[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.
____________________