[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 19 (Tuesday, March 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1224-S1225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 1679
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I might ask the Senator from Rhode
Island if he has any questions. He said he wanted to ask some questions
of me.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to direct, if I might, a
couple of questions to the Senator from Minnesota.
I have looked over this amendment, and it's an amendment, obviously,
that is in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, as the Senator
from Minnesota has indicated. And the amendment has just been
introduced, so, obviously, there have been no hearings before the
Finance Committee, and it's not a matter that has previously been
considered by the Finance Committee, if I understand this correctly. I
ask the Senator from Minnesota if that is accurate.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is accurate. Since we are not in
court, and the Senator from Rhode Island is always gracious, let me go
beyond the ``yes or no'' answer. It is not at all clear that there will
be necessarily a welfare bill from the Finance Committee or a bill that
I can raise this question on. We now have a vehicle out here on the
floor. My feeling was that, since this amendment calls for nothing more
than just to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide
data and analysis to us, based upon what data she has as to what is
going on with welfare reform, it doesn't seem to me that this really
needs a hearing. It is pretty clear and straightforward and, I think,
pretty noncontroversial.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting against Senator Wellstone's
amendment because I think it is inappropriate to place it on the
pending bill, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
I do believe it is a good idea to have the Secretary of Health and
Human Services obtain information from the States as to the impact of
the welfare reform law on current and former recipients of federal aid,
but this critical transportation bill should be moved as expeditiously
as possible to get highway, transit, and safety funding moving to the
States and our communities as rapidly as possible.
When the 1996 welfare reform law was considered, I noted that only
time will tell if that legislation resulted in an unacceptable level of
hardship on poor Americans, particularly children. Current law contains
data collection requirements with respect to the impact of the changes
in welfare law, and as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee
which funds the Department of Health and Human Services, I was pleased
to provide $26 million for Fiscal Year 1998 for the Department to
undertake the kinds of research and analysis we need to determine the
true impact of the 1996 law. Further, as Chairman, I will continue to
monitor closely the Department's performance in administering the new
welfare regime. If Senator Wellstone offers this amendment on an
appropriate bill, I will likely support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I note that this is a piece of legislation
that would direct the Secretary to develop a plan. In other words, as I
read page 2 here, it says the Secretary shall develop a plan, to the
extent possible based on all available information, and so forth.
What I would like to do, Mr. President, is hear from our people on
the Finance Committee, which should be very shortly, and I will then
see that the Senator from Minnesota has every opportunity to bring this
to a vote, should he wish to, this afternoon. We will work it out. He
is not going to be blocked in any fashion. But I would like to hear,
and it may well be that we can accept the amendment, and that would
save us all some time.
We are now just trying to check with the Finance Committee. It may be
well that something from the Labor Committee is involved likewise,
although it seems to me that this is pretty much a Finance Committee
matter. When we get back, after our luncheon recess has concluded, I
will speak to the Senator from Minnesota, and we will then be able to
go from there.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
I say to him that I will bring the amendment to the floor in good faith
with some sense of urgency, because I think it is important that we
know what is happening in this matter. I take the Senator at his word.
I am pleased that we will proceed this way. I say to my colleague that
I hope there will be support for it. That is, of course, the whole
purpose of my effort. If there should be some disagreement, then I
would want, of course, the opportunity to respond to whatever other
positions are taken on this amendment.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to discuss a very important
matter relating to the safety of our Nation's highways and streets, and
that is DWI-related injuries and fatalities. To use more common
parlance, drunk driving. This is a problem that, in spite of many
prevention efforts, remains a very serious concern in our country.
The statistics are compelling. For example, on Thanksgiving,
Christmas, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day 1996, those 4 days
combined, there were 576 DWI-related fatalities on our Nation's
highways. In that same year, 1996, nearly 1.1 million people were
injured in alcohol-related crashes.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 20-
year-olds. I think that statistic alone should get the attention of the
U.S. Senate and the Congress of this country. Motor vehicle crashes are
the leading cause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds throughout this
country. About 3 in 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related
crash at some time in their lives. Alcohol-related crashes cost society
$45 billion annually, and to make matters worse, the loss of quality of
life and pain and suffering costs are estimated to total over $134
billion annually.
My home State of New Mexico is not exempt from these problems. In
fact, the National Traffic Safety Administration reports that my State
of New Mexico leads the country in DWI-related deaths per capita. The
rate in New Mexico is 11.79 deaths per 100,000 people. This rate is 19
percent higher than the No. 2 State, which is Mississippi, and it is
more than twice the national rate, which is merely 5.05 deaths per
100,000 people.
Indeed, these statistics paint a very grim picture. What makes the
picture even more tragic, Mr. President, is that DWI-related injuries
and fatalities are preventable. It clearly is within our national
interest to do what we can to reverse this statistic. One obvious way
to prevent further deaths is to ensure the sobriety of drivers. That is
why I am proud to cosponsor the bill that Senators Lautenberg and
DeWine have introduced to establish a national blood-alcohol content
standard of .08. Additionally, I am cosponsoring Senator Dorgan's bill
to prohibit open containers of alcohol in automobiles. I urge my
colleagues to help pass these bills this year.
Another contributing factor to the problem that I believe would make
a significant difference in eliminating the problem is the practice of
selling alcoholic beverages through drive-up
[[Page S1225]]
sales windows. This practice only makes it more easy for a drunk driver
to purchase alcohol and contributes heavily to the DWI fatality rate in
my home State and throughout the country. Eliminating these drive-up
liquor windows is essential to reducing these injuries and fatalities.
Tomorrow I will introduce legislation entitled the ``Drunk Driving
Casualty Prevention Act of 1998'' to prohibit the sale of alcohol
through drive-up sales windows. I hope to have some cosponsors for that
provision at that time.
Mr. President, this ban will make a difference. According to one
study, there are 26 States that do not permit drive-up windows. In
1996, these States had, as a combined effort, a 15-percent lower
average drunk driving fatality rate than the 24 States that permit
sales through drive-up windows.
In the States with the ban, the average rate was 4.6 for 100,000
people as opposed to 5.46 in all other States. On a percentage basis,
States with a ban had a 14.5 percent lower drunk driving fatality rate
than States that permit sales through windows.
In 1996, comparing 19 Western States in particular, the nine States
that have a ban in place had a 31 percent lower average drunk driving
fatality rate than the States that permit sales.
In 1995, there were 231 drunk driving fatalities in my home State of
New Mexico. Based on the 14 percent lower drunk driving fatality rate,
it is estimated that closing drive-up liquor windows could have saved
between 32 and 35 lives in that year in my State. Nowhere is it more
true that if we can save one life by closing these windows, we need to
do that.
The difference can be explained because there are three main benefits
that accrue when you close drive-up liquor windows.
First, once the windows are closed, it is easier and more accurate to
check the identification when the customers have to purchase their
liquor over the counter. Minors have testified that it is very easy to
illegally purchase alcohol at a drive-up window where it is difficult
to determine their age.
A second benefit is that it is easier to visually observe a customer
for clues that that customer is impaired by alcohol or other substances
if they have to walk into a well-lighted establishment to make their
purchase.
In one municipal court in New Mexico, 33 percent of the DWI offenders
reported having purchased their liquor at drive-up windows. Some
members of Alcoholics Anonymous say they now realize they could have
known each other years earlier if they only looked in their rearview
mirror while waiting in line at the drive-up window to buy their
liquor.
And third, it sends a clear message to the population that drinking
and driving will not be allowed to mix.
The Behavior Health Research Center of the Southwest conducted a
study, the purpose of which was to determine the characteristics and
the arrest circumstances of DWI offenders who bought alcohol at drive-
up liquor windows compared to those who obtained it elsewhere. Nearly
70 percent of the offenders studied reported having purchased the
alcohol that they drank prior to arrest. Of those offenders, 42 percent
bought packaged liquor, and the drive-up window was the preferred place
of purchase.
The study showed that drive-up window users were 68 percent more
likely to have a serious alcohol problem than other offenders. Drive-up
window users also are 67 percent more likely to be drinking in their
vehicle prior to arrest than other offenders are.
Mr. President, we have had one sort of test case in New Mexico, and
that is in McKinley County. It was one county in our State that had a
terrible problem with DWI and petitioned our legislature for permission
to close the windows in that county, the drive-up windows. They did
close those windows. Businesses in that community did not see their
profits cut in two--the liquor businesses. In fact, they saw their
profits jump. The DWI prevention strategy that was employed in McKinley
County reduced the fatality rate from 272 per 100,000 in 1989 to 183
per 100,000 in 1997.
Mr. President, I believe we have a great opportunity here to reduce
DWI injuries and fatalities. I plan to offer this amendment to the
ISTEA legislation tomorrow or later this week. I urge my colleagues to
join me in cosponsoring that legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold suggesting the
absence of a quorum?
Mr. BINGAMAN. I do withhold.
____________________