John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, for his hard work, fairness, and responsiveness that he showed to me as he worked to resolve issues involving the preservation of parks, recreation areas, waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and historic sites. In 1970, it was a privilege for me to serve as the chairman of America's Bicentennial Celebration. During that time I had an opportunity to visit many historic sites across this country. In Virginia we have a proud heritage that is enriched by the preservation of hundreds of historic properties. These sites have witnessed the shaping of our Nation. Today, they serve as our outdoor classrooms that bring alive the history of our democracy and our communities. They are living treasures of our past and are the foundations for our future. For these reasons, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague on the intent of his amendment. I understand that the amendment directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations clarifying the factors to be considered and the standards to be applied in determining whether alternatives are ``prudent and feasible'' under section 138 of title 23 and section 303 of title 49. Would the amendment by my colleague that is included in the managers substitute alter or weaken the standards established in the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in the Overton Park case?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator, my dear friend, yield for some questions?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yesterday I had an opportunity to offer the amendment which is now pending before the Senate and to engage in debate with my colleagues on the important issue of increasing the use of seatbelts in this country. At the request of my colleague, the manager of the bill, Chairman Inhofe, my amendment was modified last night to give States a full 2 years before it takes effect. I wish to take a few moments to summarize this amendment and be sure that my colleagues understand precisely what this amendment is and what it is not. To the point, this amendment is not a mandatory seatbelt law. This amendment sets as our national policy that States are to reach a 90-percent seatbelt use rate by 2006--a full 2 years from now. States can meet this goal in two ways. First, they can meet this goal by any means or programs they devise. They can implement new programs or modify their existing occupant protection programs. Funding is also provided to assist States with implementing or expanding their existing programs. This language is identical to the provisions recommended in the administration's bill, but it is not included in the bill before us. States can also meet the requirements of the amendment by enacting a primary seatbelt law. This 90-percent belt use rate is not a number that I have invented. It is the figure recommended in the President's highway reauthorization bill. Wearing seatbelts is a critical public health and safety issue. For the first time in a decade, highway deaths are on the rise. In 2002, nearly 43,000 persons were killed on our highways and over half of these deaths involved people who were not wearing their seatbelt. If for no other reason to support this amendment, we must protect our Nation's youth. Today, automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. These tragic statistics are reversible if we take action today. That is why over 130 organizations are endorsing this amendment. The support includes major national organizations such as the American Medical Association, law enforcement officials, major insurance companies, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the list goes on. These are the people who deal every day with the wasteful and avoidable deaths on our highways. They are on the front lines in responding to a crash. They are in our hospitals providing care to those who have sustained serious injuries because a seatbelt was not worn. They are the ones who see ever-increasing insurance costs for all Americans because seatbelts are not used. They are the ones who know that safety devices in our cars--such as air bags and enhanced bumpers--are less effective when seatbelts are not worn. My colleagues who do not support this amendment have read letters of concern from State groups and others. That is no surprise. At every turn in our Federal transportation policy for the past 15 years these same groups have opposed every public safety initiative. They opposed raising the minimum drinking age to 21, they opposed the zero tolerance for minors alcohol program, and they opposed the .08 BAC drunk driving level. My only interest is to ensure that this critically important legislation contains some meaningful protections for drivers and passengers. In TEA-21, there was a 40-percent increase in construction funding, which I proudly supported, to make our roads safer. Yet, traffic deaths are increasing. In SAFETEA, there is a $65 billion increase for highway construction, yet inadequate protections for our drivers. No engineering features of our roads will protect against reckless driving behavior. That is what causes a majority of our accidents. Unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol remain the three biggest safety problems on our roads--not unsafe roads. We are taking meaningful steps to get tough on those who irresponsibly use alcohol and drive. Now it is time to do what we know works to address the other major problem-- unbelted drivers. For the benefit of my colleagues, let me summarize the amendment. States are to achieve a 90 percent belt use rate by 2006--2 years from now--or have a primary seatbelt law enacted. If a State does not meet either of these two provisions, 5 percent of one category of their construction funds are transferred to their highway safety programs. The purpose of this transfer is to provide States with additional funding to dedicate to their own programs to encourage drivers and passengers to wear their seatbelts. If by 2008--4 years from now--a State has not met the 90 percent belt use rate or has not enacted a primary seatbelt law, 2 percent of a portion of their construction funds are withheld. For each of the following years, 4 percent of a portion of their funds are withheld. States will receive any funding that is withheld when they reach the 90 percent belt use rate, or enact a primary safety belt law. This is the same provision that is law today for the .08 BAC drunk driving standard. Since it was enacted in 2001, 47 States now comply. There is a solution to the tragic deaths that are occurring on our highways every day. This amendment is the beginning. Let's do what we know works to save lives on our highways. Let's not pass the buck by believing that it is the responsibility of others to take action. It is our responsibility. I urge my colleagues not to support the motion to table.

Mr. WARNER. If I could just make one reply to my colleague and then we will yield the floor. This bill is carefully crafted, that, yes, there is a withholding of those yards of concrete and asphalt, but once the State complies, what has been withheld by way of funds comes back to them to go right into the mainstream of their funding, not unlike .08.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. He enumerated a number of States that still do not have it. If you go back, as I have done, and studied the .08 law, it was vigorously resisted here on the floor of the Senate repeatedly for the very same reasons you have given. But once it was passed and it became mandatory, suddenly the States joined up. There are now 49 States that have the .08 law as a direct consequence of the Congress having given the impetus for those additional States that were hanging out, all of which you just enumerated; in this instance they joined. Lastly, I think it is also important in the debate to mention your own personal experience of an individual who was concerned that it would begin to have cars pulled over by virtue of race. But one of the most interesting individuals who attended a press conference the day before yesterday was a black legislator from Arkansas who is chairman of the National Conference of Black State Legislators. He brought with him that organization's endorsement of this bill. So I do believe there is some legitimate difference within one minority with respect to the question of how this law will be felt. Five States had 21 minimum drinking age, when President Reagan, your idol and mine, signed that into law. So I am just telling you, .08 is an example of how Congress finally acted, and then all the States, save one--I won't mention the one; somebody can do their homework; it is rather curious which State it is--have accepted the .08 law. I say to my good friend, we have had a marvelous debate. I have enjoyed it. My respect for him as a consequence of the debate has increased, my dear friend.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for one further point?

Mr. WARNER. I can answer that, the distinguished junior Senator has the floor.

Mr. WARNER. One vote. All I am saying to you is, if you just require the State, all right, if you don't do it, you will have to give up a little asphalt, a little more concrete, but in return we are saving lives, not only the lives of the young people in that car but the innocent victims, the passengers of another vehicle, or the pedestrian. For a very few cubic yards of concrete and asphalt, we may well save a life.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I full well know, having had the privilege of working with you throughout much of our public service careers, your strong feeling about States rights. And I have mine also. But I have to tell the Senator, the facts do not bear out the assumption that that individual driving without the seatbelt is of minimal danger to an innocent person, be it a pedestrian or one in another car, for this reason: It is very clear that if an accident occurs with an individual driving under the restraint of a seatbelt, he or she has, in that split fraction of a second, better control over the car than one who is totally jostled out of the driver's position and loses the ability to operate the controls of the car because of the absence of a restraint to keep that individual in the position of the driver. Now, the record is replete with those facts. Secondly, yes, you think the people of Virginia--and we love them dearly and they will be on your side, not on mine; they will be on your side--should make the decision. But, tragically, for children, 6 out of 10 die who do not have the seatbelt put on them. By the driver putting on his or her seatbelt, there is more of an inclination, then, to do the same with the other passengers in the car. The death on our highways today cuts into the young people, the younger generation coming along behind us far more deeply than our age group. The main category of deaths in this country, on the highways, is between the ages of about 17 and 30. There is the preponderance of deaths. How well you know and I know when we were that age, you know: The laws be damned; we can handle anything. That is the magnificence of youth, the exuberance, to meet the challenges, whatever they are, and ``don't tell me.'' I always admire that flag of New Hampshire that says: Don't tread on me. But now and then we have to tread ever so lightly upon our citizens to induce them to take those fundamental steps, not only to protect themselves but to protect that innocent victim on the streets or in another vehicle. This formula is drawn up, yes, that some funds are withheld if the State does not go ahead. We only lost by one vote in the Virginia General Assembly on two occasions to get this very piece of legislation. You acknowledge that fact.

Mr. WARNER. Nor will I ever because I have tremendous respect for the Senator. We come to the Senate with different career backgrounds: You, a very distinguished State legislator, then Governor, and now U.S. Senator. How well I know that. I campaigned as a U.S. Senator when you were a State legislator, when you were running for the governorship, and then for the Senate. I am privileged and delighted that the Senator is here. But you used one word I have to ask you to reconsider: This will establish a dangerous precedent. I ask my good friend--Virginia has the .08 drinking law, which has been very effective. It has saved lives. That is the purpose of this legislation, to save lives. To me, a little less concrete, a little less asphalt, and we may save a life, and we may save thrusting expenses on the local communities--whether it is the small community of Hopewell, VA, or the large community of Richmond. When an accident happens, they are the ones who bear the cost of sending out the police, the rescue squads--fortunately, Virginians volunteer in many instances--to attend to the wounded, the sick, and, indeed, the dying as a consequence of the accident. That is costly, and it is clearly documented that we save lives with the increase in the use of seatbelts. The Secretary of Transportation, on behalf of the President, wrote this body a letter, addressed to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Inhofe, which is in the Record. It explicitly says the increase in the use of seatbelts saves lives. I do not think throughout this debate--I have been here throughout this debate--not one single Member of the Senate has taken the floor and addressed this legislation that it does not save lives. That is a given. So let's go back to the .08 law. Is that not a direct precedent for this piece of legislation? This legislation is drawn, sentence by sentence, comparable to the .08 law. That was my objective.

Mr. WARNER. So be it. Let's put that to one side.

Mr. WARNER. Fine.

Mr. WARNER. I believe there would be somewhat greater notoriety, but I think some of the folks down in Virginia would be rather amused that here we are, the two elected Senators, having an honest and forthright debate, and in a friendly spirit. But I picked up on one or two of your words. I know you love that word, Congress being the ``nanny.'' But, first, I ask my junior Senator, have I ever been a nanny toward you?

Mr. WARNER. I think as the two of us are here on the Senate floor, I am reminded that when Ben Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention, a reporter asked him: Well, what have the delegates to the convention rendered America? He said: A republic, if you can keep it. And this is the very essence of the Republic, if we can keep it, because here we are, two of the best of friends, proud to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia, and 90 percent of the time we are aligned. Yet our system allows the two of us to debate opposite positions on a piece of legislation I offered. I think that is magnificent, not only for our State but for the country.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy, and that of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe. I say to my dear friends: What price do you put on life? No one disputes this legislation will save lives. I don't know of anyone in this Chamber who wouldn't put the highest possible priority on saving lives. This legislation follows, in many respects, what this Chamber did not too many years ago when it was faced with the problem of trying to reduce the actions and loss of life or injury occasioned by the abuse of alcohol and then driving the automobile. As a consequence of that, 47 States now have complied with that statute. It is a success in terms of the limited goals that could be set realistically by the .08 drinking level. It achieved the goals in 47 States. We are asking the average American, about 79 percent of our constituents in the 50 States--it varies from State to State but overall average, nationally, 79 percent--who use the seatbelt, we are just trying to take it from 79 percent up to 90 percent. That is the purpose, to save lives, very often innocent lives. It is a well-known, documented fact that in a collision, those who have safety belts on have a higher degree of physical control over the vehicle with the hope of trying to reduce the consequences of the inevitable accident. Without a seatbelt, the driver is often jostled in such a way that he or she loses total control of the car and often an innocent individual is injured. It is the youth of this Nation who will be the principal beneficiaries of this legislation because, regrettably, it is the young people who are so often involved in these frightful accidents. For whatever reason, macho or otherwise, they do not wear their seatbelts. This law would simply say that law enforcement in the several States, when they observe a car passing and the driver does not utilize their safety belt, can pull that driver over. In my State today, that driver cannot be pulled over unless he or she is committing an offense other than not wearing their safety belt. Law enforcement can then pull that driver over if he or she is not wearing their safety belt and levy whatever penalties are appropriate. But it is that fear of being pulled over, particularly among those young people, who always seem to be fighting accumulated points for driving infractions, who will be the principal beneficiaries. The men and women of the Armed Forces, regrettably--so many of them, again, ages 18 to 30--are involved in these accidents. So we are helping our military because they will comply with this law of the several States if there is a mandatory seatbelt law. When my colleagues cast their vote momentarily, stop to think, what price do you put on a life? I bet if you go back--perhaps I can resurrect how you voted on the .08 legislation for alcohol; this is a direct parallel in almost every way. This is not mandated because the State, on its own initiative, can devise a program to go to 90 percent. It does not have to follow this track. Go ahead, there might be a better idea in your State to reach 90 percent. Then there is no problem under this law; you have met the criteria. As that bell rings and you approach the Chamber, just ask yourself the question, What price do I put on a life? Because no one in this Chamber can stand up and say this law would not save lives, would not save injuries, would not save money now expended by your local community to care for those in an accident, many of whom do not have insurance. And the bill stops at your local hospital, unpaid. We did it for .08; we can do it for this. I thank my colleagues for patiently listening to me. My distinguished colleagues from Missouri read off a list of endorsements and I have 135 groups here. The American Medical Association--I listened very carefully yesterday at a press conference when this was addressed by their representative--is strongly in favor of this. My colleague from Missouri mentioned the chiefs of police. I am proud to say my State, the Virginia Chiefs, endorse this statute. As I say, the President, through his Secretary of Transportation, while not directly addressing this specific piece of legislation, said: I believe that increasing safety belt usage rates is the single most effective means to decrease highway fatalities and injuries. I have two cosponsors on this bill. I wonder if the distinguished manager would enable me just to contact them?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are accommodating the desires of the managers of this bill. Certainly as the chief proponents of this amendment, as long as my cosponsors have an opportunity to speak to it, this matter will be handled fairly. I yield the floor. motorcycle safety

Mr. WARNER. Also, Mr. President, we discussed the possibility that I could amend this because I think the distinguished chairman pointed out that 8 months is a short time. So if we could have a gentlemen's understanding that perhaps I could amend it in such a way to take that clause and revise it to enable States to have more time.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WARNER. He is always so courteous about matters such as this, and particularly with reference to our dear friend, John Chafee, who felt very strongly about this legislation. It is more than a technicality, but this is not a sanction in the sense that we simply say each State should achieve 90 percent. Now, there may be ways by which States can achieve that other than following this path which, as the Senator correctly points out, has a certain sequence of penalties. They would meet the law and completely avoid the other path, where there are penalties. My question is this: When America was faced with the problems of alcohol, which is still prevalent on the roads in our Nation, we, the Congress, enacted what we call the famous .08 law; am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. Didn't we have an identical series of steps in that law that I have put into this law?

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and the Senate for accommodating me. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia has at the desk an amendment which is the pending amendment, and I desire to modify it. Consequently, I ask unanimous consent to modify the pending amendment to reflect the concerns raised by the managers of the bill requesting that more time be given to States to meet the 90-percent seatbelt use rate on their own initiative, with their own plans. I now send my modified amendment to the desk.