomically correct model of a child--not a fetus, it is a child. It is a little child. Its face is formed; its arms, toes, fingers, eyes--this is a child. Dr. Foster said he never performed a late-term abortion, and I have no reason to doubt that. I do not know. That is the statement that he made, and I am not accusing him of performing late-term abortions, but he is not blocking them either. So if you are not a murderer but you do not stop a murder, I think you can draw the conclusion. I brought some photographs to show that premature babies of this very age are the victims of these partial-birth abortions. In this photograph, this is Faith Materowski. She was born at 23 weeks of gestation, just 3 weeks older than this little model would be, weighing 1 pound and 3 ounces, Mr. President. This photograph was taken about a month after she was born, and I am happy to report that Faith survived. She survived because her mother wanted her to live not die. Let me explain, with the aid of a series of illustrations, exactly what is done to children about the same age in a partial-birth abortion. As I do, keep in mind that Dr. Martin Haskell, who by his own admission has performed 700 of these partial-birth abortions as of 1993--Lord knows how many after that--has told the American Medical News, the official newspaper of the AMA, that the illustrations and descriptions that I am about to present are accurate, technically accurate. In the first illustration, the abortionist----

Mr. SMITH. The Senator from Pennsylvania has said he is only asking for 3 minutes. I will be happy to yield and then take my time after the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill, the Senators from Rhode Island, Virginia, [[Page S 8876]] and Montana, for working with me on a compromise amendment that would provide relief to the State of New Hampshire from certain highway-related penalties. The issue we have been debating for the last 2 days in section 153 of ISTEA, which sanctions States that have not enacted mandatory motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws. This section of current law penalized the State of New Hampshire by diverting its scarce highway maintenance and construction funds to its safety program--whether or not this makes any sense. In other words, the penalties are assessed regardless of whether New Hampshire already has an adequately funded safety program directed toward helmet and seatbelt usage, and irrespective of New Hampshire's safety record. States constantly tell us that they are in a better position to address these types of issues than the Federal Government is, and I strongly agree. Yesterday, the Senate voted to repeal the penalties for noncompliance with motorcycle helmet laws. Today, we have reached an agreement on an amendment that would provide an incentive for the State of New Hampshire, which does not have mandatory seatbelt law, to maintain its 50 + seatbelt use rate and strive to reach the national average within 2 years. If they do not meet these goals, then the sanctions will be imposed as current law dictates. This is a very reasonable amendment and it does not compromise the Senator from Rhode Island's objective of achieving a higher percentage of individuals wearing seat belts. In fact, it creates a more effective incentive, without being punitive or infringing on States rights. New Hampshire will continue to education its citizens on the benefits of seatbelt use. Educational programs like those we have in New Hampshire certainly play an important role in increasing highway safety. States do have the expertise and know-how to develop their own programs without Federal intimidation. In conclusion, I strongly believe that it is through education, not necessarily a mandatory law, that we will achieve higher rates of seatbelt use. New Hampshire is capable of ensuring the safety of its citizens without the paternalistic arm of the Federal Government dictating to us how we should accomplish this goal.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Rhode Island would like to wrap this up. I have no objection to that if he chooses to seek unanimous consent to end the debate and have a vote momentarily. I want to make a couple of brief remarks. I think the Senator from Wyoming has a couple of remarks to make as well. I would just say to the Senator from Montana that we are not repealing seatbelts laws anyway. We are not repealing any seatbelt laws. We represent two States in the Union--Maine and New Hampshire-- who choose not to have seatbelt or helmet laws. All we are asking is the right for us to be able to do it our way, which is to improve safety, improve safety records, improve seatbelt and helmet use without the mandate which we are doing. So it is a misstatement to say that we are trying to repeal the seatbelt law in the other 48 States. You passed them. You can have them. That is perfectly all right with me. I am not repealing that.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, section 153 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, better known by the acronym ISTEA, penalizes States that refuse to enact mandatory motorcycle helmet and automobile seatbelt laws. In other words, if a State chooses not to enact a mandatory seatbelt or mandatory motorcycle helmet law, they are penalized and they are penalized very substantially. The amendment that I am offering, along with Senators Gregg, Snowe, Campbell, Kempthorne and Thomas would simply repeal the penalties on the States. It does not affect any State that has already adopted these laws. It does not interfere with that in any way. It has no effect on any State whatsoever that has adopted a mandatory helmet or seatbelt law. But what it does do is repeal the penalty on any State that has not enacted such a mandatory use for its riders, either in automobiles or on motorcycles. So, again, lest the debate get misdirected, this does not affect any State law whatsoever. This section of current law sanctions States, or penalizes States, that do not enact mandatory motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws by-- this is how it is done--diverting scarce highway maintenance and construction funds to their safety funds, even if that does not make any sense to do because they are already spending money into safety programs. So, in other words, the penalties are assessed regardless of whether your State already has a safety program that is adequately funded toward both helmet and seatbelt usage, irrespective of your State's safety record. So if your State spends more than an adequate amount on training, on safety for the use of seatbelts and/or helmets, has a good safety record, it still gets penalized because it does not have a mandated helmet or seatbelt law. In fact, 28 States suffered this penalty, this current fiscal year. Twenty-five States will suffer a doubling of this penalty, come October. In the State of New Hampshire, for example, we were penalized nearly $800,000 this year. That will double to $1.6 million next year. That is almost $1 for every man, woman, and child in the State of New Hampshire. Nationally, this penalty translates into $48 million not spent on needed highway improvements this year, and $97 million that will not be spent next year and every year thereafter. I think it is fiscal blackmail. If we look at the list of these States and look down the list, in many cases, the penalties double. They are very substantial. Some run as high as over $4 million. For example, in the State of Ohio, the current penalty is $4.6 million and that doubles to over $9 million in 1996. I would just ask a question. In this era of where we are trying to provide for more States rights, more individual freedom, why would we want to penalize a State by taking away several million dollars--$97 million in total of all the States, $800,000 in New Hampshire, $9 million in Ohio, to use two examples. Why would we want to do that and insist they spend money for safety, or not get the money at all, when they already have the safety program that is necessary? A person might say, it would be reasonable to allow those States to spend and to fix roads, to repair potholes, to repair bridges. That might be worth the effort. That is true. But that is too reasonable. That does not happen. If they do not spend it on the safety programs that they do not need, they do not get the money, and they are penalized. Mr. President, I am not here to debate the merits of whether you wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet. I do not ride a motorcycle. One of my colleagues does and he will be speaking to that in a moment. I do wear a seatbelt. That is my choice. In fact, I am a strong supporter about educating the public on the benefits of wearing a seatbelt and a motorcycle helmet. The State of New Hampshire already requires seatbelt usage for [[Page S 8660]] children up to 12 and motorcycle helmets for passengers up to 16 years old. The sanctions still apply, unless the State has a mandatory law for everyone. The argument has been made that taxpayers should be concerned about the amount of money spent on Medicare and Medicaid for injuries related to motorcycle accidents. This argument assumes a higher percentage of motorcycle riders are covered by Medicaid than the average citizen. I know Senator Campbell will speak to that shortly. I would just say at this point that is not true. On average, motorcycle riders have no great reliance on Medicaid than anybody else. I think that is a misnomer. Furthermore, I would be happy to join any of my colleagues who are interested in reforming Medicare and Medicaid programs in order to save the taxpayers' dollars and maintain their solvency for future generations. I do not think that is the issue. The administration has tried to make a case for maintaining the sanctions for the benefit of society and taxpayers. What next? Will we decide that convertible cars are more dangerous and therefore we should ban them? Should small cars such as Miatas or Alfa Romeos be banned because they are less safe in accidents than, say, a pickup truck or a van? Should the Federal Government limit Medicare and Medicaid to individuals who smoke? Who are police officers? Who are firemen? Bridge builders? Window washers? Should we limit Medicare and Medicaid to those people that lead a riskier life? I do not think so. All we are talking about here is a person's voluntary right to wear a seatbelt, and voluntary right to wear a helmet. Maybe I am exaggerating to make a point which is how far should the Federal Government be allowed to reach into people's lives, or tell States what laws they will have on their books? Frankly, this could cost lives, Mr. President. If we took the State of New Hampshire, the $800,000--and the Senator who is sitting in the chair at the moment, my colleague from New Hampshire, knows full well some of the rural roads we have in our States are full of potholes, and $800,000 could fix a lot of them. Now, how many accidents happen because somebody loses control of an automobile, hitting a bad pothole or hitting some other portion of a road that needs repair? The truth of the matter is that New Hampshire cannot spend that $800,000 on the pothole repairs, because they have to use the $800,000 to create additional personnel for safety that they do not need because they already have an adequate safety program, more than adequate, more than the demand even calls for. The whole thing is ridiculous. Again, it is the paternalistic attitude of Big Brother. The real issue is whether Washington's micromanagement, of what should be dealt with at the State and local level, should continue. That is the issue. States should have the flexibility to devote the highway funds where they think they make the most sense, whether it be protecting public safety by improving those roads and bridges and traffic flow or through highway education. Frankly, in most cases, it is both. Let the States make that determination. In fact, in the State of New Hampshire, which does not have a mandatory helmet or a seatbelt law, it has one of the best highway records in the Nation. One of the most safe, as far as fatalities per million miles traveled. The New Hampshire legislature recognizes the need for improving motorcycle safety, and as a result, the Motorcycle Rider Education Program was enacted in 1989. Since then, more than 4,000 riders have gone through the program. Educational programs like this certainly play an important role in increasing highway safety, and I believe the States have the expertise and know-how to develop their own programs, thank you, without the Federal intimidation or Federal intervention or Federal heavy hand. States will say they are in a better position to address safety concerns. They are. During a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we received testimony from such States as Florida, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, New Hampshire, and Wyoming, all with the same message: Let the States decide how to address highway safety. They all oppose the use of Federal sanctions to pressure States to enact laws against their will. Furthermore, dictating how States spend their highway funds infringes on their ability to control their own budgets, resulting sometimes in misdirected and wasted resources. Let me just give an illustration. Our New Hampshire highway safety coordinator has complained as a result of the mandated transfer of funds to his existing $550,000 budget, he has more money than he knows what to do with. He cannot spend it for safety. More there than he needs. It is hard to imagine that a government official is actually complaining about having too much money, but we are pretty independent in New Hampshire. Frankly, we tend to tell the truth when the truth needs to be told. That is the reality. They do not want to go out and create another level of bureaucracy in the safety department in the New Hampshire Highway Department because they do not need it. Not because they do not care about safety, not because they do not want to promote safety, but because they do promote safety adequately and they want the funds to go into repairs. Scarce resources could end up being wasted in these education projects while a section of the road falls in disrepair and somebody loses a life as a result of a pothole or some other urgent need. It does not make any sense, which is why this constant dictating at the Federal level causes problems with our States and with our citizens. It is this kind of action by the Federal Government that brought our Governors and our local officials to a state of rebellion, frankly, and led to this year's enactment of the unfunded mandates relief bill, one of the first pieces of legislation passed in this Congress. Last year, the American people also voted for great local control and for relief from heavy-handed Federal mandates. With that in mind, let me conclude for the moment on this point, Mr. President. We should continue the trend of ridding this Washington-knows-best attitude around here, and allow our States, governments, communities, to make the kinds of decisions that they need to make for themselves. A vote for this amendment does not cure everything, but it is a step in the right direction. I will point out before my critics point it out, we are not about to say here, by passing this amendment, that we are not in favor of safety, that we want people to go out on the motorcycles and not wear helmets and injure themselves and be wards of the State for the rest of their lives, or we want people to go out and not wear seatbelts and cause permanent injuries to themselves. What we are saying is, we have adequate safety programs in our States, education programs, that indicate to these people that it is unsafe, that it would be better to use a seatbelt and to use a helmet. But if you choose not to, if you choose not to, that is your decision. Your State should not be punished by not receiving dollars that could be used to repair roads and bridges, which is the purpose of the legislation in the first place. I know my colleagues here wish to speak. At this time I will yield the floor.

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

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I have an amendment, which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH. I say to my colleague----

Mr. SMITH. Does the Senator from Ohio believe that his decision should take precedence over the Governor of Ohio, or the Lieutenant Governor?

Mr. SMITH. And my point on that is it does not matter to me whether Ohio has a helmet law or not. That is up to Ohio. It is not up to Washington. So if Ohio chooses not to have a helmet law but chooses to spend a lot of money in safety to enhance and to educate people to wear helmets, I would like them to have that $9 million to spend on the highways in Ohio, to repair bridges, potholes, and other things in Ohio, because that is the State's decision. That is all my amendment does. It does not stop Ohio from having seatbelts. It does not stop Ohio from getting money for having seatbelt laws or educating people to wear them or not wear them--not at all.

Mr. SMITH. The point is the amendment which I have written in conjunction with others is not to punish anyone. It is the opposite. It is to stop punishing. The State of Ohio, for example, was penalized over $9 million because the Senator's State does not have a helmet law.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Are people who drive in other States without the mandate taking personal risk; is that the Senator's question?

Mr. SMITH. I just say to the Senator, we do not have, as he well knows, a seatbelt law in New Hampshire and our seatbelt use has increased almost 40 percent since 1984 through education and training.

Mr. SMITH. I have not either. But my point is these are decisions that ought to be made at the State and the individual level. Let me give an example, because the Senator asked about the record. In New Hampshire--I am not sure the Senator was here on the floor at the time this was discussed--in 1984, 16 percent of the people in New Hampshire, according to statistics that we had at the time, used seatbelts. Without a mandate, with spending money on safety programs, we now have about 55 percent of our people in the State of New Hampshire using seatbelts. There was no Federal mandate. I would be willing to bet you that in the next 10 years, that number will increase even more because we are spending money on education programs. But if I said to you, you need to build a fence between your neighbor's yard and your yard, and it is going to take five post holes, if I said to you, ``You have to dig a sixth post hole or you don't get the money for the fence,'' what is the point of digging the sixth post hole? You need the fence, you need the money for the fence, but you do not need the extra post hole. That is all we are doing here. You are simply mandating the State of New Hampshire and the State of Maine and other States who do not have the one law or the other to spend money where they do not want to spend money, where they are spending enough money, and they simply want to put that money somewhere else. That is the issue.

Mr. SMITH. We are not asking you to repeal those laws.

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator. Let me finish on this point. I am certainly not interested in rolling back the clock on highway safety or on saving lives. My amendment does not do that. I just point out to my colleagues that of the 10 safest States in which you ride a motorcycle, 7 do not require a mandatory helmet use for adults. In New Hampshire, which does not have mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws, it has been ranked as one of the five States with the best highway safety record in the Nation on a per capita basis. So I do not think the connection is there. It is not an issue of whether we want to save lives or not. No one is even hinting that we are not interested in saving lives. I hope the people look at the amendment for what it says, and not what the emotions of the argument are. But look at the facts, and the facts are do not punish anybody. We simply ask that we be allowed to receive the funds that we are entitled to and to spend it on repairing highways so that we can have safer highways in the State of New Hampshire and the State of Maine and the State of Tennessee, and every other State, and not be penalized by forcing us to either spend money for something we do not need to spend it on, or not getting it to spend it all. I yield the remainder of my time.