Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am now offering an amendment today, along with my colleague, Senator Campbell from Colorado, as well as my colleagues, Senators Moseley-Braun, Smith, Feingold, Kohl, and Kempthorne. Essentially, what our amendment would do is to repeal the penalty that would be imposed on those 25 States that have yet to pass a mandatory helmet law. Yesterday, Senator Smith from New Hampshire offered an amendment that included both seatbelt and helmet laws. That amendment failed. So I am now offering today an amendment that would help 25 States--half of our country--who have yet to pass a mandatory helmet law. We had considerable debate yesterday as to whether or not it is appropriate for the Federal Government to intrude upon decisions that rightfully belong to the States. We began this Congress with a pledge to reduce the size and the scope of the Federal Government and to restore the ability of States to resolve their own problems with their own solutions and with their own people. I think we need to hold firm to that commitment. It is not a one-time deal or a part-time arrangement that we have for the people of this country to meet a commitment that they demanded in the last election. Reducing the size, scope, and intrusion of the Federal Government is a central part of our legislative agenda in this Congress. That is why I am introducing this amendment here today. It is one that I have worked on and Senator Campbell has worked on over the years. We happen to think that it is inappropriate for the Federal Government to impose on the States a mandate and a requirement that they have to enact specific laws, otherwise, in this instance, they lose a percentage of their transportation funds. As we know it, ISTEA was passed in 1991, and penalties took effect a year later, and States could enact both a mandatory seatbelt and helmet law. There are two States that have yet to enact seatbelt laws--Maine and New Hampshire. There are 25 States that have yet to enact mandatory helmet laws. And these penalties take effect in October of 1995, whereby 1.5 percent of the transportation funds from that particular State will be diverted to safety education programs. In 1996, it will be 3 percent of the transportation funds that will be diverted to safety education programs. All told, that represents, in the year 1995, a loss, as exemplified by this chart, of $48 million to those 25 States in badly needed highway improvement funds or bridge repair. In 1996, the penalty is doubled to $97 million for those 25 States. They will lose precious transportation funds--funds that already had been appropriated to the States, which I think is very unprecedented, and will be used for safety education programs. If you look at the State of Illinois, it would lose $12,480,000 in the year 1996. Ohio will lose, in 1996, $9,280,000. That is a substantial amount of money to be lost for any State when it comes to highway repair. Certainly, it is true for my State of Maine, which has more than 22,000 road miles in the State. We need every dollar we can use for highway repair. Now, under this penalty, the State of Maine will be required to double the amount of money for safety education programs, to more than $1 million, as a result of this penalty. It will be money that cannot be used for highway road repair if they do not pass a mandatory helmet law. I think that, frankly, is the wrong approach to take. It is, again, Federal Government micromanaging State policy. It is demonstrating the arrogance of the Federal Government. It certainly represents an excessive reach of the Federal Government and, again, the coercive means that the Federal Government is willing to use to force States to be brought into line with what the U.S. Congress considers to be politically correct. The penalties that will be levied are going to be substantial, as I mentioned before. But more important is the fact that the States already recognize the importance of safety education programs. In fact, 44 States already have in place rider education programs for motorcycle riders. It was not because the Federal Government bullied the State into establishing those programs. No. It was something that the States recognized on their own as essential to improving motorcycle riding safety. And that is why I believe that fatalities and accidents have been substantially reduced over the last decade--far ahead of the time before these penalties even took effect under ISTEA when it was passed in 1991. Those 44 programs represent $13 million to the States, and they raised that funding by imposing fees on motorcycle registration and licenses. In my State of Maine, we have a $500,000 program. It has proven to be valuable, essential, and effective in reducing fatalities of motorcyclists. In fact, in Maine in 1993, we ranked the second lowest in the country for motorcycle fatalities. I think it does prove that those programs become very effective toward reducing accidents on the road and certainly fatalities. That is why I think the States should be allowed to determine their own policies with respect to safety on the highways and certainly with respect to motorcycles. Since 1983, the number of accidents have decreased from 307 per 10,000 registered motorcyclists to 206 in 1992. Fatalities similarly declined from 8 per 10,000 registered motorcyclists in 1983 to 6 per 10,000 in 1992. This shows, in my opinion, a remarkable decline. And this all occurred, as I said, prior to the enactment of section 153 that went into effect, I think demonstrating clearly that the heavy-handed treatment by the Federal Government is not essential to improving motorcycle safety. The States are certainly better able, better prepared, and better equipped to address those issues. I was somewhat disturbed yesterday by the tenor of the debate. I think there is some feeling that somehow the Governors and State legislatures are somewhat less concerned or disinterested or unresponsive to what is happening on their own highways and roads. I do not think there is anything that could be further from the truth. The fact is, motor vehicle laws have always been within the purview of State government. It has been traditionally their jurisdiction. I think there is nothing wrong with the Federal Government creating incentives for establishing certain programs or passing certain laws. We should not be imposing heavy-handed penalties to force the States to do something that they do not deem appropriate or in their interests. That is for themselves to determine in making and creating State policy. In response to the chairman's comments yesterday, the chairman was saying in any of the competitions for motorcycle riders, they are required to wear helmets. I think we can say very safely that many feel that people should wear helmets. But that should not be a decision made by the Federal Government. The question of who decides who should wear helmets should be appropriately placed with the States. For personal safety, I certainly would recommend, and I have worn a helmet when I have ridden a motorcycle, because I think it is important. The chairman made the comment yesterday that there is a requirement at these competitions that riders wear helmets. Mr. Dingman sent a letter to the chairman. I quote from it: [[Page S 8747]] As part of your justification for keeping in place the section 153 penalties on States that do not have mandatory helmet laws for all riders, you stated that the AMA requires all riders to wear helmets in the competitive events we sanction. I would like to point out that although regarding the American Motorcycle Association races, sanctioning policies are established by riders committee through a democratic process. In seeking to repeal the section 153 penalties, we simply want to give the States the same ability to make a decision regarding helmet laws through a democratic process without coercion from the Federal Government. I think that is the bottom line here. What we are attempting to achieve through this amendment is to allow the decision to be made by the State legislatures and the people in those States. That is what we should be doing. That is the kind of approach, I think, that should be taken at the Federal level, to leave those decisions that are best made by the State governments to the States. Finally, I would also like to quote a letter by the Governor of the State of Wisconsin, Governor Thompson. Mr. President, he writes: Wisconsin cycling community, in their legislatures, has said our State does not want or need a law requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets. The most recent efforts to enact such a law was unsuccessful in the 1994 legislative session. Instead, Wisconsin relies on a partnership approach marked by responsible riding and effective training and safety programs. This approach is working well. During the past 12 years, without a mandatory helmet law, Wisconsin has continued to pose one of the Nation's best motorcycle safety records. Still, Federal laws require States to pass mandatory helmet laws covering all motorcyclists by October 1, 1995, or face strict penalties. If Wisconsin does not pass a mandatory motorcycle helmet law by this Federal deadline, more than $7 million in Federal funds will be taken away from highway projects and transferred to motorcycle safety programs of the next 2 years. Instead of leading the charge for a mandatory helmet law in Wisconsin, I am leading the fight in Washington against burdensome Federal mandates. Wisconsin must have the freedom to choose what works best for our State without facing costly, one-size-fits-all Federal laws that tie our hands. I hope you support this effort by contacting your U.S. Senator or Representative, urging them to help repeal the helmet law mandate. The decision on whether to require helmet use must be made by individual States, not by the Federal Government. I think that is well said. Again, I want to underscore another point, as mentioned by Governor Thompson. The fact is, Wisconsin has a very effective rider safety education program and has one of the best safety records in the country. Yet they do not mandate the use of helmets. They are not going to change their law in the State of Wisconsin regardless of what the Federal Government does with respect to the penalty imposed on them through the use of transportation funds. The point is, even prior to the imposition of penalties, 24 States out of the 25 said that they had not passed mandatory helmet laws. Only one State, since ISTEA passed in 1991, the State of Maryland, passed a law. That was before the penalty was in place. That was so they could qualify for an incentive grant program for additional funding. The point is that over half of the States, or half the States, in this country have not adopted the helmet law because they think it is a decision that should not be forced upon them by the Federal Government. I certainly could not agree more. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment to repeal this intrusive measure so the States can make their own decisions and their own policies. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. I appreciate them. In response to the Senator's questions, first of all, as I said in my statement earlier, when I have ridden a motorcycle, I have always worn a helmet, and I certainly would advise anybody who is riding a motorcycle to wear a helmet. The question is, Who should decide when someone wears a helmet? Should the Federal Government decide it or should the State decide it? That is the question we are trying to determine here today. It is a basic philosophical question that needs to be addressed. I do not happen to think the Federal Government should be the determining factor in who is going to wear a motorcycle helmet. The second question is in terms of incurring costs, and I mentioned yesterday, where do we draw the lines in terms of personal and social behavior and what impacts Federal health care costs? That is a basic question. Because, first of all, we know there is behavior that could result in more costs in the Medicaid Program, for example. If somebody smokes, it leads to cancer. If somebody does not engage in a good diet or engage in regular exercise, it leads to heart disease. Or chewing tobacco. Whatever the case may be, that results in more health care costs. Where do we at the Federal level draw that line? That is also a question that needs to be addressed here today. To even answer the Senator's question more specifically, I would like to mention a study that was conducted at the Harbor View Medical Center in Seattle, WA. They reported that 63.4 percent of the injured motorcyclists in the trauma center relied on public funds in order to pay their hospital bills. According to testimony by the director of the trauma center, 67 percent of the general patient population also relied on taxpayer dollars to pay their bills. A study that was conducted by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center found that 49.4 percent of injured motorcyclists had their medical costs covered by insurance, while 50.4 percent of the other road trauma victims were similarly insured. So I think, first of all, we are being selective here in who do we determine is impacting health care costs. But secondly, the question is whether or not the Federal Government should intrude to such an extent as to require States to pass laws. And the Senator mentioned that it does not cost the States any money. Well, technically the Senator is correct. But that money is transferred to programs that are already well-funded. Does it make sense for my State to have to pay twice as much in safety programs when it has already determined that it is not necessary, that $500,000 is sufficient, not $1.3 million? That is not money they can spend on other things that are also essential to the well-being and the welfare of the residents of my State. So I would suggest to the Senator that by singling out motorcycle riders and saying that they are having the greatest effect on our medical costs in the country is certainly not a fair characterization. I just do not happen to think that this is an appropriate area for us to be governing here in the Congress. I, too, was in the State legislature in the State of Maine for 6 years, and I do not think the pressures on a State legislature are any different than the pressures we face by any one group by serving in the Senate or the House of Representatives. I doubt anybody would believe it if you suggested differently. The fact is, looking at the merits of this question, 24 States had already adopted helmet laws before the ISTEA penalties took effect--24 States. They had already decided in their own wisdom that it was important for the residents of their States to have that requirement. So they decided it on their own, to their credit. The Senator mentions the State of California. Well, again that is another example. The State of California passed its law prior to ISTEA passing in the U.S. Congress in 1991. It took effect before ISTEA was even passed in the Congress. So they determined it in their own wisdom. They do not need the Federal Government telling them what to do. That is what the whole issue is all about.

Ms. SNOWE. I say to the Senator, he is exactly correct. My colleague is exactly right. Providing strings and requirements to the money before it is returned to the States or otherwise, they do not really get it because they cannot use it for the purposes they require. It is only the purpose which the Federal Government, the Congress, requires, but not for what the States need.

Ms. SNOWE. That is absolutely correct. The Senator raised that earlier in terms of the transportation funds.

Ms. SNOWE. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Ms. SNOWE. To answer the Senator's statement, yes, we do have the right. But the question is, what is right? I do not think the Senator's approach is the right approach. I do not think it is appropriate for us to begin to determine in a number of different areas how we are going to provide that medical care because we decide on what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. If we are going to do that, then I think it is only fair to look at a whole host of areas that have an impact on the cost to the Federal Government of medical care. That is what this amendment is suggesting. That is the door it is opening. It is everybody's right to interpret how this amendment is going to be applied. It is not a hypothetical situation. It is very real. While the Senator might think she is granting States the right to make those decisions, it is not any different than what we are trying to fight with this legislation. We are saying to the States, you ought to make those decisions. We have decided in our wisdom that something should be decided rightfully by the States. That was the vote we just had on my amendment, to allow the States to make those decisions, not to penalize them through transportation funds. But the Senator is coming through the back door and saying, all right, if you do not adopt this amendment then you are going to be denied medical care cost reimbursements by the Federal Government. Yes, it is definitely going to be an unfunded mandate, but I think it raises some other very serious questions about exactly how far we are willing to go to begin to make those distinctions on medical care costs and who is going to have access.

Ms. SNOWE. I will be glad to yield.

Ms. SNOWE. It is my time.

Ms. SNOWE. I hope that is not the approach we are taking with this legislation because it opens up, I think, very incredible questions about the propriety of procedures in a policy from the Federal prospective. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. Let me have--it is my time. The point is in terms of what is right. Now we are saying that, because somebody happens to be abiding by their State law--and my colleague calls it a States rights issue, and I find that a very interesting interpretation of States rights because it is no different than what we are trying to fight over the helmet law or even the seatbelt law. We are saying let the States determine it but do not penalize us with transportation funds. [[Page S 8760]] So now the Senator's amendment is penalizing States in a different way. She is saying we are not going to give you medical care costs if somebody gets in an accident because you are not adopting that amendment. That is the bottom line of her amendment. Because now she is giving the States the choice, if you do not pass that helmet law, and if something happens to an individual abiding by the State law that does not require them to wear a helmet, they will not have access to medical costs. The Senator knows the State is going to have to pick up the tab, so it is an unfunded mandate and she is a cosponsor of the unfunded mandate bill--but this is an unfunded mandate. The hospitals are not going to deny that care to that individual. The Senator would not suggest a 16- or 17-year-old on a motorcycle who gets in an accident is going to be denied medical care because they were abiding by the law of their State?

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments made by the Senator from Colorado, because I think some of the questions that have been raised with respect to the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas really does embark the Senate on a different course with respect to, for example, the Medicaid Program. The Medicaid program is a State-Federal Program. States design their programs within the Federal guidelines. Do not underestimate for a moment that we will not be pursuing a different and an unprecedented approach with respect to our medical programs. Once we decide that behavior is going to dictate whether or not an individual has access to medical care costs, we have opened, as the Senator from Colorado said, Pandora's box. It will not stop here. I know the Senator from Rhode Island would not answer the question as to whether or not he would support other forms of social, personal, or recreational behavior as a determining factor for an individual eligible for our medical programs to receive those medical benefits. I now would ask the Senator from Texas as to whether or not the Senator thinks that we should adopt a standard of behavior that will determine whether or not an individual should receive medical care in this country. I ask the Senator, does the Senator think that we should draw the line, for example, on what people do--whether they are skiing, skateboarding, rollerblading, smoking, improper diet, lack of exercise? We could go on in terms of the number of critical choices that are made as to how we will spend our money. And those people who are recipients of these programs could be denied based on this amendment. This is setting a precedent. Does the Senator think that we should design our Medicaid or Medicare programs according to people's personal and social and recreational behavior?

Ms. SNOWE. So the Senator is not prepared----

Ms. SNOWE. That is the question I am asking because this is the kind of precedent that this amendment is establishing. What is the point?

Ms. SNOWE. This Senator, in hearing the Senator's answer to the question, then assumes the Senator supports denying all these categories for access to medical care on other pieces of legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. I will be glad to yield for that purpose.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I do not blame the distinguished chairman for not wanting to get into the details of this amendment because once you do and understand the implications and the impact, it certainly would be unprecedented from a Federal standpoint. I ask the Senator from Texas, why stop here? Why just stop with those who do not wear helmets? Why do we not deny individuals who are on Medicaid any medical care if they smoke and end up getting cancer? Why do we not deny people who are on Medicaid and do not engage in exercise, good diet, and do not get preventive medical checkups on an annual basis? Why do we not deny them medical care? I mean, we can go on with endless possibilities. Why do we not deny those who ski and do not wear a helmet when they get injured? Why do we not deny them medical care? How about those who go rollerblading? If they do not wear a helmet, do we deny them medical care? [[Page S 8757]] I think the Senator from Virginia raised a very important point. If somebody is riding a motorcycle and does not happen to be wearing a helmet because that person is abiding by the State law because they are not required to wear a helmet and they get broadsided by somebody who might be intoxicated or driving recklessly, that person who is driving recklessly or intoxicated would be eligible for Medicaid if they were in that category. But the person who was a law-abiding citizen riding the motorcycle and gets broadsided by that individual who is driving recklessly would be denied medical care. I do not think that is the approach we want to adopt in Congress, sort of a two- and three-tiered system as to who is going to be denied or who is going to have access to medical care. I think, and I said before, when the Senator from Rhode Island raised the issue about, well, this is going to add to our costs, I would ask the Senator, why not offer legislation that denies medical care for anything we think is going to affect health care costs to the Federal Government? Why are we stopping with just wearing helmets? I ask either the Senator from Texas or the Senator from Rhode Island that question. What about horseback riding? Rodeos?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include Senator Cohen of Maine and Senator Thomas of Wyoming as cosponsors of my amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. That is correct. There would be endless possibilities in terms of what could be offered here to deny medical care to people in various categories, in various forms of personal behavior.

Ms. SNOWE. Absolutely.

Ms. SNOWE. The States can do that at great cost, as the Senator well recognizes, and it was the Senator from Rhode Island who raised the question of medical costs. So let us discuss the issue of medical costs. I think it is a very relevant issue, and if it is right for motorcycle riders, then it should be right for everybody else in all of these categories, if we are talking about medical costs. It was the Senator who raised that issue.

Ms. SNOWE. I reclaim my time.

Olympia Snowe

Speeches

Manage analytics