[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 19 (Tuesday, March 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1225-S1245]
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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the pending business, as I understand it, 
is the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the Wellstone 
amendment for the consideration of a McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1680 to Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To deal with matters under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
               on Commerce, Science, and Transportation)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 1680.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Senator Chafee for 
all of his efforts on this ISTEA issue. He has done a remarkable job. 
He is a remarkable man. I had the privilege of working for him when he 
was Secretary of the Navy, and he sometimes felt he didn't provide me 
with enough leadership at that time. But I am grateful for everything 
that he has done, and I'm especially grateful for his leadership on 
this very, very important issue to our Governors, our mayors, our 
county supervisors, and our city councils.
  I say to my friend from Rhode Island, about 50 county supervisors 
from my State were in yesterday, and this issue dominated their 
conversation. I am grateful that he has been able to work through this. 
So the small amount that we are responsible for in the Commerce 
Committee, I hope, adds to this bill and helps us to move forward as 
rapidly as possible.
  This amendment contains the proposal of the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation to reauthorize ISTEA programs through 
fiscal year 2003.
  The amendment seeks to reauthorize the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration [NHTSA] State safety grant programs, the Motor 
Carrier State Assistance program, and the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Safety Enforcement programs.
  The amendment also authorizes new and innovative safety initiatives 
at the Department of Transportation, including programs focusing on 
performance-based safety standards and advanced information data 
analysis.
  The amendment is designed to improve travel safety on our Nation's 
roads and waterways, promote the safe shipment of hazardous materials, 
protect underground pipelines and telecommunications cables from 
excavation damage, and ensure that our

[[Page S1226]]

Nation's commercial motor vehicle fleet is well maintained and safely 
operated.
  Mr. President, this is a bipartisan product. It incorporates many of 
the proposals requested in the administration's ISTEA reauthorization 
submission. The committee product also includes a number of new 
transportation safety proposals.
  Senator Hollings and I have worked to accommodate as many Members' 
requests and concerns as possible, but there are some outstanding 
questions.
  One of the more difficult areas we faced concerned the many requests 
we received to provide statutory exemptions for one industry or another 
from certain motor carrier safety rules. Exemptions were sought from 
hours-of-service regulations and commercial driver's license 
requirements. These requests are not new. We face them every time 
Congress considers legislation affecting Federal motor carrier safety 
regulations.
  Senator Hollings and I worked diligently to avoid any statutory 
exemptions or regulation carve outs for single industries but to ensure 
there is a fair process by which all requests can be considered 
appropriately.
  Let me be clear. I agree that under certain circumstances, exemptions 
from regulations may make sense. For example, I believe it's 
appropriate to acknowledge the special transportation time constraints 
of farmers during the planting and harvesting seasons, and that we 
should recognize the need to permit infrastructure maintenance and 
repair to operate during weather emergencies.
  But blanket exemptions and wholesale legislative carve outs for 
selected businesses and enterprises can weaken safety. The answer is a 
fair and credible administrative process.
  The Secretary of Transportation currently has the authority to grant 
exemptions. However, the authority is relatively meaningless because 
prior to granting a waiver or exemption, it must first be proven the 
exemption would not diminish safety. That's an appropriate 
consideration, but how can DOT assess an exemption's safety risk if it 
can't first test the concept on a limited pilot basis?
  In an attempt to address this problem and recognize the Secretary 
should be permitted to examine innovative approaches or alternatives to 
certain rules, Senator Hollings and I have worked to define a process 
whereby the Secretary may more appropriately grant waivers and 
exemptions. This legislation would also authorize the Secretary to 
carry out pilot programs to test the affects of limited regulatory 
exemptions. I believe this pilot approach is reasonable and could be 
carried out in a structured manner that does not impose a risk on 
public safety.
  The committee's amendment includes three amendments adopted by voice 
vote when the Committee considered the safety amendment. The three 
amendments incorporate exemptions for three industries.
  When these three amendments were debated in the Commerce Committee, I 
pledged that I would work with the sponsor to craft a safe alternative 
to the exemptions. These efforts have not succeeded yet, and I want to 
inform my colleagues that there will be some proposals in the next 
hours or days to alter those exemptions.
  Finally, I want to thank Senator Hollings and the other members of 
the Commerce Committee who worked so long and hard to get to the Senate 
Floor today with this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this critical and comprehensive 
amendment.
  Mr. President, before yielding the floor I want to comment briefly on 
the issue of airbags. Last year a compromise was reached on language to 
be inserted in the ISTEA legislation.
  I want to thank Senator Kempthorne for his leadership on this issue. 
He has done the nation a great service by leading the effort to ensure 
that airbags will not pose a risk to infants.
  We are all aware of the tragic accident in Idaho last year where an 
infant was decapitated by an airbag and of the other infants and 
children whose lives have been taken. Senator Kempthorne feels this 
issue personally and deeply and this amendment will help us address 
this very serious problem.
  I would also like to thank Senator Hollings, and Senators Bryan, 
Gorton, Abraham, Ashcroft, and others without whose involvement and 
help this compromise would not be possible.
  I also thank the Secretary of Transportation and the head of the 
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
  I will submit a more detailed statement on this issue later, but I 
would like to quickly summarize what's happening. This amendment 
deletes the airbag provision in the pending measure and replaces it 
with an alternative that codifies the current rule suspending the 
unbelted crash barrier test and requires the Secretary to begin 
rulemaking on advanced airbags that are more protective of infants, 
children and other occupants no later than June 1, 1998.
  The Secretary would complete the rulemaking next year and the rule 
will include a phase-in of advanced airbags beginning with model year 
2001 and completed by no later than model year 2005.
  The pace of the phase-in shall be determined by the Secretary and 
shall be as rapid as practicable, but does permit the Secretary to 
postpone benchmark dates by one year with cause. Any further delays 
would require an Act of Congress.
  Again, I thank all Members who were a part of this effort. I believe 
it will contribute significantly to traffic safety and I will submit a 
more detailed statement for the Record at a later time.
  I want to say, Mr. President, that Senator Kempthorne saw that this 
issue entailed enormous tragedies. I don't know how one could see an 
infant being decapitated without being deeply moved. Unfortunately, it 
wasn't a single incident. There have been numerous fatalities of 
children. I think Senator Kempthorne's amendment which he will be 
proposing will be shortly forthcoming.
  Mr. President, pending the appearance of Senator Kempthorne, I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer along with 
Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator McCain, the Commerce Committee 
amendment to S. 1173, the International Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
  Mr. President, the Commerce Committee has worked together, in a true 
showing of bipartisanship, to craft this amendment. In this amendment 
the Committee has developed proposals to improve travel safety on our 
nation's roads and waterways, promote the safe shipment of hazardous 
material, advance pipeline transportation safety, and ensure that our 
nation's commercial motor vehicle fleet is well maintained and 
operated. This is not to say that we have left all of our policy 
disagreements behind us with this amendment. There are several that 
remain to be resolved and we are still attempting to resolve those 
issues. But on balance we have an amendment with which we all may be 
proud. I will take a few minutes to outline the amendment's more 
important provisions.
  The amendment reauthorizes various grant programs administered by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), designed to 
improve road safety. The amendment reauthorizes grants to develop 
countermeasures to alcohol-impaired driving. Two new grant programs are 
also created. One encourages States to provide for the primary 
enforcement of seat belt laws. The second encourages states to improve 
the quality of their highway safety data.
  The amendment reauthorizes funding and strengthens the programs to 
ensure the safe transportation of hazardous materials. It expands 
hazardous materials training access by allowing states to use a portion 
of these grants to assist in training small businesses in complying 
with regulations. We also strengthen enforcement by giving the 
Secretary of Transportation the authority to issue emergency orders 
when it is determined that an unsafe condition poses an imminent 
hazard.
  The amendment also reauthorizes the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
Program (MCSAP) which provides funding to the states for commercial 
driver and vehicle safety inspections, traffic enforcement, compliance 
reviews, and safety data collection. Moreover, the amendment removes 
many of the program's prescriptive requirements in favor of a 
performance based approach.

[[Page S1227]]

The Secretary will have the authority to order unsafe carriers to cease 
operations. We also authorize additional funds to ensure the timely and 
accurate exchange of important carrier and driver safety records.
  Perhaps most importantly, we provide the Secretary with the authority 
to establish pilot programs and grant waivers of regulations to motor 
carriers. If carriers can show that an alternative approach to 
regulation will aid safety and be less burdensome, the Secretary can 
authorize such an alternative. Regulation can be tailored to specific 
circumstances rather than ``one-size-fits-all'' regulation.
  In the area of rail and mass transportation safety as requested by 
the Administration we provide for criminal sanctions in cases of 
violent attacks against railroads, their employees, and passengers. The 
amendment also extends the basic Wallop-Breaux Aquatic Resources Trust 
Fund for boating safety and reauthorizes the Clean Vessel Act, 
allocating $10 million annually for state marine sanitation device 
projects and $10 million annually for state boating infrastructure 
projects.
  As I noted earlier, not all of our policy disagreements have been 
solved. I continue to be concerned about three provisions which seem to 
undermine our efforts to achieve safer highways. These provisions would 
allow exemptions from federal regulations for utility drivers and those 
engaged in agri-business. Specifically, the federal hours of service 
act which governs how long a driver may drive in any one day, the 
hazardous materials transportation requirement that ensures that 
emergency response teams have the necessary information to combat a 
hazard material incident, and the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) 
requirements are waived under these provisions.
  I think these exemption provisions ``go the wrong way'' on safety. 
Indeed, the provisions are also unnecessary given the other provision 
that allows DOT to develop safe pilot programs and waivers for 
individuals, companies, and industries. I would like these provisions 
modified and I remain hopeful that we can work out these issues.
  With that caveat I believe that the Commerce Committee has under the 
leadership of Senator McCain, given us an ISTEA amendment that we all 
can support and I commend it to the Senate.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me just express my appreciation to the 
distinguished chairman of the committee for the leadership which he has 
provided us and for the bipartisan approach he has taken in crafting 
the amendment which is before us. I would like to associate myself with 
his comments and observations with respect to the so-called ``industry 
exceptions'' in airbag provisions.
  There are generic provisions that provide for pilot projects which I 
think is appropriate. And, as the Senator has pointed out, a commitment 
was made during the markup to try to work out some of the concerns that 
have been voiced by some of our colleagues who want these wider 
exceptions in airbags. Unfortunately, as the Senator from Arizona has 
pointed out, we have not yet reached an agreement on those areas. But I 
want to work with him, and I pledge my support in trying to fashion a 
compromise that does not emasculate the safety provisions and give 
blanket exceptions and waivers under the provisions of the amendment 
which is currently part of the amendment which has been proffered.
  Let me also acknowledge and compliment the chairman on his leadership 
in bringing those of us together who have worked for many years on the 
airbag legislation. That legislation has its genesis in the 1991 ISTEA 
markup, at which time the senior Senator from Washington and I worked 
to incorporate those airbag provisions into the legislation. We 
recognize, as do all Members, that the unexpected infant fatality count 
as a result of by and large the inappropriate placement of infant seats 
has caused the problem that we want to respond to. I believe, 
under Senator McCain's leadership, he brought a group of us together, 
and through several sessions we have worked out a compromise that is 
part of this legislation. I am pleased to endorse it.

  So I look forward to working with the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona as we process this part of the highway legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be 
considered as original text for the purposes of amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business for approximately 7 minutes. It is relevant to the bill but 
not to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to preface my remarks by thanking the 
leadership on both sides of the political aisle, the able and 
distinguished chairman, Senator Chafee, as well as the able and 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Baucus, for an agreement which 
has put an additional $26 billion in terms of contract authority into 
this legislation that we are processing. This is no inconsiderable 
accomplishment. I recognize that leadership effort lasted for a number 
of months. It involved Senators Phil Gramm, Senator Byrd, and others. 
But this is a very important thing. It is bipartisan. I am pleased to 
support that effort.
  There are many Federal programs that provide important services to 
the States. But, as a former Governor, I can tell you that there is no 
Federal program that is more important than the highway program.
  In addition, the funding mechanism for Federal transportation 
funding--the gas tax--creates an even great and moral and ethical 
obligation for us to do our work, and to provide a long-term 
reauthorization of ISTEA.
  The mechanism that my colleague has chosen in putting this compromise 
together; namely, using the highway component of the additional 4.3 
cent gas tax to provide this additional contract authority, I think is 
particularly appropriate and very sound and a sensible means to provide 
that enhanced contract authority.
  Although Nevada is still small by the national standard, in the last 
decade we have experienced the most rapid growth rate of any State in 
the Nation.
  Although there are still plenty of sparsely populated, wide-open 
spaces, we have also become the most heavily urbanized State. While in 
many respects this tremendous growth has been a positive development, 
the growth has brought with it a host of infrastructure demands that we 
are currently struggling to meet.
  Perhaps the greatest current need in Nevada is highway improvements. 
Our limited interstate system and other Federal highways were largely 
designed in the 1950s and early 1960s when Nevada was a far different 
place than it is today. Despite a tremendous effort by State and local 
governments over the past decade, nearly every one of the major 
arteries is currently operating far beyond its capacity, and there is 
no end in sight to the increased demand.
  We need more capacity on our highways, and the Federal Highway 
Program is a major partner in that effort. The highway needs of Nevada 
are even more acute when viewed in the context of our State's heavy 
dependency upon our largest industry, which is tourism.
  Despite our increased reliance on air travel, highways, particularly 
roads that connect us to our major markets in California, are the key 
to Nevada's commerce. Some of these major arteries, particularly I-15, 
Las Vegas' major connection to southern California, operate so far 
beyond capacity that they threaten to become an impediment to Nevada's 
incredible economic success story.
  In fact, one of the most important demonstration projects the Nevada 
delegation is pressing for in the pending

[[Page S1228]]

legislation is a project outside our borders, and that is the widening 
of Interstate 15 in California from Barstow to Victorville. The passage 
of this ISTEA legislation is imperative, and sooner better than later.
  As we will recall, in the 1991 reauthorization we were successful in 
including funding for the ``Spaghetti Bowl,'' the most congested part 
of the downtown access in Las Vegas. Nearly 6 years later, the ground 
breaking for that project occurred late this last fall. That is an 
indicator of the time lag that it takes for us to get projects 
authorized and funded to contract and to construction. This time 
around, Nevada's highway needs are even greater than in 1991, and the 
projects we need to fund in the coming years dwarf the ``Spaghetti 
Bowl'' project which previously had been the largest highway project in 
our State's history.
  Throughout the State, in both northern and southern Nevada, many 
large and vital highway projects will need to be financed, and financed 
soon, and the Federal Government through the ISTEA formula is going to 
be an essential partner.
  In southern Nevada, the State plans to expand the major artery to the 
rapidly growing northwest sector of Clark County by greatly expanding 
the capacity of US-95. In northern Nevada, we need to complete the 
long-awaited connection between Reno and the State capital in Carson 
City along US-395, and Carson City itself needs a freeway bypass around 
the capital and commercial areas. We need money to build a new, safer 
bridge over the Colorado River, taking existing hazardous traffic off 
the Boulder Dam.
  Highways and roads are not the only transportation solutions in the 
works in Nevada. To an extent which would have been unthinkable only a 
few short years ago, we are becoming increasingly dependent on mass 
transit. Both of our major metropolitan areas, Las Vegas and Reno, have 
significant public bus and paratransit systems which make a major 
contribution to both mobility and air quality in their respective 
communities.
  The Citizen Area Transit system, or CAT, in southern Nevada, in 
particular, has been an incredible success story in only a few short 
years of operation, and it is currently planning on more than doubling 
its bus fleet in the next several years to more than 500 vehicles. CAT 
is also well along in the planning process for a major fixed guideway 
system serving the heavily traveled resort corridor.
  Both the bus fleet expansions and the fixed guideway system are 
counting on their fair share of Federal transportation dollars, 
something that will simply not be there any time soon if we do not 
finish our work on ISTEA as quickly as possible.
  The State of Nevada and the assorted local governments have all 
stepped up to the plate. We heard frequently in this partnership with 
the Federal and State and local governments that local governments must 
do their fair share. In Nevada, State and local governments have done 
their fair share. They have imposed some of the highest highway taxes 
in the Nation upon our residents to provide for those additional 
improvements which I have alluded to.
  What we are currently lacking is a solid, long-term commitment from 
the Federal Government as part of the Federal Government's requirement 
to live up to its partnership responsibilities. In fact, the Federal 
highway and transit programs are just that, they are bargains, 
commitments made with the American people.
  Unfortunately, in what has been a long source of frustration to me, 
first as a Governor and now as a U.S. Senator, the Federal Government 
has not lived up to its side of the bargain. Every time any one of us 
buys a gallon of gasoline, we pay 18.4 cents to the Federal Government, 
money that is supposed to be set aside and dedicated and spent for 
highway and transit improvements. As we all know, this is often not the 
case. Somehow, a good part of this funding never makes it back to the 
States for highway improvements.
  The trust fund balance now stands at more than $20 billion. By the 
year 2003, the balance of the trust fund could exceed $70 billion, all 
of which has essentially been taken from the American people under 
false pretenses; that is, the money is collected for highway 
improvements but not fully allocated for that purpose. I am hopeful 
with the compromise that has been effected that we will work to address 
what I believe is a failure of Federal responsibility.
  The time is right for us to increase transportation funding to levels 
that more accurately reflect the payments taxpayers have been making to 
the trust fund and to get to work on some of the very transportation 
and infrastructure problems facing our State and our Nation. Nothing 
can happen, of course, unless we complete ISTEA soon, and that is why I 
believe that it is one of the most important priorities for us to deal 
with in this session of the Congress.
  Again, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have worked out the 
compromise that has increased the contract authority by some $26 
billion. That is something that every State will benefit from, and a 
State such as my own with a backlog of infrastructure needs will need 
this additional funding in order to complete these projects.


                        wallop-breaux trust fund

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment to S. 1173 offered by me and 
Senator Hollings, on behalf of the Commerce Committee, includes a 
subtitle relating to the Sport Fish Restoration and Recreational Boat 
Safety programs authorized and funded by several laws comprising the 
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program. These laws include the 
Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950, the Wallop-Breaux Amendments of 1984, the 
Wetlands Restoration Act of 1990, and the Clean Vessel Act of 1992. 
These laws, and the provisions of subtitle F in the amendment that I am 
offering today, are admittedly under the jurisdiction not only of the 
Commerce Committee, but also the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works. However, for the sake of expediency in reauthorizing ISTEA, the 
provisions relating to the Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux program in the 
ISTEA bill are being considered through this amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I applaud my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, 
particularly the distinguished Chairman Senator McCain, the ranking 
member Senator Hollings, and Senators Snowe and Breaux for their hard 
work on these provisions. Although the subtitle regarding the Dingell-
Johnson/Wallop-Breaux program is included in the amendment offered on 
behalf of the Commerce Committee, I would like to express my gratitude 
to my colleagues on that Committee for the opportunity to remain 
involved in the negotiations leading to the language in the subtitle, 
and for the recognition that jurisdiction for that subtitle remains 
within both Committees. Indeed, the Federal Aid in Sport Fish 
Restoration program, taken in its entirety, is primarily under the 
jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  Mr. McCAIN. Our Committees have worked together on legislation 
relating to this program in the past, and on this particular amendment 
that we are offering today. Both the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works and the Committee on Commerce each maintain jurisdiction 
over different components of this program. Both the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the U.S. Coast Guard implement different 
components of the program. The Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, which is 
the funding source for the Program, is divided into the Sport Fish 
Restoration Account and the Boat Safety Account, which are closely 
intertwined with each other. For example, funds for boat safety 
programs come not only from the Boat Safety Account but also from the 
Sport Fish Restoration Account. In addition, unexpended funds in the 
Boat Safety Account roll over into the Sport Fish Restoration Account. 
This complicated flow of funds makes the programs almost inseparable. 
It is my opinion that while each Committee maintains jurisdiction over 
different components of the program, both Committees should work 
closely and collaboratively on legislation relating to this program.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wholeheartedly agree with the distinguished Chairman of 
the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. McCAIN. In engaging in this colloquy, Senator Chafee and I 
recognize that each committee maintains jurisdiction over different 
components of this program and different provisions relating to the 
program contained in

[[Page S1229]]

subtitle F, and further reaffirm our joint commitment, responsibility, 
and jurisdiction regarding the Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux program. I 
thank the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island for his cooperation 
on this matter.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Commerce Committee 
Safety amendment, and wish to commend the Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
McCain, for his efforts to bring this amendment to the floor. In 
particular, I commend him and the Committee for its incentive approach 
to the serious problem of drunk driving. The Committee amendment 
provides four grants that provide additional funding to states that 
take the zero tolerance approach to drunk driving. States that have 
already enacted tough laws, like my own State of Maine, are eligible 
for additional funding, while these grant programs will serve as an 
incentive for other states to pass the tough laws necessary to keep 
drunk drivers off the roads.
  I would also like to briefing explain my provision in this amendment 
that requires Maine and the Department of Transportation to create a 
performance based system to evaluate a state trucking law to determine 
if it is a safety concern.
  Maine has lost half of its Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Programs 
(MCSAP) for the last two years--$145,000 per year--because of a state 
law providing an exemption from motor carrier safety regulations for 
trucks traveling within 100 air mile radius of their home base. This 
loss of funding means that the State cannot hire more state troopers 
for the Motor Vehicle Enforcement Unit and in fact may have to lay off 
another trooper if this issue is not resolved soon.
  The Maine law in question is used primarily by construction 
companies, farmers, loggers, sand and gravel, landscaping and local 
delivery vehicles. In another words, small businesses who do intrastate 
delivery work or must travel some distance to a work site. Maine did a 
study for Federal Highway to show that the exemption was not a safety 
problem, but Federal Highway would not give the state a waiver. The 
State's study, done by the Maine State Police found no safety problems. 
And in 1995, the Governor's Task Force on Motor Vehicle Safety, which 
reviewed Maine's truck laws, recommended that this exemption be kept 
because it did not have an impact on safety.
  My language seeks to end this impasse in order to improve safety by 
first giving the state its full funding so it can hire more troopers 
and second to evaluate whether or not the exemption is a safety 
problem. The language requires the State and the Department to work 
together to establish a review system for the State to carry out to 
determine, based on empirical evidence, whether or not this exemption 
has a negative impact on safety.
  The burden will be on Maine to show whether or not there are safety 
implications to this particular state law. I am confident that this 
cooperative effort will reassure the Department while at the same time 
allowing Maine to improve safety on our roadways.
  Thank you.
  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. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McConnell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 1681 to Amendment No. 1676

                  (Purpose: To improve airbag safety)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be laid aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1681 to Amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 40, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 3106. IMPROVING AIR BAG SAFETY.

       (a) Suspension of Unbelted Barrier Testing.--The provision 
     in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant 
     crash protection, 49 CFR 571.208, that requires air bag-
     equipped vehicles to be crashed into a barrier using unbelted 
     50th percentile adult male dummies is suspended until either 
     the rule issued under subsection (b) goes into effect or, 
     prior to the effective date of the rule, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, after reporting to the Commerce Committee of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate, determines by rule 
     that restoring the test is necessary to accomplish the 
     purposes of subsection (b).
       (b) Rulemaking to Improve Air Bags.--
       (1) Notice of proposed rulemaking.--Not later than June 1, 
     1998, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue a notice of 
     proposed rulemaking to improve the occupant protection for 
     all occupants provided by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
     Standard No. 208, while minimizing the risk to infants, 
     children, and other occupants from injuries and deaths caused 
     by air bags, by means that include advanced air bags.
       (2) Final rule.--The Secretary shall complete the 
     rulemaking required by this subsection by issuing, not later 
     than June 1, 1999, a final rule consistent with paragraph 
     (1). If the Secretary determines that the final rule cannot 
     be completed by that date to meet the purposes of paragraph 
     (1), and advises the Congress of the reasons for this 
     determination, the Secretary may extend the date for issuing 
     the final rule by not more than one year. The Congress may, 
     by joint resolution, grant a further extension of the date 
     for issuing a final rule.
       (3) Methods to ensure protection.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a) of this section, the rule required by 
     paragraph (2) may include such tests, including tests with 
     dummies of different sizes, as the Secretary determines to be 
     reasonable, practicable, and appropriate to meet the purposes 
     of paragraph (1).
       (4) Effective date.--The final rule issued under this 
     subsection shall become effective in phases as rapidly as 
     practicable, beginning not earlier than September 1, 2001, 
     and not later than September 1, 2002, and shall become 
     effective not later than September 1, 2005, for all motor 
     vehicles in which air bags are required to be installed. If 
     the Secretary determines that the September 1, 2005, 
     effective date is not practicable to meet the purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary may extend the effective date 
     for not more than one year. The Congress may, by joint 
     resolution, grant a further extension of the effective date.
       (c) Report on Air Bag Improvements.--Not later than 6 
     months after the enactment of this section, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall report to Congress on the development of 
     technology to improve the protection given by air bags and 
     reduce the risks from air bags. To the extent possible, the 
     report shall describe the performance characteristics of 
     advanced air bag devices, their estimated cost, their 
     estimated benefits, and the time within which they could be 
     installed in production vehicles.
       On page 167, after the matter appearing after line 18, 
     insert the following:
       Strike section 1407 of the bill.
       In the table of sections for the bill, strike the item 
     relating to section 1407.
       Amend the table of sections for the bill by inserting the 
     following item at the appropriate place:

Sec. 3406. Improving air bag safety.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the airbag 
issue. Before I describe this amendment, I want to commend and thank 
Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, for all of his 
tremendous help and leadership and assistance on this issue of airbag 
safety, as well as Senator Bryan of Nevada who has had a keen interest 
in this for a number of years also. I appreciate the comments Senator 
McCain made a few moments ago about my involvement in this issue of 
airbag safety.
  This amendment does a variety of things, but one of the things that 
is very important is that it affirms that airbags are to be 
supplemental restraint systems, which is stamped on all the cars, 
``SRS,'' supplemental restraint systems. They are not the primary 
restraint system, which is your seatbelt. I think whatever source you 
may look to, you will find that the seatbelt is the safest device that 
you can use in your car.
  With the airbags that have been placed in cars, we now see on the new 
cars it points out that this airbag may kill children. The tragedy is 
that, in fact, it has killed children. The numbers that just came out 
have indicated that 54 kids now have been killed by airbags, 36 drivers 
have been killed by airbags and four adult passengers, for a total of 
94 individuals who have been killed by these airbags.
  I am one who believes that airbags certainly can be a good safety 
device when they are designed to standards

[[Page S1230]]

that place them in their intended role as supplemental safety devices. 
This allows us now, and I will not go into the details because Senator 
McCain has laid that out very well, but this now allows us to go 
through with the Secretary of Transportation the rulemaking and the 
testing. It allows us to have a testing of these airbags for all sizes 
of adults. It is going to allow us to now have safer bags that will 
save lives so that we will not see these costly tragic numbers that I 
have just recited, and it will protect occupants of all sizes.
  I do believe that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
NHTSA, has had the authority to go forward with this. Their repeated 
conclusion is that they did not.
  Mr. President, recognizing that Senator McCain is the chairman of the 
Senate Commerce Committee with jurisdiction over issues related to 
traffic safety, is he aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration says current law does not allow airbags to be regulated 
as supplemental restraint systems, and specifically that NHTSA does not 
have the legal authority to repeal the so called unbelted test 
standard?
  As the Senator knows, the American Law Division of the Library of 
Congress has reviewed this issue and has concluded that NHTSA has ample 
legal authority to repeal the unbelted test. The view of the Library of 
Congress is supported by a number of other legal experts as well.
  Mr. McCAIN. I agree that NHTSA currently has the statutory authority 
to modify the testing methodology for airbags to advance their safety 
or efficiency.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Is it the Senator's view that this amendment is 
consistent with the statutory interpretation that airbags are 
supplemental restraint systems, not primary restraint systems, and 
should be regulated in such a fashion and do you agree that airbags do 
not substitute for lap and shoulder belts and that all occupants should 
always wear safety belts regardless of whether there is an inflatable 
restraint in the vehicle?
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator raises an important point. Airbags are an 
important safety device, but they are designed to supplement the 
protection offered by safety belts. Safety belts are the primary safety 
device and should be worn by all vehicle occupants.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Does the Senator agree that the pending amendment 
affirms the responsibility of the Secretary of Transportation to 
improve the occupant safety of all occupants provided by Federal Motor 
Vehicle Standard No. 208 while minimizing the risk to infants, 
children, and other occupants from injuries and death caused by airbags 
and, in order to accomplish the rule making required by this amendment, 
the Secretary shall include tests with dummies of different sizes 
representing the full range of occupants from infants to adults? The 
amendment only allows the Secretary of Transportation to reimpose the 
current safety standard after giving full advance notice to Congress, 
after giving the public time and opportunity to comment and then only 
if he or she concludes that doing so would protect infants and 
children, as well as other occupants, from death and injury. This 
amendment does not change the policy that airbags are still a 
supplemental, not a primary restraint system.
  Mr. McCAIN. Airbags are certainly not a substitute for safety belts. 
I want to emphasize again that all vehicle occupants should always wear 
a safety belt.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record two legal opinions that make clear NHTSA had and retains the 
legal authority to repeal or modify the unbelted seat belt standard.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Mayer, Brown & Platt,

                                 Washington, DC, January 22, 1997.

                               Memorandum

     To: Phillip D. Brady.
     From: Erika Z. Jones.
     Re NHTSA's authority to repeal or suspend the unbelted test 
         in FMVSS 208.
       You asked for a legal analysis of the question of whether 
     NHTSA could lawfully repeal or suspend the current 
     requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 
     requiring manufacturers to certify compliance in both the 
     belted and unbelted conditions. We conclude that there are no 
     legal constraints on NHTSA's authority to do so.


                               background

       FMVSS 208 (49 C.F.R. Section 571.208) specifies performance 
     standards for occupant protection in crashes. Among its 
     requirements, FMVSS 208 currently requires manufacturers to 
     certify compliance with the performance standards in two 
     conditions: first, with the crash test dummy belted with the 
     manual three-point safety belt, and second, with the dummy 
     unbelted. See S10(b)(1) of FMVSS 208.
       In 1991, Congress enacted the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240). Part 
     B of the ISTEA, cited as the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration Authorization Act of 1991, included Section 
     2508 which mandated that the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall amend FMVSS 208 to provide that ``the automatic 
     occupant crash protection system'' of each new passenger car 
     and light truck ``shall be an inflatable restraint complying 
     with the occupant protection requirements under section 
     4.1.2.1'' of FMVSS 208. The section continued that it 
     ``supplements and revises, but does not replace, Federal 
     Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, including the amendment to 
     such Standard 208 of March 26, 1991 [citation omitted] 
     extending the requirements for automatic crash protection . . 
     . to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles.''
       In 1994, Congress enacted Public Law 103-272 on July 5, 
     1994. Section 1 of that Act explained that general and 
     permanent ``laws related to transportation . . . are revised, 
     codified, and eanacted . . . without substantive change.'' 
     Thus, the codification Act transferred the provisions of the 
     former National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act from 
     Title 15 to Title 49. In the process of the codification, 
     most provisions of the Act were restated, with some omitted 
     as unnecessary or amended for clarity, although none of the 
     omissions or amendments was intended to introduce substantive 
     change.
       The air bag mandate in the ISTEA found itself codified at 
     49 U.S.C. Sec. 30127, ``Automatic Occupant Crash Protection 
     and Seat Belt Use.'' The codified language reads as follows:
       ``(b) Inflatable restraint requirements.--(1) . . . The 
     amendment shall require that the automatic occupant crash 
     protection system for both of the front outboard seating 
     positions for [passenger cars and light trucks] be an 
     inflatable restraint (with lap and shoulder belts) complying 
     with the occupant protection requirements under section 
     4.1.2.1 of Standard 208.''
       The codification also retains most of the statement of 
     intent that originally appeared as part of the air bag 
     mandate. The original statement of intent asserted that 
     ``[t]his section supplements and revises, but does not 
     replace, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 . . .''. 
     In the codification, however, the new placement of this 
     provision is in Sec. 30127(f), now stating that ``[t]his 
     section revises, but does not replace, Standard 208 as in 
     effect on December 18, 1991, . . .''. The reference to 
     ``supplement[ing]'' FMVSS 208 was omitted in the 
     codification, apparently due to a view that it was 
     unnecessary.
       In addition, the codification did not substantively change 
     the ISTEA provisions that instructed NHTSA to amend FMVSS 208 
     to require that each owners' manual explain that ``the `air 
     bag' is a supplemental restraint and is not a substitute for 
     lap and shoulder belts'' and that ``occupants should always 
     wear their lap and shoulder belts, if available, or other 
     safety belts, whether or not there is an inflatable 
     restraint.'' Sec. 30127(c)(2) and (4).
       The evidence suggests that the requirement for FMVSS 208 
     certification in the unbelted condition is dictating air bag 
     inflation output that is greater than would be necessary if 
     the unbelted certification test were eliminated or suspended. 
     NHTSA has recently acknowledged that the substantial 
     inflation output of current air bags designs can pose risks 
     to some front seat occupants, particularly children and small 
     statured adults. For example, NHTSA's recent rulemaking 
     notices extending the air bag cutoff switch option in certain 
     vehicles, proposing to permit depowering of air bags and 
     proposing to authorize disconnection of air bags by dealers 
     all contain substantial discussions of the ``adverse effects 
     of current air bag designs.'' See 62 Fed. Reg. 798-844 
     (January 6, 1997).
       In its original incarnation, FMVSS 208 was intended 
     primarily to protect unbelted adult occupants, because safety 
     belt use was very low. In 1984, when FMVSS 208 was 
     reinstated, NHTSA observed that driver safety belt use in the 
     front seat was approximately 14% nationwide. Today, however, 
     adult safety belt use in the front seat is estimated to be 
     close to 70%, due in large measure to the success of state 
     safety belt usage laws, all of which were enacted within the 
     last thirteen years. Today, all states but one require safety 
     belt usage by vehicle occupants, and these requirements, 
     coupled with seat belt usage education efforts, have been 
     successful in raising safety belt usage to levels far in 
     excess of those contemplated in 1984.
       Of at least equal significance, there is no sign that 
     Congress considered any evidence of the risks to children and 
     small adult front seat occupants from air bags designed to 
     meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 when the ISTEA was enacted 
     in 1991.
     
                                *   *   *   *   *


[[Page S1231]]


       NHTSA has now concluded that the ISTEA air bag mandate, as 
     codified in Title 49, requires the agency to retain the 
     unbelted compliance test because its repeal would eviscerate 
     the requirement for ``automatic occupant crash protection 
     system[s].'' In a letter dated January 13, 1997 to Senator 
     Dirk Kempthorne, NHTSA Administrator Martinez explained the 
     agency's reasoning as follows:
       ``If the unbelted test were eliminated from FMVSS No. 208, 
     such that vehicles only had to satisfy the performance 
     requirements of the standard with the manual belts attached, 
     there would be no way to ensure that the air bags would in 
     fact provide ``automatic'' protection to front seat 
     occupants.''
       NHTSA thus advised Senator Kempthorne that it ``lack[s] 
     legal authority to eliminate the unbelted test''.
       For reasons discussed in more detail below, we do not 
     concur that NHTSA is so constrained in its authority to 
     interpret the statute and the standard. In particular, NHTSA 
     retains authority to interpret the statute and the standard 
     in a manner that achieves the safety objectives of FMVSS 208 
     and the ISTEA mandate for an automatic crash protection 
     system--which is an air bag as a supplemental restraint.


                                analysis

       General principles of administrative law recognize that 
     regulatory agencies ``must be given ample latitude to adapt 
     their rules and policies to the demands of changing 
     circumstances,'' as long as the changed policy is accompanied 
     by a ``reasoned analysis for the change.'' Motor Vehicle 
     Manufacturers' Ass'n. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983) 
     (internal quotations and citations omitted). Therefore, 
     unless there is an explicit or implicit restriction in the 
     Vehicle Safety Act, as amended by ISTEA, precluding NHTSA 
     from responding to the newly acknowledged information about 
     safety risks posed by current air bag designs, NHTSA retains 
     ``ample latitude'' to amend FMVSS 208 to remove the unbelted 
     test.
     1. The Vehicle Safety Act Does Not Explicitly Preclude NHTSA 
         From Repealing or Suspending the Unbelted Test
       Nothing in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30127 or in Sec. 2508 of ISTEA 
     explicitly precludes NHTSA from repealing or suspending the 
     unbelted certification test in FMVSS 208.
       First, nothing in ISTEA Sec. 2508 amends, restricts or 
     otherwise affects NHTSA's plenary authority to amend safety 
     standards, authority which is incorporated in the general 
     rulemaking authority to ``prescribe'' motor vehicle safety 
     standards in 49 U.S.C. Section 30111(a). In fact, the 
     ISTEA language carefully states that the amendment 
     ``supplements and revises, but does not replace'' FMVSS 
     208. And, as discussed above, administrative law 
     principles recognize the authority agencies have to amend 
     their rules to reflect changed circumstances. Absent an 
     explicit Congressional direction limiting that plenary 
     authority in the case of FMVSS 208, NHTSA retains its 
     general authority to amend its safety standards.
       Second, when Congress wishes to ``freeze'' a regulation in 
     place, it knows how to do so. For example, Section 216(7) of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7550(7)) ``froze'' the 
     then-existing EPA definitions for certain terms for purposes 
     of the emission standards established by that Act, in the 
     following way:
       The terms ``vehicle curb weight,'' ``gross vehicle weight 
     rating'' (GVWR), ``light-duty truck'' (LDT), ``light-duty 
     vehicle,'' and ``loaded vehicle weight'' (LVW) have the 
     meaning provided in regulations promulgated by the 
     Administrator and in effect as of November 15, 1990. The 
     abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to any term 
     referred to in this paragraph shall have the same meaning as 
     the corresponding term. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7550(7).
       Since no such explicit restriction ``freezing'' the 1991 
     edition of FMVSS 208 in general, or S4.1.2.1 in particular, 
     was incorporated into the ISTEA amendments, NHTSA is not 
     precluded by statute from amending FMVSS 208, or interpreting 
     it in such a way as to repeal or suspend the unbelted 
     compliance test.
       Althouth some may argue that the language is the codified 
     Vehicle Safety Act referring to a revision to FMVSS 208 ``as 
     in effect on December 18, 1991'' is tantamount to a 
     ``freezing'' of the requirements of FMVSS 208 as stated on 
     that date, such an argument cannot survive. First, the quoted 
     language did not appear in the ISTEA itself. Since the 
     codification expressly stated that it was not intended to 
     introduce any substantive change, the inclusion of the 
     December 18, 1991 effective date in the codification (but not 
     the original enactment of ISTEA) cannot have any substantive 
     meaning, and surely cannot convey an intent by Congress in 
     1991 or 1994 to ``freeze'' FMVSS 208 in the context of the 
     December 18, 1991 provisions. Second, the quoted language 
     does not appear in the substantive requirements for air bag 
     installation, which appear in subsection (b) of Section 
     30127. Rather, the quoted reference to the December 18, 1991 
     version of FMVSS 208 appears in subsection (f) of that 
     section, which states that the air bag mandate ``revises, but 
     does not replace, Standard 208 as in effect on December 18, 
     1991.'' In that context, the citation to the December 18, 
     1991 version of Standard 208 is nothing more than a reference 
     point, rather than a legislative desire to ``freeze'' the 
     requirements. Finally, NHTSA has already compromised any 
     theory that the December 1991 provisions of FMVSS 208 are 
     legally ``frozen''; for example, NHTSA has already amended 
     FMVSS 208 to allow air bag cutoff switches which clearly 
     amended FMVSS 208 to allow air bag cutoff switches which 
     clearly affect the ``automatic'' nature of the protection 
     afforded by the air bag.
       The ISTEA, as codified in Title 49, thus does not 
     explicitly limit NHTSA's plenary authority to amend FMVSS 208 
     to respond to the concerns about air bag inflator output in 
     general, or to repeal the unbelted test in particular.
     2. The Vehicle Safety Act Does Not Implicitly Preclude NHTSA 
         From Repealing or Suspending the Unbelted Test
       For several reasons, there is no implicit constraint on 
     NHTSA's authority to amend FMVSS 208, including S4.1.2.1 if 
     necessary, to eliminate the requirement for certification 
     with an unbelted test dummy.
       First, as noted above, there was no express constraints 
     included in ISTEA or the codified Vehicle Safety Act on 
     NHTSA's authority to amend FMVSS 208 in any respect. As long 
     as the proposed amendment otherwise satisfies the Vehicle 
     Safety Act's criteria for rulemaking (objectively, 
     practicability, safety necessity), nothing precludes NHTSA 
     from promulgating such an amendment, particularly in light of 
     Congress intent to consider air bags as supplemental 
     restraints, as well as the more recent acknowledgement by the 
     agency that current air bag designs may pose safety risks for 
     some small front seat occupants.
       Second, nothing precludes NHTSA from electing to test 
     compliance with FMVSS 208 with a belted (as opposed to an 
     unbelted) test dummy. In enacting ISTEA, Congress expressed a 
     preference--indeed, a mandate--for an occupant protection 
     system that included both an air bag and a ``lap/shoulder 
     belt'', which NHTSA has interpreted to mean a manual, three-
     point seat belt. NHTSA has ample authority to revise FMVSS 
     208 to reflect supplemental occupant protection, and to 
     decide to evaluate compliance in accordance with this 
     Congressional preference, i.e., with air bags in combination 
     with manual three-point seat belts. The literal language of 
     the codified Vehicle Safety Act strongly supports this 
     interpretation, noting that the automatic protection shall 
     ``be in inflatable restraint (with lap and shoulder belts)'' 
     (Emphasis supplied).
       Third, even if NHTSA were not persuaded that it should 
     interpret the ISTEA mandate to authorize (indeed, prefer) 
     testing the air bag as a supplemental restraint in 
     combination with lap/shoulder belts pursuant to the currently 
     prescribed belted test, NHTSA has substantially overstated 
     the concern (as expressed in the letter to Senator 
     Kempthorne) that elimination of the unbelted test would mean 
     that there would be ``no way to ensure that the air bags 
     would in fact provide `automatic' protection to front seat 
     occupants. If NHTSA wished to assure that the air bag was 
     providing some additional ``protection'' over and above the 
     lap/shoulder belt, then the agency could modify the standard 
     to evaluate in the belted test the incremental protection 
     provided ``automatically'' (i.e., separately) by air bags. 
     There is no legal reason why such a separate evaluation has 
     to be an unbelted test measuring the same four injury 
     criteria currently in force. For example, NHTSA could add to 
     the belted test some injury criterion which likely could not 
     be met in a vehicle without an air bag. NHTSA has not taken, 
     and could not take, the position that it is without authority 
     to change the injury criteria by which air bag performance is 
     measured. Indeed, NHTSA is proposing elsewhere to do exactly 
     that--revise the injury criteria for thorax acceleration--
     although that is being proposed for other reasons.
       While it is true that NHTSA could not, consistent with the 
     ISTEA mandate, amend FMVSS 208 in such a way as to eviscerate 
     the air bag mandate entirely, an amendment of FMVSS 208 to 
     eliminate the unbelted test would not be such a radical 
     change to the standard. Indeed, there is nothing in ISTEA to 
     suggest that Congress subscribed to the original FMVSS 208 
     notion that the occupant protection afforded by air bags 
     should necessarily be evaluated without manual safety belts. 
     The Congressional mandate that lap/shoulder belts 
     (interpreted by NHTSA to mean manual three-point safety 
     belts) be provided along with air bags--a substantial 
     enlargement of the original requirements of FMVSS 208, which 
     would have protected unbelted occupants--along with the 
     mandate for owner's manual revisions regarding air bags as 
     supplemental restraints, all suggest instead that Congress 
     understood the modern view that air bags are supplemental, 
     not primary, occupant protection and must be used along with 
     manual safety belts for optimal protection. Given that 
     Congress directed this substantial revision to FMVSS 208 as 
     part of the ISTEA amendment, it would be entirely reasonable 
     for NHTSA to conclude that compliance with the new FMVSS 208 
     requirements should be evaluated with a belted, not an 
     unbelted, test dummy.
     3. NHTSA's Own Recent Rulemaking Actions Show That The Agency 
         Retains Substantial Discretion to Amend FMVSS 208, 
         Including With Respect to the Air Bag Mandate
       NHTSA has recently adopted an amendment to FMVSS 208 
     extending the previously authorized cutoff switch to vehicles 
     manufactured after the affective date of the ISTEA mandate 
     for ``automatic'' protection. This amendment belies any 
     proffered limitation on NHTSA's authority to change the 
     nature of the ``automatic'' protection provided

[[Page S1232]]

     under FMVSS 208. Indeed, if NHTSA could not lawfully 
     eliminate the unbelted compliance test, because it would 
     leave unevaluated the Congressional mandate that 
     ``automatic'' protection be provided by means of ``inflatable 
     restraints,'' then how could NHTSA permit cutoff switches, 
     which permit the ``automatic'' protection to be eliminated 
     altogether when the switch is activated?
       In fact, NHTSA is not constrained by ISTEA or the codified 
     Vehicle Safety Act from adopting an amendment that eliminates 
     the unbelted compliance test, if the rulemaking record 
     justifies doing so. NHTSA's amendment of FMVSS 208 to permit 
     cutoff switches is an implicit acknowledgement of the 
     agency's authority to revise FMVSS 208 to reflect 
     contemporary developments in motor vehicle safety.
       NHTSA's recent proposals to amend the test conditions of 
     FMVSS 208 in other respects, such as by raising the thorax 
     injury criterion to 80 G's, from the current level of 60 G's, 
     further reflect the agency's acknowledgement of its plenary 
     authority to revise FMVSS 208 to reflect modern 
     understandings of motor vehicle safety needs.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Nothing in the ISTEA or the codified Vehicle Safety Act 
     explicitly or implicitly constrains NHTSA's authority to 
     repeal the unbelted compliance test for certification with 
     FMVSS 208.
       Although the statute indisputably requires ``automatic'' 
     protection by means of ``inflatable restraints,'' NHTSA 
     retains full authority to define what the protection criteria 
     will be, and how the protection will be evaluated. Congress 
     did not evidence any intention of constraining NHTSA's 
     authority and responsibility to do so.
                                  ____

                                   Congressional Research Service,


                                      The Library of Congress,

                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 1997.
     To: Honorable Dirk Kempthorne; Attention: Gary Smith.
     From: American Law Division.
     Subject: Whether the Administrator of the National Highway 
         Transportation Safety Board Has the Authority to Amend, 
         Alter, Change or Otherwise Supplement the Test Procedures 
         for Automatic Restraints Set Out in Paragraph S10(b)(1) 
         of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (49 C.F.R. 
         Sec. 571.208, para. S10(b)(1)).

       You are concerned that the current testing of vehicle 
     airbags has led to a standard for airbag deployment which may 
     in some situations actually imperil vehicle occupants, and 
     would, therefore, like for the Administrator of the National 
     Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to order 
     tests to determine whether and to what extent airbag 
     deployment pressure might be reduced. The Administrator has 
     informed you that it is his belief that he is prohibited from 
     doing so. Accordingly, you have asked that we review a 
     memorandum prepared by the law firm, Mayer, Brown & Platt, 
     which concludes that the Administrator does have the 
     authority to amend the vehicle safety standard which sets 
     forth the test dummy positioning procedures for crash-testing 
     motor vehicles (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
     208 para. S10(b)(1), Occupant crash protection, 49 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 571.208 para. S10(b)(1)). For the reasons discussed 
     below, we conclude that there is ample evidence to support 
     that conclusion; and further, that there may not be any need 
     to amend the language of the referenced paragraph.


                               Background

       In 1966, Congress determined that it was necessary to 
     ``establish motor vehicle safety standards'' in order to 
     protect the public against ``unreasonable risk of accidents 
     occurring as a result of the design, construction or 
     performance of motor vehicles [or the] unreasonable risk of 
     death or injury to persons in the event accidents do occur.'' 
     The same Act required the Secretary of Transportation ``to 
     establish by order appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety 
     standards.'' and further authorized the Secretary ``by order 
     [to] amend or revoke any Federal motor vehicle safety 
     standard established under this section . . . [taking into 
     consideration] relevant available motor vehicle safety data, 
     including the results of research, development, testing and 
     evaluation activities conducted pursuant to this Act.''
       In response, the Secretary, through the Administrator of 
     NHTSA, promulgated Part 571 of 49 C.F.R., ``Federal Motor 
     Vehicle Safety Standards,'' which include FMVSS 208, Occupant 
     crash protection. The stated purpose for promulgating the 
     Standard was ``to reduce the number of deaths of vehicle 
     occupants, and the severity of injuries . . .''
       In the ``National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1991,'' Congress directed the Secretary 
     of Transportation ``to promulgate, in accordance with the 
     National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 . . 
     . an amendment to [FMVSS] 208 to provide that the 
     automatic crash protection system for the front outboard 
     designated positions of [certain described vehicles] . . . 
     shall be an inflatable restraint [i.e., an airbag]. . . 
     .''
       The same section states that it ``revises, but does not 
     replace [FMVSS] 208,'' merely extending the ``automatic crash 
     protection'' requirement to ``trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
     vehicles.''
       FMVSS 208 para. S10(b)(1), which sets forth the way in 
     which ``automatic restraints'' are to be tested, states that 
     ``In a vehicle equipped with an automatic restraint at each 
     front outbound seating position . . . each test dummy is not 
     restrained during one frontal test . . . by an means that 
     require occupant action. If the vehicle has a manual seat 
     belt provided by the manufacturer . . . then a second front 
     test is conducted . . . and each test dummy is restrained 
     both by the automatic restraint system and the manual seat 
     belt . . .''


                               Discussion

       As the Mayer, Brown memorandum correctly states, 
     ``[g]eneral principal of administrative law recognize that 
     administrative agencies `must be given ample latitude to 
     adapt their rules and policies to the demands of changing 
     circumstances,' as long as the changed policy is accompanied 
     by a `reasoned analysis for the change.' '' \11\ Only in the 
     case of a mandate in which Congress has specified some or all 
     of the specifies to be included in any Agency's promulgations 
     would an Agency be precluded from altering or amending those 
     specifics; the statute which first required that motor 
     vehicle safety standards be enacted contained only the 
     directive to the Secretary of Transportation that he 
     promulgate ``appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety 
     standards,'' and further gave the Secretary the authority to 
     ``by order amend or revoke any Federal motor vehicle safety 
     standard established under this section.'' Accordingly, it 
     would appear that the Administrator of NHTSA not only has the 
     authority to amend his own agency's safety standards, but may 
     be expected to do so when he is in possession of ``relevant 
     available motor vehicle safety data.''
       That the provision which requires airbags does not envision 
     that ``automatic crash protection'' is to be construed as 
     ``protection afforded in the absence of a seat belt'' is 
     illustrated by the future requirement that
       ``the owner manuals for passenger cars and trucks, buses, 
     and multipurpose vehicles equipped with an inflatable 
     restraint include a statement in an easily understandable 
     format that
       ``(1) either or both of the front outboard seating 
     positions . . . are equipped with an inflatable restraint 
     referred to as an `airbag' and a lap and shoulder belt;
       ``(2) the airbag is a supplemental restraint;
       ``(3) lap and shoulder belt also must be used correctly . . 
     . to provide restraint or protection. . . .''
       The only statutory reference to ``automatic'' that our 
     research has uncovered appears in the Conference Report that 
     accompanied ISTEA: ``the Senate notes that the current 
     regulations of the Department of Transportation . . . require 
     that passenger cars be equipped with `passive restraints,' 
     which include either airbags or automatic seatbelts that do 
     not require actions by the occupant in order to be engaged'' 
     (House Conf. Rep. No. 102-404 at 400). In other words, it 
     appears that the statute which requires the installation of 
     airbags as automatic, or passive, restraints neither 
     envisions nor requires (because airbags are considered as 
     ``supplemental'' restraints to be used in conjunction with 
     seatbelts) that they must be tested in unbelted conditions.
       Finally, we note the improbability, given the languages set 
     out above to emphasize that airbags are to be considered only 
     as a ``supplemental'' restraint, that FMVSS 208 para. 
     S10(b)(1) requires that crash tests to evaluate airbag 
     deployment pressure be conducted on completely unbelted test 
     dummies in order to determine the pressure at which 
     protection from frontal impact crashes would be available.
                                                  Janice E. Rubin,
                                              Legislative Attorney

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, without going back and reciting all of 
the past history, this is an amendment that, through a collaborative 
process, will now bring us to the point of safer air bags.
  A little girl who was killed in Boise, ID, was the reason for my 
involvement in this whole issue. So I hope that the family will find 
some consolation, some peace, in knowing that the loss of that precious 
little child will now lead us to a new era of safer air bags so that 
other families will not have to experience the tragedy that they have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1681) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I personally am in support of the 
amendment of the Senator from Idaho. I think it is a good amendment. 
And he has moved his amendment, hasn't he?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Well, put me down as in favor of it.
  I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S1233]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded and that I may speak for up to 10 minutes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the amendment that was agreed to by the Environment 
Committee with respect to funding for these critical transportation 
programs for our country really ought to be called the ``Truth In 
Transportation Funding Act'' because it ensures that gasoline taxes 
collected for transportation purposes will actually be spent on those 
critical transportation projects.
  For too long in America, the Congress has played a budgetary shell 
game--pretending to put funds away in various transportation programs 
but actually slipping those funds into other spending accounts.
  Mr. President and colleagues, this con game has been closed down. Now 
Congress is on the way to making the highway trust fund sacrosanct 
again. Transportation taxes will, indeed, pay for transportation 
services. This means that the dollars will be used on the ground where 
they are needed, not squirreled away in some account that never seems 
to be spent.
  Today, the Congress will be in a position to bring much-needed relief 
to citizens who face transportation gridlock across our country. The 
Congress is adding an additional $26 billion of transportation spending 
to what is now in the Senate ISTEA II bill. This translates for our 
State into an additional $40 million per year.
  In our State, transportation dollars are now stretched so thin that 
the State department of transportation is not developing new projects. 
We have focused our efforts on merely maintaining existing roads 
because we did not have funding available to pay for improvements. 
Until now, there was little hope on the horizon that more funding would 
be forthcoming.
  The Environment Committee's amendment is like emergency surgery for 
Oregon's clogged transportation arteries. If Congress now passes this 
bill, it will be possible to think in terms of improving the health of 
our transportation system instead of how to avoid further 
deterioration. We will be in a position to plan improvements to reduce 
congestion in an already overtaxed system. We can start to think about 
the future and how to handle our State's growing population, and many 
other parts of our country will be able to do the same.
  Mr. President and colleagues, I have always believed that you cannot 
have big league quality of life with little league transportation 
systems. In the modern world, a transportation bill is about so much 
more than how you get from point A to point B. A strong infrastructure 
is one of the basic ingredients to any recipe for economic growth. It 
is one of the key things that our businesses look at as they consider 
where to locate and one of the principal contributors to our quality of 
life.
  I support the Environment Committee's amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the additional funding needed to build the 
transportation system our Nation will need to compete in the 21st 
century.
  Let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying that I intend, in the days 
ahead, to take to this floor to discuss other parts of this important 
legislation. Our State has been a leader nationally in developing an 
innovative approach to managed growth in our country. This legislation 
allocates $20 million per year to reward those States and communities 
that have been willing to take fresh, creative approaches to handling 
growth.
  I am also working, and there was discussion in the Environment 
Committee today, with Senator Graham, Senator Bob Smith, and others, on 
a way to streamline the process and ensure that the dollars that are 
allocated for transportation projects are spent in the most effective 
way. In the past, there has really been a disconnect between the way 
transportation dollars are allocated and the environmental permits that 
are associated with actually getting those projects built and on line. 
We have been working on a bipartisan basis to bring together 
environmental leaders, builders, and those who were involved in 
planning our roads, and we believe that we are on our way to coming up 
with a streamlined system that is going to make it possible for us to 
save dollars and ensure that the transportation projects are built 
expeditiously while we still comply with the critically needed 
environmental laws for our country. I intend, in the days ahead, to 
talk about those commendable features of this legislation as well.

  I want to conclude by congratulating my friend, Senator Baucus, from 
Montana, and Senator Chafee for an extraordinary bit of work. This bill 
is heavy lifting. There are Senators with very strong views. There are 
regional differences of opinion. But I think we have been able to forge 
a piece of legislation that is going to make a difference in the 21st 
century.
  I conclude my remarks by especially praising our chairman, who has 
entered the Chamber, John Chafee, and Senator Baucus, the ranking 
minority member, because it is their work that has made it possible for 
us to come to the floor today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Oregon for 
his kind comments. He has done yeoman's work on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, not only in connection with this legislation, 
but with a whole series of environmental legislation. So having praise 
from him is doubly satisfying.
  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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President, we have the so-called Lautenberg 
amendment that we would like to take up. This is the amendment that 
deals with the alcohol content in blood. The amendment would lower the 
alcohol content, which is a test, for drunken driving, from .1 to .08.
  Mr. President, we would like to enter into a time agreement on this. 
The time agreement would be something in the neighborhood of an hour 
and a half apiece. And now is the time for those Senators to come to 
the Chamber if, one, they object to this time agreement, and, two, the 
plan, further, would be that we would vote this evening. In other 
words, that would take us up to about 6:30, if all the time were used.
  So I want to send the word out, we are about to enter into this 
agreement. I trust offices are listening to what we are saying here and 
will come on over or call the cloakroom with their views because we 
want to move on.
  We have legislation we have to make progress on. We have been on this 
floor for some time but now we are ready for this particular amendment, 
the drinking amendment, which most people are familiar with.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I might ask my good friend, the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Chafee, wouldn't it also be a good idea for Senators 
who are interested in an amendment that might be offered by Senator 
McConnell, with respect to the disadvantaged business enterprise, to 
also have their staffs come over to the floor so we can potentially 
begin to work on it, an agreement on that amendment? That is another 
amendment that is going to take some time. It is contentious. The more 
we start working on the provisions of the debate, the more quickly we 
can reach a time agreement. I guess that would be another subject we 
should address as well.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Well, I certainly agree with the distinguished ranking 
member. Senator McConnell has been very thoughtful. He has been on the 
floor. He is ready to go. We want to find out how many people want to 
speak on Senator McConnell's amendment so we can get some concept of 
the time that should be set aside. But that is another amendment.

[[Page S1234]]

  My thinking now is, if we can work out proceeding with the Lautenberg 
amendment, tomorrow morning we would take up the financing amendment 
that was agreed to in the committee today as a result of the agreement 
that was reached yesterday. There may be some debate on that. I do not 
know. But we are free to take that up tomorrow.
  My hope is we would do that tomorrow morning. And then tomorrow 
afternoon we would go to the McConnell amendment. But the Senator from 
Kentucky legitimately wants to know how many people want to speak on 
his amendment. We want a time agreement. He wants a time agreement. I 
am for a time agreement, enthusiastically for a time agreement.
  So, therefore, would individuals who want to speak on the McConnell 
amendment call up the cloakroom, let us know how long they think they 
need, and which side they will be on so we can figure that out. The 
same goes with the Lautenberg amendment.

  Time is of the essence. We will reach an agreement pretty quickly on 
the Lautenberg amendment. Now is the time for people to call with their 
thoughts.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1679

  Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President, before the Senate we have the 
Wellstone amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I will talk a little bit about that. We 
have no time agreement, but I will be relatively brief, maybe 10 
minutes. The Senator from Minnesota will be roughly how long?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think I can probably try to keep my 
remarks about 20 minutes or so.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Then we would like to go to a vote. At that time I will 
move to table. We will have a rollcall vote at that time, Mr. 
President.
  Now, Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Minnesota would be timely if the Finance Committee were now considering 
a welfare bill. The matter before the Senate, the basic underlying 
bill, is a highway bill, financing for highways.
  The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota deals with welfare and 
accounting for those welfare recipients who have gone off the rolls, 
how have they succeeded and what has become of them. That is all well 
and good. But that has nothing to do with highways.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I have urged the Senator to attach it to a 
different bill or withdraw it. I tried to stress to him that what we 
want to do today is consider bills that deal with the subject before 
us; namely, highways, their funding, how to build them, and different 
ideas connected therewith.
  If the Finance Committee were debating a welfare bill, the amendment 
would be germane. But we would also oppose it even under those 
conditions because it is costly and unnecessary.
  Now, when Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996--that was only 18 months ago--
one of the important features of that legislation was a commitment to 
find out whether the sweeping changes were effective in helping the 
families get off welfare dependency. What we had before us was a 
welfare bill. In it we had some provisions to ascertain, to do research 
on how the bill was working out. Congress appropriated about $44 
million a year to conduct research on the benefits, the effects, the 
costs of the State programs that were funded under this new law. This 
new law was a radical departure from the way business had been done in 
the past. Furthermore, we were provided money to study the costs of the 
State programs funded under the new law and to evaluate innovative 
programs they might have.
  Now, is the impact of welfare reform being studied? One of the points 
the Senator from Minnesota makes is that this is a subject worthy of 
study. Our point, Mr. President, is that it is being studied. HHS, 
Health and Human Services, has awarded grants to conduct rigorous 
evaluations of State programs including a 5-year comparative study of 
the Minnesota Work First Program. In the Senator's own State a study is 
taking place. There are also studies on child care and child welfare 
being conducted by organizations such as the Urban Institute of 
Columbia University and Harvard.
  Now, under the Welfare Act, the Secretary of the Department of Health 
and Human Services is required to make an annual report to Congress on 
whether the States are increasing employment and earnings of needy 
families, and are they increasing child support? I think the child 
support was one of the points that the Senator mentioned. The report 
that is required from the Secretary of HHS, the annual report, has to 
include progress on decreasing out-of-wedlock pregnancies, how are we 
doing on child poverty, reducing that. It is to include demographic and 
financial characteristics of families applying for assistance, the 
families receiving assistance, and families that become ineligible for 
assistance. I know the Senator is particularly concerned about the 
effectiveness of employment programs. He mentioned that in his 
amendment.

  The Welfare Act requires a specific study on moving families out of 
welfare through employment. That is already required. It requires an 
annual ranking of the States in terms of the most and the least 
successful work programs. The new $1 billion high-performance bonus 
program will reward States which are successful in increasing earnings 
for welfare families.
  Beginning in 1999, just a year from now, the Secretary is required to 
conduct an annual report on a broader set of indicators, including 
whether or not children and families have health insurance, the average 
income of these families, and educational attainment of these families. 
Thanks to the efforts of Senator Moynihan, Congress now receives an 
annual report. It is called Indicators of Welfare Dependence. It has a 
wealth of information. Mr. President, here is a copy of the report. 
This is no light-weight work. It is filled with graphs and percentages 
of children, age 0 to 5 in 1982, living in poverty by number of years 
in poverty; percentage of individuals living in poverty by numbers of 
years in poverty. On and on it goes. It has average monthly AFDC 
benefits by family and recipients in current and constant dollars. It 
is a very, very thorough report.
  Now, my concern is that States have been developing and implementing 
data collection systems for more than a year now. For Congress to 
suddenly impose, as the Senator's amendment does, new requirements for 
more information to track all former welfare recipients is a major 
undertaking and something we should not enter into lightly. The impact 
on States is likely to be costly and burdensome.
  The Senator's amendment is good news for computer and data processing 
vendors, but it is unlikely to mean anything, I suspect, for families 
and our efforts to combat welfare dependency. The amendment also calls 
for a report which may give an inaccurate picture about the lives of 
individuals who enter and leave the welfare system.
  Now, the accent of the Senator's amendment is on employment. 
Employment is an important reason that families find economic self-
sufficiently, no question, but it is not the only reason. Families 
leave welfare because child support is being collected for the first 
time. They will leave because their children will have health insurance 
and no longer need take a risk of having their children without health 
insurance if their earnings are increased.
  Mr. President, these are the reasons that I find the amendment well 
meaning but unnecessary, particularly in view of the massive amount of 
reports that are already being required, one of which I briefly 
indicated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, let me thank my colleague from Rhode 
Island for his graciousness. For those who might be watching this 
proceeding, my colleague could have just simply tabled this amendment. 
He didn't do that. He will eventually, but he has given me an

[[Page S1235]]

opportunity to respond to his arguments. I want him to know that I 
appreciate it.
  Mr. President, I won't spend a lot of time on the question of this 
amendment on the ISTEA bill--which is essentially the highway bill for 
highways and, hopefully, more mass transit--because, as my colleagues 
know, Democrats and Republicans alike, we look for vehicles whereby we 
can come out and introduce amendments that really speak to what we 
think are some real concerns in the country. All of us do that all of 
the time. I am doing it now. I am not so sure there will be, I say to 
my colleague, a welfare bill that will be before the U.S. Senate any 
time soon. I introduce this amendment with some sense of urgency. I 
don't think there is any evidence whatever that we will have a welfare 
bill before the U.S. Senate. So if I am going to have an opportunity to 
make an appeal to my colleagues, now is the time to do so.

  Second, I want to just make it clear what this amendment does and 
what it does not do. I am puzzled by the opposition, with all due 
respect to my colleague from Rhode Island. This amendment just simply 
says to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, please give us a 
report based upon--not your going out and collecting all sorts of other 
data--but based upon the data that is available to you.
  My colleague just said that there will be some good data available. 
Most people that I know--I have a social science background--that have 
looked at this are saying you have a number of different people 
studying a number of different things and it is fragmented and does not 
focus on the main question I am asking. Exactly how many of the 
families are reaching economic self-sufficiency? This amendment just 
says to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, please pull 
together the data that is available, reports prepared by the 
Comptroller General, samples of the Bureau of Census, surveys funded by 
your own department, studies conducted by States, studies conducted by 
nongovernment organizations, and administrative data from other Federal 
agencies. Please bring that data together, coordinate that data and 
provide reports to us every 6 months as to exactly how many families 
are reaching economic self-sufficiency. The goal of that being to 
answer the question, Are these families now at 150 percent of poverty? 
Are they over poverty? What kind of jobs do they have? What kind of 
wages? Where are the children? Is child care available? How are people 
doing on transportation? Are they able to get to work? Have we had 
situations where people couldn't take jobs in rural areas because they 
couldn't get to the jobs? Have we had situations where people don't 
take jobs in the suburbs and metro areas because they couldn't get from 
ghettos to suburbs because of lack of transportation? That is all this 
amendment calls for. That is all this amendment calls for.

  So I say to my colleagues that, in a way, I think those that oppose 
this amendment are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they 
are arguing that we have already collected all of this data. I think 
not, but if so, it's hardly an onerous requirement to say to the 
Secretary: Please assemble this data and give us a report every 6 
months as to what is really happening out there in the country.
  If the opposition to my amendment--which I have heard from some 
people on the other side--is, ``Wait a minute, you are going to be 
asking the Secretary for too much,'' I say eventually we are going to 
get to the point where there is going to have to be more of an 
investment. Because if the Secretary isn't going to be able to provide 
us with the data we need, with the report we need, based upon the data 
out there, then I say to you we will need more. That is all the more 
reason to go forward with this.
  So I am puzzled by the opposition. ``We already have these studies 
that are providing us with the information we need,'' they say. So what 
is the harm in having the Secretary present reports to us every 6 
months so we can have some reassurance that these mothers, these single 
parents, have now been able to obtain employment that they can support 
their family on, and the children aren't home alone, and first graders 
don't go home alone after school, and more children aren't 
impoverished? Why in the world, if we already have the studies out 
there, would we not want to ask the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to provide us with this report?
  If, on the other hand, the basis of the opposition is what I think it 
is--because I think this is the case--is that this is already being 
done, as a matter of fact what's being done is pretty fragmented. There 
is good work being done. Senator Moynihan would be the first to say 
that we can do better, and that is what this amendment says. Let's ask 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take the additional 
studies that are out there--and my colleague talked about some of 
them--and provide us with the report. If she cannot really provide us 
with the information we need, then we will cross that bridge when we 
come to it. I am not mandating that she has to provide additional 
information. I am saying what would be helpful to us, asking her to 
please bring together the data that is out there, based on these 
reports, and give us a report on the current situation. That is what 
this amendment is all about.
  Now, after having said that, I would make an appeal to my colleagues. 
I think on our side, I know Senator Baucus is going to support the 
amendment. On our side I think there is pretty strong support for this. 
I hope there will be support for this on the other side as well. I 
think the Senator from Rhode Island--we all have these great things to 
say about other people and half of it may be true--is a great Senator. 
I wanted to get his support. I am disappointed because I don't 
understand what the harm is in this amendment.
  With all due respect, you can get into all this language that sounds 
kind of impersonal and kind of cold like, ``We already have studies, we 
don't need it,'' or ``It is going to require us to obtain additional 
information, which might cost more money,'' and ``Somebody is going to 
have to make the investment.''
  Well, Mr. President, imagine just for a moment, just ponder this 
question: What if I'm right?
  Maybe other Senators have traveled the country. I think I have done 
as much travel as any other Senator in this Chamber, at least in poor 
communities, low-income communities. I think I have tried to stay as 
close to this as any other Senator. I am telling you that in a whole 
lot of communities it is crystal clear that people live in communities 
where the jobs aren't there. And in a whole lot of situations--and you 
will have a lot of people from your States who will tell you the same 
thing--these women are obtaining jobs, but they hardly pay a living 
wage. And one year from now, or whatever, when they no longer receive 
medical assistance, their families are going to be worse off.

  I am hearing from a lot of States, including my own State of 
Minnesota, which has a very low unemployment level and which is doing 
well economically. I am not here to bash States, but there are studies 
that raise a whole lot of questions, and there have been some articles 
that have raised a whole lot of questions about situations where some 
women haven't shown up for orientation sessions, and sometimes for good 
reason, and it's said that they don't necessarily want to work. There 
are communities that have incredibly long waiting lists. The city of 
Los Angeles had a waiting list of 30,000 for affordable child care 
before the welfare bill.
  Now, look, if I am right about this, if I am right that what has 
happened--because all too often we know what we want to know and we 
don't know what we don't want to know--all too often, what is going on 
here is, we say there are 4 million fewer recipients, a 4 million 
reduction in the welfare rolls. The reform is a huge success, but that 
doesn't mean we have seen a reduction of poverty. I am just saying, 
should we not know what the situation is in the country? Should we not 
know what kind of jobs, what wages, the child care situation, and 
should we not know whether these families are better off or worse off? 
Should we not know all of that, especially since built into that 
legislation is a date certain whereby, depending on the State, families 
will be eliminated from all assistance, the assumption being that all 
these people are now working and can support themselves and their 
children. Is that assumption valid?

[[Page S1236]]

  Now, why in the world, I say to my colleagues, would you oppose this 
amendment? Why would you oppose this amendment?
  One final time. This amendment just asks the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to please provide to us a report based on the existing 
studies with data that is out there, on what the situation is around 
the country, on how many of these families are reaching economic self-
sufficiency. Are they out of poverty now? Are their children better 
off? That's what we want. Or are more families impoverished? Are the 
jobs just minimum wage? Is there a lack of child care? Is the 
transportation available or not? Why would we not want to know that?
  You know, I didn't mention this earlier, Mr. President, but there is 
another amendment I will bring out here on the higher ed bill. I wonder 
if my colleagues know this. In all too many States, single parents who 
are in school and community colleges are now being told they have to 
leave college to take a job. Now, here are the parents that are on the 
path to economic self-sufficiency. They are in school. They are trying 
to complete their college education so they can get a good job and 
support their families. They are being told that, because of the 
welfare reform bill, they can't complete their education. Talk about 
something that is shortsighted and harsh, something that is myopic. 
Well, that is another story and another amendment later on.
  But for now, please support this amendment. Please ask the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services to provide us with the data. Please, 
colleagues, at least let's have a focus on this, let's have the 
information before us, let's know what is going on, let's make sure 
that these women and children are doing better. That would make us more 
responsible policymakers.
  Finally, I say to my colleague, if it doesn't pass--and I hope it 
will--this is an amendment on ISTEA, but I will come back with these 
amendments over and over again. Because it is my firm belief as a U.S. 
Senator that we can't turn our gaze away from this. These are citizens 
who are not the heavy hitters, these are citizens that are not the 
givers, these are citizens that do not have the lobbyists. These are, 
in the main, poor people--mainly women and children. I think it is 
important that we understand what is happening to them, and it is 
important that we have the right information, and it is important that 
we do our very best to be responsible policymakers and make sure that 
these families aren't worse off and that these children are not in 
harm's way. How in the world, colleagues, can you vote against the 
proposition that we ought to have as much information as possible 
before us so that we make sure these children are not endangered, so 
that we can make sure these families are better off?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as I mentioned before, we are dealing with 
a highway bill here. This isn't the appropriate place for that. When we 
did the welfare bill, I was the one who included in the welfare bill 
data collection provisions. Should those data collection provisions be 
inadequate and need to be expanded along the lines the Senator has 
suggested, I would be glad to work with him and see if we could not 
include those by working with the Secretary of HHS. This, plainly, 
isn't the right place for this amendment.
  If the Senator has nothing further, I move to table the amendment of 
the Senator from Minnesota and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Coats
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Allard
     Glenn
     Inouye
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1679) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to lay on the 
table the motion to reconsider is agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, what we would like to do now is move to a 
Lautenberg amendment dealing with alcohol-blood content. The proposal 
is that there be 3 hours of debate equally divided.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Lautenberg be recognized to offer an amendment on blood-alcohol content 
and that there be 3 hours for debate, equally divided, under the 
control of Senator Lautenberg and Senator Chafee. I further ask 
unanimous consent that there be 1 hour remaining, equally divided, for 
debate. In other words, do 2 hours tonight and 1 hour tomorrow. The 
leader has indicated that we are to come in at 9 a.m. and that the vote 
will be at 10 a.m.; at 10 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on or in 
relation to the Lautenberg amendment. I further ask unanimous consent 
that no additional amendments be in order prior to the vote in relation 
to the Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Might I ask the chairman of the committee--and we are 
checking on this--if that 10 o'clock can be delayed until 10:30? There 
is a problem on our side with a vote at 10 o'clock.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President, I modify the unanimous consent 
request, and as a matter of fact, I will just read it over again so 
everybody will understand it. I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Lautenberg be recognized to offer an amendment regarding drinking 
levels, and there be 3 hours for debate, equally divided, and the time 
be under the control of Senator Lautenberg and Senator Chafee. I 
further ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour, equally divided, 
for debate tomorrow morning--in other words, do 2 hours tonight and 1 
hour tomorrow morning--that we come in at 9:30 a.m., and go straight to 
the remaining hour on the amendment, and at the hour of 10:30 a.m. the 
Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Lautenberg amendment. I 
further ask unanimous consent that no additional amendments be in order 
prior to the vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment.

[[Page S1237]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for making that 
adjustment. I appreciate it very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unanimous consent 
request is agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Has that been agreed to, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the majority leader has informed me that 
there will be no further votes this evening. And so we will now start 
the debate on the Lautenberg amendment, with 2 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Jersey is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1682 to Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To provide for a national standard to prohibit the operation 
             of motor vehicles by intoxicated individuals)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself, 
     Mr. DeWine, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Faircloth, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
     Helms, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bingaman, 
     Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dodd, 
     Mr. Kerry, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
     Reed, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Chafee 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1682 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 14__. NATIONAL STANDARD TO PROHIBIT OPERATION OF MOTOR 
                   VEHICLES BY INTOXICATED INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 153 the following:

     ``Sec. 154. National standard to prohibit operation of motor 
       vehicles by intoxicated individuals

       ``(a) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2002.--The Secretary shall withhold 5 
     percent of the amount required to be apportioned to any State 
     under each of paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(C), and (3) of section 
     104(b) on October 1, 2001, if the State does not meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(2) Subsequent fiscal years.--The Secretary shall 
     withhold 10 percent (including any amounts withheld under 
     paragraph (1)) of the amount required to be apportioned to 
     any State under each of paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(C), and (3) of 
     section 104(b) on October 1, 2002, and on October 1 of each 
     fiscal year thereafter, if the State does not meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(3) Requirements.--A State meets the requirements of this 
     paragraph if the State has enacted and is enforcing a law 
     providing that an individual who has an alcohol concentration 
     of 0.08 percent or greater while operating a motor vehicle in 
     the State is guilty of the offense of driving while 
     intoxicated (or an equivalent offense that carries the 
     greatest penalty under the law of the State for operating a 
     motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol).
       ``(b) Period of Availability; Effect of Compliance and 
     Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Period of availability of withheld funds.--
       ``(A) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2003.--Any 
     funds withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment to any 
     State on or before September 30, 2003, shall remain available 
     until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year for which the funds are authorized to be appropriated.
       ``(B) Funds withheld after september 30, 2003.--No funds 
     withheld under this section from apportionment to any State 
     after September 30, 2003, shall be available for 
     apportionment to the State.
       ``(2) Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.--
     If, before the last day of the period for which funds 
     withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment are to 
     remain available for apportionment to a State under paragraph 
     (1)(A), the State meets the requirements of subsection 
     (a)(3), the Secretary shall, on the first day on which the 
     State meets the requirements, apportion to the State the 
     funds withheld under subsection (a) that remain available for 
     apportionment to the State.
       ``(3) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned 
     funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any funds apportioned under paragraph 
     (2) shall remain available for expenditure until the end of 
     the third fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the 
     funds are so apportioned.
       ``(B) Treatment of certain funds.--Sums not obligated at 
     the end of the period referred to in subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) lapse; or
       ``(ii) in the case of funds apportioned under section 
     104(b)(1)(A), lapse and be made available by the Secretary 
     for projects in accordance with section 118.
       ``(4) Effect of noncompliance.--If, at the end of the 
     period for which funds withheld under subsection (a) from 
     apportionment are available for apportionment to a State 
     under paragraph (1)(A), the State does not meet the 
     requirements of subsection (a)(3), the funds shall--
       ``(A) lapse; or
       ``(B) in the case of funds withheld from apportionment 
     under section 104(b)(1)(A), lapse and be made available by 
     the Secretary for projects in accordance with section 118.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 153 the following:

``154. National standard to prohibit operation of motor vehicles by 
              intoxicated individuals.''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator will yield me 1 minute?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I urge Senators who are opposed to the 
amendment to come to the floor. I am designated as in control of the 
time in opposition, but I will confess I am for the amendment so I will 
not be speaking against it. And for those Senators who wish time, now 
is the time to come over.
  There are 2 hours. We have an hour in opposition to the amendment. 
Obviously, I am prepared to turn over the time to anybody in 
opposition. But I will not be speaking against it. So I wish Senators 
who are opposed to this amendment would come to the floor.
  Thank you. I want to thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I offer this amendment with my 
colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, and I include, as cosponsors, 
Senator Lieberman, Senator Faircloth, Senator Boxer, Senator Helms, 
Senator Glenn, Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, Senator Bingaman, 
Senator Moynihan, Senator Hatch, Senator Wellstone, Senator Akaka, 
Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry from Massachusetts, Senator Inouye, Senator 
Moseley-Braun, Senator Bumpers, Senator Reed, Senator Smith of Oregon 
and Senator Rockefeller join me as cosponsors in the amendment; and 
Senator Chafee, the chairman of the committee. And all together, we 
have 23 bipartisan cosponsors. That is the way it ought to be because 
this is on behalf of the victims of drunk driving crashes--over 17,000 
deaths and about one million injuries each year.
  This amendment, the Safe and Sober Streets Act, establishes the legal 
limit for drunken driving at .08 blood alcohol content in all 50 
States. Establishing .08 as the legal definition of drunk driving is 
responsible, effective, and it is the right thing to do. This 
amendment, if enacted into law, will save lives. And it is our moral 
imperative, as legislators, to pass legislation that will make our 
communities, our roads and, of course, our families safe.
  This is the logical next step in the fight against drunk driving. It 
will build on what we started in 1984, when Democrats, Republicans, and 
President Reagan joined together to set a national minimum drinking age 
to 21. And since that time, we have saved over 10,000 lives. And 
contrary to the concern of the restaurant and the liquor business, 
those businesses have not gone under, like many warned us about at the 
time.
  Mr. President, the question before us is, should a 170-pound man be 
allowed to have more than four beers in 1 hour, on an empty stomach, 
and get behind the wheel of a car? And our answer is, absolutely not. 
This amendment goes after drunk drivers, not social drinkers.
  And while we are pushing for enactment of this legislation, I have 
had the honor of getting to know some families who have experienced the 
ultimate tragedy--the Frazier family from Maryland. Randy and Brenda's 
daughter Ashley, 9 years old, was tragically killed by a .08 drunk 
driver 2 years ago. This person's blood alcohol content level was .08. 
What we are trying to do is to establish the fact that .08 is a 
dangerous level for people on our roads and highways. The Fraziers have 
lent themselves courageously to this fight,

[[Page S1238]]

to enact this .08 BAC level across the land.
  Last March, Randy Frazier issued a call to Congress, a call that I 
believe captures what this issue is all about. He said, ``It is time 
for leadership and action here in the Congress to draw a safer, saner, 
and more sensible line against impaired driving at .08. If we truly 
believe in family values, then .08 ought to become the law of the land.
  Four beers-plus in an hour--now, that is on an empty stomach, Mr. 
President. That is not casual. That is not a casual level. An empty 
stomach, four beers in an hour--a 170-pound person is already impaired 
in their reaction to situations. They should not be allowed to get 
behind the wheel of a car and create a situation that is the antithesis 
of what we call the protection of the family.

  As we debate this issue, I want each of my colleagues to consider two 
things: First, ask yourself, have we done enough to combat drunk 
driving in this country? The answer to that question, in my view, is 
absolutely not. Second, is a person whose blood alcohol content is .08 
percent a threat to themselves and others on the road? And the answer 
to that one, of course, is a resounding yes.
  Adopting this amendment will simply bring the United States of 
America into the ranks of most other industrialized nations in this 
world in setting reasonable drunk driving limits.
  Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, all have 
a .08 BAC limit. France, Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands have a 
limit of .05 BAC--half of what we commonly have in our country. Sweden 
is practically down to zero--.02 BAC.
  We heard today from President Clinton. He is very aggressively 
supporting this amendment. Other supporters include Transportation 
Secretary Rodney Slater. They include organizations like the National 
Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the National 
Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Center for Disease 
Control; the American Automobile Manufacturers Association; Kemper 
Insurance; State Farm and Nationwide insurance companies; MADD, Mothers 
Against Drunk Driving, of course; the American College of Emergency 
Physicians.
  I had a talk with a physician today at the White House when we 
presented this BAC .08 bill. And a physician, the head of an emergency 
room in the State of Wisconsin, told me that emergency rooms are 
sometimes so filled with drunk drivers who had been in accidents, that 
they cannot adequately calibrate the blood alcohol testing machine. The 
room is sometimes so filled from the victim's liquor-stained breath 
that they had to leave the room to set the calibration on the blood 
alcohol testing machine.
  Other supporters include the Consumer Federation of America, National 
Fire Protection Association--the list goes on--Advocates for Highway 
and Auto Safety.
  And we have had newspaper editorials, such as the New York Times and 
the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. I ask, Mr. President, 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters and editorials 
in support of this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 26, 1998]

                       One Nation, Drunk or Sober

       The danger posed by an intoxicated driver does not change 
     when the driver crosses state lines. Neither should the legal 
     test for sobriety. That is the practical thinking behind 
     pending legislation in Congress to create one uniform Federal 
     standard for drunken driving. Some critics say the measure 
     would infringe on states' rights. But this is a problem that 
     transcends state boundaries, requiring a tough, consistent 
     national approach.
       The measure, sponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg of New 
     Jersey and Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Representatives Nita 
     Lowey and Benjamin Gilman of New York, would set a national 
     blood alcohol limit of .08 percent. States would have three 
     years to enact this limit before losing a percentage of their 
     highway construction funds. This same approach was used to 
     encourage compliance with the lifesaving 1984 law that 
     established the 21-year-old drinking age.
       Currently, only 15 states set their drunken-driving 
     threshold at .08. Elsewhere it takes a higher level, .10, to 
     put a driver over the legal limit. Thus most of the country 
     would have to adopt the stricter .08 standard or lose Federal 
     funding. This has lobbyists for liquor interests trying to 
     depict the bill as a heavy-handed assault on harmless social 
     drinking. But a blood alcohol level of .08 is sufficient to 
     cause unacceptable damage to a driver's reflexes, judgment 
     and control. Moreover, the .08 level still allows for 
     considerable consumption. An average 170-pound man, experts 
     say, could imbibe more than four shots of hard liquor in an 
     hour--and on an empty stomach--before reaching a blood 
     alcohol concentration of .08.
       Far from a moralistic assault on moderate social drinking, 
     the bill is a reasonable effort to save lives. Over 40 
     percent of all traffic fatalities are alcohol-related, and 
     close to one-fourth of those crashes involve drivers with an 
     alcohol level under the generous .10 standard. As many as 600 
     lives would be spared each year, and countless other serious 
     accidents avoided, if .08 were imposed nationwide.
       With support from President Clinton and lawmakers from both 
     parties, the measure stands a good chance of winning approval 
     when the Senate tackles the contentious issue of highway 
     funding beginning next week--provided, of course, that 
     generous political giving by liquor interests does not 
     overshadow the needs of public safety.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Nov. 8, 1997]

                   Drunk in One State, Not the Other?

       Drunk drivers are deadly threats no matter where they speed 
     or weave in this country. Yet a driver who is certifiably 
     drunk in Virginia can roll to a ``sobriety'' of sorts merely 
     by crossing into Maryland. That is a life-threatening 
     inconsistency that exists around the country because there is 
     no uniform standard of drunkenness on the roads. There could 
     and should be a clear and effective standard--and Congress 
     has legislation before it to bring this about.
       Nearly all highway safety organizations and physicians 
     groups consider a blood alcohol content reading of .08 as 
     sufficient evidence of a drunk driver. That is the standard 
     in Virginia and 14 other states, and it is hardly an 
     unreasonable limit: A 170-pound man could consume four drinks 
     in one hour on an empty stomach and still come in below .08; 
     a 135-pound woman could down three drinks and do the same. 
     But Maryland, the District and 34 other states have a looser 
     standard--of .10. Why not agree on .08?
       There ought to be a national standard, and such a 
     proposition is now before Congress, with support from across 
     the political spectrum. Legislation cosponsored in the Senate 
     by Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Mike DeWine and in the House of 
     Reps. Nita Lowey, Connie Morella and more than 40 other 
     members would withhold federal transportation funds from 
     states without a .08 standard. The logic is simple enough: 
     Driving is an interstate activity.
       One sorry explanation for the failure of states to adopt a 
     .08 limit is that lobbyists for liquor interests have worked 
     to kill the idea in state legislatures. In Congress they have 
     trotted out states' rights objections. But states that are 
     softest on drunk driving could keep their looser standards--
     it's just that federal taxpayers would not underwrite 
     transportation projects for these states. Why should they, 
     when looser laws mean more tragedies that cost the public 
     that much more in health bills--and in lives lost?
       Federal incentives to adopt safety measures do work. There 
     are now 44 states that have a zero-tolerance policy for 
     minors who drink and drive, and results show that the number 
     of traffic deaths involving teenagers and alcohol has fallen 
     nearly 60 percent between 1982 (before the federal law) and 
     last year. All of this long ago should at least have 
     propelled Maryland, the District and state legislators to 
     move on their own. But now Congress can bring still better 
     sense to highways by approving a uniform, nationally 
     understood definition of a dangerous driver.
                                  ____


                [From the Baltimore Sun, Oct. 25, 1997]

                  Lower Threshold for Drunken Driving

       You're driving on the beltway. The motorist in the next 
     lane consumed four beers during the past hour. To paraphrase 
     Clint Eastwood, do you feel lucky?
       Amazingly, that tipsy driver may be within his legal rights 
     in Maryland and 34 other states where a blood-alcohol 
     concentration of 10 is the minimum to be considered drunk. In 
     recent years, Virginia and 14 other states have stiffened 
     their definition of intoxicated driving to .08. That's still 
     more than four drinks for a 170-pound man on an empty 
     stomach, more than three for a 135-pound woman.
       Yet the state-by-state movement to .08 has stalled, often 
     because lobbyists for liquor interests have successfully 
     smothered it in the various legislatures. The liquor industry 
     is foolish, because automobile deaths rooted in alcohol will 
     only heap scorn on the business, but it is reflexively 
     battling .08 laws nonetheless.
       President Clinton and several lawmakers believe it is time 
     to confront drunken driving with a national thrust, as the 
     government is doing now to battle another killer, tobacco.
       Under Senate Bill 412, authored by Sens. Frnak R. 
     Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, and Michael DeWine, an 
     Ohio Republican, transportation funds would be withheld from 
     states without a .08 standard.
       Washington took a similar stand on teen drinking and 
     driving in 1984--with dramatic effect. Traffic deaths 
     involving teen-agers and alcohol dropped nearly 60 percent 
     between 1982, prior to the federal law, and 1996.

[[Page S1239]]

     That was twice the drop in alcohol-related traffic fatalities 
     for the population at large.
       There was also a 25 percent drop in surveys of teens who 
     described themselves as heavy drinkers, suggesting that the 
     force of law nudges people to drink more responsibly. That's 
     a critical and little recognized benefit of a 08 law. In 
     fact, states that switched to .08 recorded an 18 percent 
     decline in fatal crashes involving drivers with blood-alcohol 
     rates of .15.
       Medical researchers estimate 600 lives would be saved a 
     year with a .08 law. That has been the experience in other 
     nations with stricter standards than ours, including wine-
     rich France and Japan, which has fewer drunken driving deaths 
     than Maryland alone 475 vs. 671). Even in the U.S. though, 
     the public isn't as willing to wink at tipsy drivers as it 
     was years ago, after hearing of or being hurt by the deaths 
     of individuals, of families, even a princess.
       Four drinks in one state make you no less drunk than four 
     drinks in another. The abundant evidence justifies a national 
     response.
                                  ____



                                                       Kemper,

                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 1997.
     Hon. Mike DeWine,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators DeWine and Lautenberg: You are both to be 
     complimented for stepping forward to offer S. 412, ``The Safe 
     and Sober Streets Act of 1997,'' to the pending 
     reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act.
       While we as a nation have made progress in the effort to 
     make drinking and driving unacceptable in our society, 
     alcohol related traffic crashes continue to be a sizable 
     problem. Drunk driving fatalities actually increased in 1995 
     for the first time in a decade.
       Your legislation would require the states to enact a blood 
     alcohol concentration threshold of .08% for impaired driving 
     or suffer a loss in federal highway construction funding. 
     This provision should reverse the drunk driving fatality 
     trend and save several hundred lives each year. The .08 
     threshold is currently in place in Canada, many western 
     European countries and in fifteen states in the U.S. All of 
     the medical evidence indicates that .08 is a sensible 
     threshold to measure driver impairment.
       You may feel confident of our companies' wholehearted 
     support of your joint initiative.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael F. Dineen,
     Vice President, Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                 The Coalition for


                                         American Trauma Care,

                                    Reston, VA, September 3, 1997.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: The Coalition for American Trauma 
     Care is very pleased to endorse ``The Safe and Sober Streets 
     Act of 1997,'' that would set a national standard for 
     defining drunk driving a .08 Blood Alcohol Content (``BAC''). 
     The Coalition commends your leadership in introducing this 
     legislation that will help save the more than 17,000 lives 
     that are lost each year on our nation's highways due to drunk 
     driving. Nothing could be more important during this week 
     when the world mourns the tragic death of Princess Diana, a 
     victim of drunk driving.
       The Coalition for American Trauma Care is a not-for-profit 
     organization representing leading trauma and burn surgeons, 
     leading trauma center institutions, and 16 national 
     organizations in trauma and burn care. The Coalition for 
     American Trauma Care seeks to improve trauma and burn care 
     through improved care delivery systems, prevention efforts, 
     research, and by protecting reimbursement for appropriately 
     delivered services.
       The Coalition appreciates your efforts to save lives by 
     enacting tougher drunk driving laws and stands ready to 
     support you.
           Sincerely,
                                           Howard R. Champion, MD,
     President.
                                  ____



                                      National Safety Council,

                                     Itasca, IL, December 8, 1997.
     The Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     The Hon. Mike DeWine,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Lautenberg and DeWine: The National Safety 
     Council is writing to offer our strong support for The Safe 
     and Sober Streets Act of 1977, S. 412, and for your plan to 
     include the bill in legislation to reauthorize the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
       Drunk driving remains a national shame. Despite progress 
     over the years, 41% of all motor vehicle fatalities--more 
     than 17,000 lives lost--involve alcohol. Yet the current 
     legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in most states is 
     .10, the highest in the industrialized world.
       The National Safety Council long has supported setting the 
     BAC limit for adult drivers at .08, a point at which driving 
     skills are proven to be compromised. If every state adopted 
     .08, an estimated 500-600 lives a year could be saved. 
     Although 15 states now have BAC limits of .08, incentive 
     grants and public policy arguments alone have not succeeded 
     in ensuring wider adoption of .08 laws. Strong federal 
     leadership is needed to achieve a uniform national BAC limit 
     of .08.
       That is why we believe enactment of S. 412, which links 
     adoption of .08 laws to federal highway funding, is a 
     necessary and important step. Laws which set the legal BAC 
     limit at .08 are a needed part of the combination of programs 
     and policies which must be in place if we are to win the 
     fight against drunk driving.
       The National Safety Council commends and thanks you for 
     your leadership on this critical issue.
            Sincerely,
                                               Gerard F. Scannell,
     President.
                                  ____

                                               American College of


                                         Emergency Physicians;

                                   Dallas, TX, September 24, 1997.
     The Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: The American College of Emergency 
     Physicians (ACEP), representing 19,000 emergency physicians 
     and the patients they serve, urges you to cosponsor S. 412, 
     the ``Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1997,'' introduced by 
     Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Mike DeWine (R-OH).
       Emergency physicians witness first-hand the serious 
     injuries and fatalities that result from drunk driving. Last 
     year, drunk driving caused more than 17,000 deaths on our 
     nation's highways. Epidemiologic data has well established 
     that all drivers are impaired at a blood alcohol 
     concentration (BAC) of .08. Furthermore, at this level, the 
     risk of being in a crash increases significantly.
       For many years, the College has supported the National 
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) 
     recommendation that states adopt .08 BAC as the legal 
     standard for intoxication. The ``Safe and Sober Streets Act'' 
     would establish a national standard for defining drunk 
     driving at .08 BAC by encouraging all states to adopt this 
     limit.
       The facts cannot be disputed. Too many lives have been lost 
     and many more are put at risk every day by drunk drivers. As 
     emergency physicians, we believe that our success is measured 
     not only by the lives we save in the emergency department, 
     but also by the lives we save through prevention. Thus, we 
     urge you to support and help pass this important highway 
     safety measure.
           Sincerely,
                                        Larry A. Bedard, MD, FACEP
     President.
                                  ____

                                              American Automobile,


                                    Manufacturers Association,

                                    Washington, DC, March 2, 1998.
     The Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: This letter is to urge your 
     support for legislation that would provide states with an 
     incentive to adopt and enforce an anti-drunk driving standard 
     of 0.08 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC). Such a proposal is 
     contained in S. 412, the Safe and Sober Streets Act, co-
     sponsored by Senators Lautenberg, DeWine and twenty-one 
     others. This proposal is expected to be offered as an 
     amendment to S. 1173, the ISTEA reauthorization bill.
       According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's most 
     recent report, alcohol-related crashes account for 40 percent 
     of all traffic fatalities. While good progress has been made 
     over the past decade, the number of alcohol-related deaths is 
     still over 17,000 each year. In addition, some 1.4 million 
     drivers were arrested in 1995 alone for driving under the 
     influence of alcohol.
       Moreover, safety belt use, now required by 49 states, is 
     markedly lower among drivers and occupants involved in 
     alcohol-related crashes.
       Clearly, more needs to be done. Currently, in most states 
     the standard for ``legal'' intoxication is 0.10 BAC, while 
     states that have enacted .08 BAC legislation have witnessed 
     significant reductions in alcohol-related traffice 
     fatalities, according to statistics compiled by Mothers 
     Against Drunk Driving.
       AAMA and its member companies, Chrysler, Ford and General 
     Motors strongly urge your support of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Andrew H. Card, Jr.
                                                        President.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. But more important than the scores of businesses, 
health and science organizations, governmental agencies, public opinion 
leaders, is the support from the families and friends of victims of 
drunk driving--like, as I mentioned before, the Fraziers. They come 
from Westminster, MD. They lost their 9-year-old daughter Ashley.
  I have also gotten to know very well some people from New Jersey, 
Louise and Ronald Hammell of Tuckerton, NJ. They lost their son Matthew 
who was growing up in the full bloom of life--very positive, doing 
things for the community and others. He ultimately sought to be a 
minister, the wonderful young man. He was rollerblading on the other 
side of the highway from the car that became involved in his death, and 
that driver crossed over the yellow line dividing the two lanes of 
traffic, and came all the way to the shoulder

[[Page S1240]]

and killed this young man, and so early in his life that he had not 
really yet begun to develop.
  Who opposes this amendment? That is the question we have to ask 
ourselves. The American Beverage Institute, the National Restaurant 
Association, the Beer Wholesalers, what is it that they have in mind 
when they oppose this? They say that ``Oh, we're going to lose 
business,'' that you ought to be targeting the chronic heavy drinker.
  Well, we are after the heavy drinker. That is why we have those 
roadblocks. And it is sometimes very hard to stop those who are so 
addicted to a substance that they cannot control themselves and wind up 
harming others. But does that mean that we ought not to bother because 
some get away with it? We know that we have to have traffic rules, we 
have to have red lights. Some people do not obey them. But the fact of 
the matter is, the majority is well-served by having rules that protect 
the public.
  Organizations, Mr. President, which support this amendment have one 
thing in mind--the public's interest, the health and safety of our 
communities and of our roads and of our families. Organizations who 
oppose this amendment have one interest in mind--they only care about 
protecting their narrow special interest.
  We have to make that judgment here. Drunk driving continues to be a 
national scourge that imposes tremendous suffering on the victims of 
drunk driving crashes and their loved ones.
  In 1996, 17,126 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes. About 
one million people were injured in alcohol-related crashes. And I point 
out, Mr. President, that in the worst year of the Vietnam war--an event 
that scarred the hearts and the minds of people across our country--in 
1 year, the worst year in Vietnam, we lost just over 17,000 people. So 
here, every year, we lose 17,000-plus people in drunk driving crashes. 
And it compares to the worst year of a war that left our Nation in 
mourning for many years.
  Every one of these deaths and injuries could have been prevented had 
the driver decided to call for a ride, hand the keys to a friend, or do 
anything other than taking that wheel. When that person takes that 
wheel, it is as if they are carrying a gun. The only question--when is 
that thing going to go off? It is no different. Murder is murder, and 
the victim is just as dead whether it comes from a drunk driving 
accident or whether it comes from the pulling of a trigger.
  Deaths and injuries that are due to drunk driving are not 
``accidents.'' They are predictable and preventable. Every 30 minutes 
someone in America--a mother, a husband, a child, grandchild, brother, 
sister--dies in an alcohol-related crash.
  In the United States, 41 percent of all fatal crashes are alcohol-
related. Alcohol is the single greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths 
and injuries. The first step in combating this epidemic is to inject 
the sense of sanity in our Nation's drunk driving laws and by enacting 
the Safe and Sober Streets Act. The amendment we have in front of us 
will go a long way toward reducing the deadly combination of drinking 
and driving.
  Mr. President, my amendment, which would have the effect of lowering 
this Nation's tolerance for drinking and driving by 20 percent, is what 
ought to be considered now. This amendment requires all States to 
define the point at which a driver would be considered to be drunk as 
.08 blood alcohol content. Fifteen States already have .08 BAC and 
would be unaffected by my amendment. My State of New Jersey does not 
have a .08 BAC, nor does the State of my chief colleague in this, 
Senator Mike DeWine, from Ohio, who is well aware of that deficiency in 
the State law.
  Mr. President, .08 is a reasonable and responsible level at which to 
draw the line in fighting drunk driving. Despite what we are all 
hearing from special interests and their lobbyists, at .08 a person is 
drunk and should not be driving. Their reaction is impaired. They can't 
stop quick enough; they accelerate too fast; they turn too erratically.
  In fact, Congress, in its wisdom, set the limit for commercial motor 
vehicle drivers at .04 BAC in the 1980s. So, Congress clearly 
understands the connection between the consumption of alcohol and the 
critical ability needed to drive a vehicle safely on our highways.
  Mr. President, .08 BAC is just common sense. Think of it this way: 
You are in your car, driving on a two-lane road at night. Your child is 
traveling with you. You see a car's headlights approaching. The driver 
in this case is a 170-pound man who just drank five bottles of beer in 
an hour on an empty stomach in a bar. If he were driving in Maryland, 
he would not be considered drunk. But if he were driving in Virginia, 
he would be. Does it make sense? We should not have a patchwork quilt 
of laws when we are dealing with drunk driving.
  We had the privilege of hearing the chief of police of Arlington 
County, VA, today at the White House. He talked about what has happened 
since Virginia reduced its BAC level to .08. They saw a marked 
improvement in the reduction of deaths on their highways. Here was 
someone who had the practical responsibility, the practical knowledge 
of seeing these victims, of tending to the injured people. He said it 
works. Let's do it.
  Regarding this amendment, .08 utilizes what sound science and 
research proves, and interjects some reality in our definition of drunk 
driving and applies it to all 50 States so someone can't drink more and 
drive in New York than in New Jersey, or in this case, someone drinking 
in Maryland and driving to Virginia when their blood alcohol level is 
beyond .08.
  Mr. President, there are 10 facts that demonstrate the need for this 
amendment:
  Fact No. 1: Drunk driving continues to be a shameful epidemic that 
destroys our families and communities: 17,000 deaths each year to drunk 
driving. Isn't 17,000 too many? Each year in this country more people 
are killed in alcohol-related crashes than are murdered by firearms. 
Families and friends of drunk driving victims experience tremendous 
grief which changes their lives forever. Moreover, deaths and injuries 
from alcohol-related crashes have an enormous economic impact as well. 
Alcohol-related crashes cost society over $45 billion every year.
  One alcohol-related fatality is estimated to cost society about 
$950,000, and an injury averages about $20,000 in emergency and acute 
health care costs, long-term care and rehabilitation, police and court 
costs, insurance, lost productivity, and social services.
  The problem exists, and we must do more to reduce drunk driving. The 
American people agree. Reducing drunk driving is the No. 1 highway 
safety issue for the American people.

  Mr. President, here is a chart reflecting a Lou Harris poll conducted 
1 year ago that found that 91 percent of the respondents believe that 
the Federal role in assuring highway safety is critical. What do 
Americans consider to be the No. 1 highway safety problem? Fifty-two 
point nine percent look at drunk driving as the No. 1 highway safety 
problem; 18.6 percent look at drivers who exceed the posted speed limit 
by more than 15 miles per hour; 13.7 percent, young or unexperienced 
drivers; 6.2 percent, elderly drivers; 5.7 percent, highways in poor 
condition.
  The poll showed the two principal causes of problems on our highways 
are drunk driving and those who are speeding, with drunk driving 
overwhelmingly the most feared matter for highway safety.
  Fact No. 2: It takes a lot of alcohol for a person to reach .08, 
contrary to what most people think and contrary to information being 
given out by the alcohol lobby. I want to clear this up. According to 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National 
Safety Council, a 170-pound man would have to drink four and one-half 
drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach to reach .08 BAC; a female 
weighing 137 pounds would have to have three drinks in 1 hour, no food, 
and she is still below .08. The male, at 170 pounds, drinks four drinks 
and is still below .08. We are not talking about the kind of drinking 
that is a casual single glass of wine with dinner, contrary to what the 
lobbyists would have you think.
  Mr. President, people with .08 BAC are drunk. Or as others say, they 
are blitzed, wasted, trashed, bombed. The last thing they should do is 
get behind the wheel. We used to use an expression around the country, 
and I remember hearing it often, ``Let's have one more

[[Page S1241]]

for the road.'' That is the last thing that we want to encourage. That 
is out. That happy hour is long since gone.
  Fact No. 3: Virtually all drivers are seriously impaired at .08 BAC 
and shouldn't be driving. Here is a chart from the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. They say at .08, concentrated attention, 
speed control, braking, steering, gear changing, lane tracking and 
judgment are impaired. When you get down to even lower levels, half of 
what the current level is in 35 States in the country, .05, you are 
talking about problems with tracking, divided attention, coordination, 
comprehension, and eye movement.
  We are not looking to abolish social drinking. We are not looking to 
create a new temperance in society. What we are saying is that .08 is 
dangerous if you are driving.
  Fact No. 4: The risk of being involved in a crash increases 
substantially by the time a driver reaches .08 BAC. The risk rises 
gradually with each BAC level, but then rises rapidly after a driver 
reaches or exceeds .08 BAC compared to drivers with no alcohol in their 
system. In single vehicle crashes, drivers with BAC's between .05 and 
.09 are 11 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than 
drivers with a BAC of zero.
  Fact No. 5: .08 BAC laws have proven to reduce crashes and 
fatalities. One study of States with .08 BAC laws found that the .08 
BAC laws reduced the overall incidence of alcohol fatalities by 16 
percent. In other words, the involvement in fatal crashes is pervasive 
when alcohol is taken before the driver gets behind the wheel.
  This study also found that .08 laws reduced fatalities at higher BAC 
levels, meaning they had an effect on extremely impaired drivers. 
Separate crash statistics have confirmed that finding. When the 
National Highway Traffic Highway Safety Administration studied the 
effect of .08 in five States--California, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and 
Vermont--it found significant reductions in alcohol-related crashes in 
four out of the five States, ranging from 4 percent to 40 percent when 
compared to the rest of the States with .10 BAC laws. You may hear that 
there is no ``objective evidence'' showing that .08 works. We have 
heard statements like that before from the tobacco industry, always 
declaring it is not proven, it is not sure, and it is not certain, but 
the person who is dead is dead and the family that is broken-hearted 
stays broken-hearted for life.

  Fact No. 6: Lowering the BAC limit to .08 makes it possible to 
convict seriously impaired drivers whose levels are now considered 
marginal because they are at or just over the .10 BAC, and the judge 
says, in many cases, ``OK, you are at 0.11; listen, watch yourself and 
don't do it again.'' Drinking and driving is a serious offense which 
should be handled by the appropriate authorities.
  Because .08 BAC laws are a general deterrent and have proven to deter 
even heavier drinkers from driving, the public has an increased 
awareness and understanding of what it takes to be too impaired to 
drive. After Virginia passed the law I mentioned before, not only did 
traffic fatalities go down but arrests also were reduced. Mr. 
President, .08 laws are not the problem. They are the solution.
  Fact No. 7: Most other Western countries already have drunk driving 
laws that are .08 or less. Here are some of the countries: Canada and 
Great Britain are .08; Australia varies between .05 and .08; Austria, 
.08; Switzerland, .08; France, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, 
Finland, .05; Sweden, .02. Are we owned by the liquor-producing 
establishment? Are our families to be governed by rules established by 
the liquor lobby? I think not. This amendment would bring us into the 
civilized world when it comes to drunk driving laws.
  Most other countries have adopted these laws because they work. For 
example, over the past few years France has systematically reduced its 
legal limit for drunk driving and has seen measurable results. In 
France, the country that is first in per capita wine consumption, a 
motorist can have his or her license revoked at .05 BAC and can be 
jailed if caught driving at .08 BAC. It is estimated that 33 percent of 
all traffic fatalities in France are alcohol-related.
  Fact No. 8: The American people overwhelmingly support .08. When the 
question is asked, Would you be in favor of lowering the legal blood 
alcohol limit for drivers to .08, 66 percent of the males said yes, 71 
percent of the females said yes; the female, the mother, the one who 
inevitably feels most pain in a family when there is a loss, 71 percent 
said, Please, America, stop this; get the blood alcohol limit down to a 
sensible point. And as we saw even at .05 people's actions are 
impaired. So what we are doing is the right thing here. We hope we can 
get the liquor people and some of the restaurant people and beer 
wholesalers to come on over, join us, and be the kind of corporate 
citizens that we know you would like to be.

  So NHTSA surveys all show that most people would not drive after 
having two or three drinks in 1 hour and believe that the limit should 
be no higher than that which would get them there.
  Fact No. 9: We need a national drunk driving limit. The best approach 
is the one we employ because it works. This amendment is written the 
same way as the 21-year-old drinking age law. If the medical and 
scientific evidence show that a person is impaired at .08 BAC and 
should not be driving, why should someone be deemed to be drunk in one 
State but not the other? If they cross the State boundary and kill 
somebody, that person is just as dead, and that family is just as 
wounded. This bill will save lives, and it is a much more compelling 
argument than any other.
  As President Reagan said when he signed the 21 minimum drinking age 
bill into law, ``We know that drinking, plus driving, spells death and 
disaster . . . The problem is bigger than the individual States . . . 
It's a grave national problem, and it touches all our lives. With the 
problem so clear-cut and the proven solution at hand, we have no 
misgivings . . .'' President Reagan, who was strictly a person who 
liked to limit Federal power, said that. ``. . . we have no misgivings 
about this judicious use of Federal power.''
  Sanctions, which is what we are proposing, work and soft incentives 
do not work. Since .08 BAC laws were part of the incentive grant 
program in 1993, only a handful of States have adopted .08. Incentive 
grant problems are the alcohol industry's best friend because they 
rarely have positive effects. Most telling, no single State lost 
highway funds as a result of the 21 drinking age law, and we expect no 
State to lose highway funds from the zero tolerance law. Some 
initiatives are important enough to employ that tool.
  Fact No. 10: Based on past history, adopting .08 will not hurt the 
economy. There is no evidence that per capita consumption of alcohol 
was affected in any of the five .08 BAC States examined by NHTSA. A 
different, four-State analysis conducted by several alcohol industry 
organizations showed virtually no effect on overall consumption.
  In the alcohol industry analysis, Maine, which adopted .08 in 1988, 
saw a slight dip in alcohol consumption in 1988, but restaurant sales 
actually increased 11 percent. Restaurants and the alcohol industry 
should support this bill because they care about their patrons. They 
don't want to hear about someone who just left their establishment and 
wound up killed on a road a few miles away. I don't care how much 
somebody drinks. They can drink until they fall off the bar stool; but 
just don't get behind the wheel of a car. This is a reasonable 
amendment.
  We are not talking about prohibition. Remember, when you are in a bar 
and look at a table full of people, .08 applies to only one of those 
people--the driver.
  As my colleagues read the materials disseminated by the opponents of 
this measure, you have to think to yourself, is .08 the right or the 
wrong thing to do? You can only have one conclusion if you care about 
your constituents. Don't get tangled up in whether this is too broad a 
reach for the Federal Government. Is it too broad a reach when the 
Federal Government saves lives, or when the Federal Government enacts 
environmental legislation that takes lead out of public buildings? Is 
it too much of a reach when the Federal Government posts warnings about 
air quality? Not at all. So don't get fooled by the alcohol lobby's 
machinations out there, saying, ``You can't prove it. It's not so. You 
should work on the chronic alcoholic.'' Yes, we want to work on the 
chronic alcoholic, but we want the casual drinker, someone who doesn't

[[Page S1242]]

realize that when they get to .08, they are in dangerous territory when 
they get behind the wheel. So I hope my colleagues will all join in and 
support this amendment.

  Consider what the Wall Street Journal said:

       Safe alcohol levels should be set by health experts, not 
     the lobby for Hooter's and Harrah's. The Lautenberg amendment 
     isn't a drive toward prohibition, but an uphill push toward a 
     health consensus.

  Mr. President, the Senate has heard my policy arguments. The facts 
are on our side. I want all Senators to weigh those facts carefully. 
But I also want them to think about one other issue--not a fact, but a 
person. I want them to think about the Ashley Fraziers in their State. 
The child in this photograph was 9 years old. We heard her mother and 
father talk about her today. This accident took place about 2 years 
ago. They still mourn every day. When her mother Brenda talked about 
Ashley, she said they still set a table for four, even though they know 
there are only going to be three people sitting at that table, because 
they don't want to forget Ashley. Ashley was killed by a woman, 
underage, driving with a .08 blood alcohol content. Mr. President, I 
hope that Senators and the American people can see this child, because 
there isn't any one of us who is a parent or a grandparent who doesn't 
so treasure the life of a child like this that we would give our own 
lives to protect her. We are not being asked to give our lives; we are 
being asked to give our judgment, we are being asked to give our 
support.
  Two years ago, Ashley's parents heard a noise and saw a sight that 
they will never forget. She said this morning at the White House, in 
the presence of the President, that they want to make sure that this 
never happens to other people. They were unselfishly baring their 
souls, anguish, and grief to prevent the possibility of someone they 
don't even know from losing a child like this beautiful young girl. 
This was a tragedy. Stop and think about the senseless death of this 9-
year-old. It pulls our heartstrings, all of us. I ask all Senators to 
think of this when they vote on this amendment. Think of a family's 
pain when they lose a child, a loved one, and help us to try to prevent 
this from happening again.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Lautenberg-DeWine amendment to 
keep drunk drivers off the roads and keep them away from our kids.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, could you give the time situation? The 
agreement is that each side will have 1 hour. I see Senators here who 
will speak for the amendment. I think we can yield time to the 
proponents of the amendment. I am not worried about that. But I want to 
protect the rights of any Senators who might come over and would be 
against the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from New 
Jersey has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining. The Senator from Rhode Island has 
59 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. CHAFEE. All right. If the Chair could announce when the 
proponents of the amendment have reached their 60 minutes, that would 
be helpful, and then we can figure out how to go from there. I am 
confident there will be time that we can yield from the side I control. 
But if the Chair could let us know when 60 minutes of the proponents' 
time is up, I would appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield such time as I have available to my colleague 
from Ohio, Senator DeWine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would the Chair mind repeating the time available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 22 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I understood the manager on the other side to say he 
would be willing to accommodate by yielding time from his available 
time to other proponents. I ask the Senator from Ohio how much time he 
thinks he needs?
  Mr. DeWINE. I state to my colleague, I wonder if I can have 20 
minutes, and if the Chair can notify me after 20 minutes, we will see 
who is on the floor and wants to speak at that point.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am confident that we will have time for the Senator 
from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first thank and congratulate my 
friend and colleague from New Jersey, not just for his very eloquent 
statement and leadership today, but for his work over the years. His 
work has made a tremendous difference in saving a number of lives.
  Mr. President, at 10:30 tomorrow morning, Members are going to have 
the opportunity to do something that we don't always have the chance to 
do. Many times, we vote on issues and we think we are right, but we 
don't know what the ultimate effect is going to be. This is one of 
those times where when we cast our vote, we know what the effect is. 
Members who come to the floor tomorrow morning at 10:30 to cast their 
vote on this amendment and vote ``yes'' will clearly be saving lives. 
There is absolutely no doubt about it. That is one thing we know. We 
know it based on statistics and based on history. We know it based on 
common sense. That is, I think, a great opportunity that we will have 
tomorrow. This amendment, make no mistake about it, will save lives.
  As we consider legislation to authorize funds for most of our 
Nation's highways, we cannot avoid the issue of the safety of those 
highways. Tragically, in the last couple of years we seem to have been 
losing ground in highway safety. After well over a decade of progress, 
we are starting slowly to move backward.
  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
alcohol-related traffic fatalities dropped from 24,050 in 1986 down to 
17,274 in 1995. That was a 28 percent decrease in drunk driving 
tragedies over a decade. We as a nation, Mr. President, can take pride 
in the progress that we made.
  However, unfortunately, from 1994 to 1995, alcohol-related traffic 
fatalities rose 4 percent--the first increase in over a decade. In 
1995, alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased for the first time 
in a whole decade. That year, there were 17,274 fatalities from 
alcohol-related crashes.
  Mr. President, this amendment is an attempt to gain back some of the 
ground that we have lost in the battle against highway fatalities. It 
would set a national blood alcohol standard--a standard above which the 
driver is legally under the influence and should not be driving an 
automobile. All widely accepted studies indicate that the blood alcohol 
standard should be set at .08 BAC, the blood alcohol content.

  Mr. President, at .08 blood content, no one should be driving a car. 
I don't know any expert, I don't know any police officer, I don't know 
any scientist who has seriously looked at this issue in the whole 
country who does not agree with that--who does not agree that at .08 
you are under the influence of alcohol, and your judgment, your 
reflexes, your control of the car, everything is appreciably impaired. 
There is no doubt about it.
  Mr. President, the facts are that the risk of being in a crash rises 
gradually with each increase in the blood level content. We know that. 
NHTSA reports that in single-vehicle crashes the relative fatality risk 
for drivers with blood alcohol content between .05 and .09 is over 11 
times greater than for drivers with a blood alcohol content of zero--11 
times. When a driver reaches or exceeds the .08 alcohol level, the risk 
goes up even more. In fact, it dramatically shoots up even above that 
high standard.
  Mr. President, at .08, one's vision, one's balance, one's own 
reaction time, one's hearing, judgment, self-control, all are seriously 
impaired. Moreover, at .08, the critical driving task, concentration, 
attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear change, lane tracking 
are all negatively impacted and affected.
  We have all heard the arguments. The alcohol industry, in arguing 
against this standard, claims that--get this now--only 7 percent of the 
fatal crashes involve drivers with blood alcohol content between .08 
and .09--only 7 percent. But what does that mean? What that translates 
into, if you use 1995 figures, it translates into 1,200 people in that 
year alone dying--1,200 people who are at precisely that level.
  Some of the opponents of this bill would argue, ``Oh, it is only 7 
percent.'' Tell that to the parents who lost a child. Tell that to the 
brothers who lost a sister, or children who lost siblings or who lost 
parents. Changing the

[[Page S1243]]

blood alcohol level content to .08 could have saved many of these 
lives.
  Where the .08 laws have been tried, they have been proven to reduce 
crashes and fatalities. A study done at Boston University found that 
.08 laws reduced the overall incidence of alcohol-related fatalities by 
16 percent. Moreover, that same study found that .08 laws also reduced 
fatalities at higher blood alcohol levels by 18 percent.
  So it doesn't just have an impact on the .08 and .09 level; it serves 
as a deterrent, which affects the entire scale.
  Lowering the blood alcohol limit to .08 makes it possible to convict 
seriously impaired drivers whose blood alcohol contents are now 
considered marginal, because they are just at or just over .10. 
Further, the .08 blood alcohol level is a supremely reasonable 
standard.
  Let's look at the chart again that my colleague from New Jersey, 
Senator Lautenberg, showed a moment ago. I think it is important to 
look at this because there always is in debates such as this some 
misinformation that is going around. I think you have to get back to 
the scientific data and to look at this.
  In order for a 170-pound male to reach a blood alcohol content of 
.08, that male would have to consume four drinks, four beers, four 
shots, four glasses of wine, four in 1 hour on an empty stomach. Is 
there anyone in this Chamber, is there anyone in the Senate, who 
believes that they could sit down, drink four shots in an hour, and 
then get behind the wheel and drive? You might be able to do it. But 
would you be able to do it very well? I think the answer is clearly no.
  Maybe a better question we all should ask ourselves is how many of 
us, knowing a friend of ours, or acquaintance, or neighbor who had four 
drinks in an hour on an empty stomach, would say to that person, ``Why 
don't you take my daughter, Anna, uptown to McDonald's, put her in your 
car, and drive her?'' It is ludicrous. There isn't a person who would 
do that. We know that. Yet, that is what it would take to reach the .08 
standard.
  A 135-pound female typically would have to consume three drinks in 
the same period of time.

  In other words, Mr. President, the .08 standard is targeted towards 
those who engage, frankly, in binge drinking--not, let me repeat, 
social drinking. This bill will not impact social drinkers.
  The opponents of this legislation apparently want the public to 
believe that our legislation would target for prosecution individuals 
who have had a beer or two, or had a beer and a pizza. That is the 
opposite of the truth.
  I think we should ask ourselves the simple question: Should the 
average person who has consumed four shots of distilled spirits in an 
hour, four beers, four glasses of wine on an empty stomach, be behind 
the wheel of a car? We all know what the answer to that is.
  Mr. President, the .08 legislation sets an intelligent national 
minimal standard, the same kind of commonsense standard that President 
Reagan pointed to in 1984 when he signed legislation raising the 
national minimum drinking age to 21. The results are in. The results of 
that action by this Congress and that President are in. In every year 
for which the national minimum drinking age was changed, roughly 1,000 
lives were saved.
  No one believes in States rights more than Ronald Reagan. No one 
talked about it more eloquently. And there were those when Ronald 
Reagan took that position in 1984 who said that is inconsistent, that 
is wrong. We understand that argument. I think Ronald Reagan had it 
right, as he did a lot of times. His answer was very eloquent. This is 
what he said about really the same type issue. I quote from President 
Reagan:

       This problem is much more than just a State problem. It's a 
     national tragedy. There are some special cases in which 
     overwhelming need can be dealt with by prudent and limited 
     Federal influence. And, in a case like this, I have no 
     misgivings about a judicious use of Federal inducements to 
     save precious lives.

  President Ronald Reagan, 1984, on a very similar issue.
  Mr. President, our purpose here today is really exactly the same as 
President Reagan's was back in 1984. We are working together in a very 
bipartisan way to guarantee a fundamental right, because this really is 
about rights. It is about freedom--the right of freedom to know that 
when you put your family in a car on a highway and you put your child 
in a car, there will be an absolute minimum national standard for how 
sober some other person has to be to drive on that same highway. So, if 
there is some minimum standard when I am in Cincinnati and leave Ohio 
and go into Kentucky, and maybe a few minutes later go into Indiana, 
cross State lines, that there is some national floor, a minimum 
standard of responsibility. That is about my freedom as a driver. That 
is about my family's freedom. That is about, I think, responsibility.
  That is the rationale behind the .08 standard embodied in this 
amendment. Simply put, a person at the .08 blood alcohol level is under 
the influence. No one disputes that. No one. And that person simply 
should not be driving a car. Our amendment would make this principle 
the law of the land, and it would save many, many lives.
  Mr. President, I see that my time is about up. I at this point 
reserve the remainder of the time. I do not know if anyone--Senator 
Chafee is on the floor--who wants to speak against the bill at this 
point wants me to yield time. I see my colleague from Illinois is on 
the floor. I will reserve the remainder of our time at this point.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, very much.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for yielding time. I will be 
very brief because I know time is short. In addition, I would like to 
make some comments regarding the underlying bill, the ISTEA bill.
  But, in the first instance, with regard to this amendment, I am very, 
very pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment and proud to stand in 
support of it today. We were over at the White House this afternoon for 
an announcement regarding this important amendment, the .08 amendment. 
I was just so struck by the families who were there who had lost young 
ones, who had lost family members to drunk drivers; struck, also, by 
the fact that what is being called for in this legislation is 
ultimately very, very reasonable.

  This legislation is not prohibition. It does not require someone not 
to drink at all. What it says essentially is you not get plastered when 
you get behind the wheel, and not get so impaired in your physical 
capacity that you put other pedestrians and other drivers at risk.
  Listening to the mother this morning talk about how she was taking 
her daughter to the schoolbus when a drunk driver just came out of 
nowhere and took the little girl's life was enough to send chills 
through the heart of any mother, any parent, and certainly ought to 
commit our attention to the gravity of this matter and the importance 
of it.
  There is no question but that the .08 blood alcohol level saves 
lives. Studies have shown that States which have adopted .08 laws have 
had significant drops in alcohol-related traffic deaths and that a 
national .08 law could prevent up to 600 deaths a year. That does not 
even take into account the injuries, the loss of capacity, the trauma 
to people that could be avoided as well--just in fatalities alone, 500 
to 600 fatalities a year.
  My home State of Illinois has a .08 limit.
  I want to report to everybody who is looking at this issue that the 
results were immediate and dramatic upon the adoption of this statute 
by the Illinois legislature. In the first holiday weekend in Illinois, 
under the .08 statute, which was the 4th of July, 1997, alcohol-related 
fatalities were 68 percent lower than the same period in 1996--68 
percent fewer deaths on a weekend. That is a dramatic result from a 
simple step that is a reasonable step and that ought to be taken for 
this entire country.
  The question has been raised whether or not this is something the 
States themselves can do. I would point out that, again, my State of 
Illinois has a .08 level. Other States have higher levels. It should 
not be an accident of geography for Americans to be secure in the 
knowledge that drunk drivers will not confront them on the highways. 
Individuals should be able to have the

[[Page S1244]]

confidence that if they cross over the border from Illinois to Indiana, 
or Illinois to Wisconsin, or Illinois to Missouri, that they will enjoy 
the same safety that they do in our State.
  I think that this is a commonsense law, a commonsense amendment, it 
is a life-saving amendment, and certainly an amendment whose time has 
come. I urge my colleagues to support the Lautenberg-DeWine .08 
amendment to ISTEA.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent--I ask the 
manager of the bill--to be allowed to speak on the underlying bill and 
that it not be charged to this amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. What I suggest, Mr. President, is that I am perfectly 
prepared to give 10 minutes from the opponents' side of the amendment 
to the Senator from Illinois, if that is adequate time.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I think it will be. Yes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. All right.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will be so allocated.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, the good news about ISTEA today is 
that an agreement has been ratified by the committee that will provide 
$26 billion in additional funding to improve our Nation's highways. The 
better news for States like mine and for the Nation's intermodal 
transportation system is that this additional money will be distributed 
in more effective and fairer ways than the rest of the money authorized 
under ISTEA. This addition to the underlying ISTEA formula will make 
this landmark legislation better serve the interests of our entire 
country. I congratulate the budget negotiators and the members of the 
committee for their sensitivity to the needs of States like Illinois 
and to the role of transportation as an activity that touches all of 
our country and brings us together as a people.
  My home State of Illinois serves as the transportation hub for our 
Nation's commerce. It is home to the world's busiest airport and two of 
the world's busiest rivers. It is where the Nation's freight railroads 
come together to move goods from one side of the country to another. It 
is the center of the Nation's truck traffic. If you add up the value of 
all truck shipments in the country, Illinois has by far the largest 
share of any State. If you count the ton-miles of truck shipments that 
pass through States on their way to their final destinations, Illinois 
has by far the largest share of any State.
  This map shows very clearly how we are the hub. We are the hub not 
only for the Midwest but, really, we are the crossroads of the country.
  Illinois's roads, therefore, must literally bear the weight of the 
largest share of the Nation's commercial activity and our roads are 
suffering as a result. According to some estimates, nearly 43 percent 
of Illinois roads need repair, and almost one-fourth of our bridges are 
in substandard condition. Every year, Illinois motorists pay an 
estimated $1 billion in vehicle wear and tear and other expenses 
associated with poor road conditions.
  In Chicago the traffic flow on some of the major highways has 
increased sevenfold since those highways were built in the 1950s and in 
the 1960s. According to a recent study, Chicago is the fifth most 
congested city in America.
  Today's agreement provides relief to Illinois and to our Nation's 
transportation system, above and beyond the original ISTEA proposal. 
Today's agreement creates a new program, targeted toward high-density 
States like Illinois. The plan allocates $1.8 billion over the next 5 
years for this program, of which Illinois will receive at least $36 
million, and up to $54 million, a year. All told, Illinois will receive 
approximately $900 million more for highway improvements over the next 
6 years under the agreement approved this morning by the Environment 
and Public Works Committee.
  This is very good news for Chicago area residents who are counting on 
Federal funds to fix the Stevenson Expressway, and not just Chicago 
area residents but everybody who comes through the State using the 
Stevenson. This highway was built in 1964 and has become one of the 
most important arteries in the area, making connections to the Tri-
State Tollway and the Dan Ryan Expressway. The road, the Stevenson, is 
literally falling apart. The State has asked for $175 million over the 
next 2 years to aid in this project, and today's agreement provides 
enough additional funds to Illinois, an additional $200 million every 
year for the next 6 years, and with that money the State will be able 
to repair the Stevenson on the schedule that is most desirable to 
facilitate traffic.
  There is more good news. Wacker Drive, a major two-level road in the 
heart of downtown Chicago, is collapsing. If anyone has ever driven 
Wacker Drive in Chicago--it is green, and we used to call it Emerald 
City down there, but it's a double-decker road. According to a recent 
report, water leaks through joints of the double-decker road when it 
rains, loosening already fractured concrete and threatening to pour 
chunks of debris onto vehicles on the lower level. If no repairs are 
made, Wacker Drive will have to be closed in 5 years. This agreement 
allows not only for full funding of the Stevenson repair, but 
additional funding for Wacker Drive.

  There is more good news, even greater good news for natives of 
western Illinois who are counting on Federal assistance for a variety 
of projects along U.S. 67, which runs from just outside of St. Louis, 
in the southwest corner of Illinois, to the Quad Cities in the 
northwest corner. So, over in this area.
  There are literally hundreds of road repair projects planned in my 
State, and today's agreement goes a long way toward turning those plans 
into actual road improvements.
  I want to thank Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus and Senator Lautenberg 
for their hard work in putting this arrangement together.
  Now, this, today's announcement, I am so pleased about this part of 
it, but I think I would be remiss in not mentioning my sadness that we 
have not been able to do better by mass transit. We have increased, in 
this agreement, transportation spending by $26 billion, but not one 
additional dime will be devoted to mass transit improvements. 
Historically, there has been a split between spending increases for 
surface transportation and mass transit in an 80/20 ratio. Preserving 
this ratio is, I think, essential to ensuring the viability of transit 
systems around the country.
  Mass transportation not only moves people from one place to another; 
it helps the environment. Without public transportation, without public 
transit, there would be 5 million more cars on the road and 27,000 more 
lane miles of road, again increasing the pollution of our environment. 
Transit is also a great economic investment. The net economic return on 
public expenditures for public transportation is 4 or 5 to 1. When mass 
transit improvements are made, land values go up, commercial 
development increases, jobs are created and people can get where the 
jobs are. They can get to work. Without transit, congestion alone would 
cost our national economy some $15 billion annually. In the Chicago 
area, in my State, congestion and bottlenecks already sap economic 
productivity, it is estimated, by about $2.8 billion every year. 
Without the additional investments in the area's transit system, that 
number could increase.
  Again, it is regrettable that we have not been able to do more for 
mass transit. We have great needs. The Regional Transportation 
Authority of Northeastern Illinois, the Chicago Transit Authority, 
Metra, and all of the transit authorities in the State, are in dire 
need of additional support. I hope before this legislation is 
finalized, we will understand the importance of mass transit to the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, to the efficiency of 
our surface transportation effort in this country.
  But in the meantime, I did want to take this opportunity--I thank 
Senator Chafee for indulging me this time--but also to say thank you to 
him and the other budget negotiators for the additions and for the 
improvements, in my opinion, to the underlying formula. I think this 
goes a long way, again, to achieving the goals of the ISTEA, achieving 
the goals of intermodal surface transportation efficiency.
  We ought to talk about transportation as a people issue, which it 
really is. It's not just about roads and bridges and cars and trucks; 
it is about the people of this country being connected one to the other 
and being able to

[[Page S1245]]

carry out the commerce and the activity that keep this country strong. 
I thank these negotiators for their work.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois for those very kind comments. I am glad we are able to be of 
help.
  I will say she is a tenacious battler for Illinois, so I was 
particularly glad we were able to be of some help in the particular 
situation Illinois faced.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas has some comments. How much 
time do I have? Is the proponents' time--perhaps you could give us an 
account of the time.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the proponents has expired. The 
Senator from Rhode Island has 53 minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I yield such time as the Senator from Arkansas needs.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I appreciate this indulgence. I ask consent to speak 
in morning business. I am going to speak on a different subject. If the 
chairman would like that not to count against his time----
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is fine. How long will my colleague be, roughly?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Fine.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask consent to speak 15 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, may I just say one other thing? I would 
like to say to all Senators who are listening that now is your chance 
to come over and speak against the amendment if you so choose. Time is 
running out here and, frankly, at the conclusion of the comments of the 
Senator from Arkansas and then a couple of minutes that the Senator 
from Ohio wants, unless there are people present wanting to speak, it 
is my intention to yield back the remainder of our time and have the 
Senate go out.
  So, anybody who wants to speak about this amendment--they will have a 
half-hour tomorrow, that is true. But now is the time to come over. We 
have some 50 minutes. The Senator will be taking 15, so there will be 
35 or 40 minutes left. Now is the time to speak against the measure if 
anybody wishes to.
  If the Senator will proceed?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I take a moment to commend the Senator 
from Rhode Island and compliment him for the outstanding leadership he 
provided the Environment and Public Works Committee on the ISTEA II 
bill.
  It has been suggested he should be nominated, if you have not been, 
for a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing all the various factions together 
in what is, I think, a very worthwhile bill that will be to the benefit 
of all Americans. I commend the Senator.

                          ____________________