[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 19 (Tuesday, March 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1246-S1249]
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. The Senator from North Dakota wants to speak in favor of 
the amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. How much time does the Senator want?
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield 10 minutes, I will try not to 
use all 10.
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is fine, 10 minutes, from the time of the opponents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I rise today to support the Lautenberg amendment. I 
intend to vote for it, and I am pleased to support a piece of 
legislation I think will be important in saving lives in our country.
  Before I do, I want to talk about three quick items. One is the 
amendment that has just been adopted, the McCain amendment. I would 
then like to talk about the Lautenberg amendment and then, finally, an 
amendment I am going to offer following the disposition of the 
Lautenberg amendment.
  The McCain amendment which has been adopted now contains a provision 
I want to call attention to dealing with high-speed police pursuit. It 
is an issue I have been involved with for some long while. I care a 
great deal about it, and I have introduced legislation for a number of 
years, part of which has now been included in the McCain amendment 
dealing with safety.

  There are in this country many instances in which high-speed police 
pursuits are not only necessary but virtually mandatory, and I 
understand that. There are other circumstances in this country, where 
high-speed police pursuits are inappropriate and result in the death of 
innocent people. Nearly 400 people a year are killed and many others 
are injured in high-speed police pursuits.
  One ought to be able to expect all across this country, no matter 
where one is driving, that law enforcement jurisdictions are given good 
training and have good policies dealing with high-speed police 
pursuits. That is my intention with the legislation.
  I also feel that I would like to do more. I would like to make sure 
that in the future, with respect to high-speed police pursuits, that we 
have a provision that anyone who believes they should be able to flee 
from law enforcement when law enforcement attempts to apprehend them 
will lose their vehicle and will have certain jail time. We ought to 
send the message to all people in this country that you are the villain 
in high-speed police pursuits. If you don't stop when a law enforcement 
officer attempts to stop you, there are going to be consequences, and 
significant consequences. We can save lives by that. And the McCain 
amendment just adopted includes my provision dealing with high-speed 
police pursuits and incentives for more training and uniform policies. 
I think that is a step forward.
  Second, the Lautenberg amendment, which I am pleased to support, and 
I hope will have the support of a majority of Members in the U.S. 
Senate. I understand that some can quibble here or there about .08 or 
.10 or .12--this, that, or the other thing. I do not think anyone will 
quibble with the statement made earlier today by one of my colleagues 
in which he asked the question: Would you like to put your son or 
daughter in a car with someone who had four drinks in the last hour and 
has a .08 blood alcohol content?
  Under current law, that person is not drunk. But is that the car you 
would like your son or daughter in? I think not. Mr. President, .08, I 
am told, relates to the blood alcohol content of a man roughly 170 
pounds who has had four drinks in an hour.
  In this country, we license people to drive. No one in this country 
should be empowered to drive and drink at the same time. It can turn an 
automobile into an instrument of murder and does every 30 minutes, 
causing someone else to die on America's roads and streets because 
someone decided to drink alcohol and drive.
  We have had incentive programs previously dealing with drunk driving. 
Some have worked, some have worked a bit, some have worked well, and 
some have not worked at all. The Senator's amendment is very simple. 
The proposition of this amendment is to say that our road programs in 
this country are national programs. We know they are national because 
we come here and talk about roads being a national priority. Even the 
smallest, the most remote, and the least populated areas of our country 
have roads because those roads allow people to get from one place to 
another.
  Yes, my State is a smaller State, and less populated, but as they 
move frozen shrimp and fresh fish from coast to coast, guess what? They 
truck that through North Dakota, and we need roads in all parts of our 
country to have a first-class economy. A country with a first-class 
economy needs good infrastructure, and that means good roads.
  Because roads represent a national priority and are a national 
program, it seems to me perfectly logical to understand that anyone 
driving in this country ought to have some assurance that they are not 
going to run into someone coming down the other lane who is driving in 
a jurisdiction or a State where they are told it's OK to have .10 or 
.12. No one in this country should expect to meet someone at the next 
intersection, in the next State, or the next county where the driver is 
drinking. So I am going to support this amendment that calls for a 
national standard of .08.
  Let me tell you about the other amendment I am going to offer 
following this amendment, which I hope my colleagues will support as 
well.
  Mr. President, did you know there are five States in this country 
where you can put a fist around a bottle of whiskey and the other 
around the steering wheel, and you are perfectly legal? There is not 
one jurisdiction in America where that ought to be legal--not one city, 
one county, one township where it ought to be legal for anyone to get 
behind the wheel of a car and drink. Five States now allow that.
  Over 20 States allow, if not the driver to drink, the rest of the 
people in the car to have a party. They can get plenty of whiskey and 
plenty of beer, and they can go down the road and have a great old 
party. Over 20 States say that is fine, as long as the driver doesn't 
drink, and in five of them the driver can drink as well. There is not 
one jurisdiction that ought to allow that.
  My amendment has the same sanction as the amendment proposed by the

[[Page S1247]]

Senator from New Jersey. It simply says that every State in this 
country, because we have a national roads program, that as drivers, we 
can expect some uniformity in treatment across this country when we are 
driving up to the next intersection. We should expect that no one we 
will meet in this country is going to be legally empowered to drive the 
vehicle and drink in the same set of actions.
  I will offer that on the floor. I offered it previously several years 
ago, about 3 years ago, and I missed having that amendment adopted by 
three votes--only three. I don't know how many people have died because 
we didn't do that, but some. I don't know their names. But some 
families have gotten the call, families like the wonderful family of 
the Senator from Ohio and others in this Chamber, the Bumpers family--
Senator Bumpers, who several years ago gave one of the most eloquent 
speeches on the floor of the Senate about the tragedy in his family.
  Families have gotten that call because we didn't do what we should 
do. We should, as a country, decide that there are certain and 
significant sanctions for those who drink and drive and that we can 
expect on a national basis that everywhere you go in America, 
everywhere you drive a car, you will not only have a .08 standard, but 
you will have some assurance that you are not going to meet at the next 
intersection or on the next county, State, or even township road 
someone who is drinking and driving.
  Someone said earlier today that you have a right to drive in this 
country, but you ought not to have a right to drive and drink. I 
attended a ceremony today that the Senator from New Jersey and the 
Senator from Ohio attended and heard the statement by a young woman who 
had just lost her 9-year-old daughter in the not-too-distant past. She 
spoke again of the tragedy that her family experienced because someone 
else decided they were going to drink and drive.
  To close this discussion, I want to say this. It is one thing for us 
to come to the floor of the Senate and talk about devoting resources, 
energy, and effort to try to do something about something we are not 
certain how to cure. This is not some mysterious illness for which we 
do not know the cure. We understand what causes these deaths, and we 
understand how to stop them.
  Mothers Against Drunk Driving, God bless that organization and the 
people who every day in every way fight to make things better on this 
subject. And we have made some progress. We have made some improvement. 
But we can do much, much better. We are not near the standard that many 
of our European allies and our European neighbors have adopted on these 
issues, saying to people: ``Understand this about drinking and driving. 
If you are going to be out and you have a vehicle, you better not be 
drinking, because the sanctions are tough. If you get picked up for 
drunk driving, you are in trouble.''
  That is what this country ought to say as well. Have a designated 
driver, take a taxi, do any range of things, but understand as a 
country that we take this seriously and we intend to do some things on 
the floor of this Senate in this piece of legislation to say to the 
American people: We care about this issue, and we can save lives in a 
thoughtful manner without abridging anyone else's right.
  I do not know who said it today--perhaps it was the Senator from 
Ohio--that you have a right to get drunk, I guess, in this country, but 
you do not have a right to get drunk and drive. That ought to be a 
message from the .08 amendment, and I hope from my amendment that 
follows, that this country says that to everyone living here and 
everyone intending to drive in the future. Mr. President, I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have said several times tonight that the 
opportunity for those who wish to speak against this amendment is now. 
No one showed up to speak against the amendment. Therefore, I have been 
yielding time to the proponents of the amendment. We have the Senator 
from Washington who wishes to speak in support of the amendment for 
about 10 minutes, and then after the conclusion of that, I will yield 
an additional 3 or 4 minutes to the Senator from Ohio. Then it is my 
intention to close up shop here and put the Senate out.
  So, I do not know how much time we have left.
  How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 31 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. CHAFEE. So, anybody who wants to speak against the amendment, now 
is the time, or they will be relegated to tomorrow where there will be 
half an hour to speak against it. So I yield the Senator from 
Washington such time as he needs, maybe 10 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Ten minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last week, when I was first informed of 
the proposal by the Senator from New Jersey, I was torn. I agreed 
totally with his philosophy, but I also have a great deal of respect 
for the States and for their legislatures that, of course, have full 
jurisdiction over this problem. Many States have acted, and other 
States are in the process of acting.
  Over the weekend, however, I ceased to be pulled in two separate 
directions on this subject by a remarkable article directly on point in 
the Sunday Seattle Times.
  I would like to share with my colleagues some of that article. Then 
at the end, I will place the entire news story in the Record. The news 
story was on a great success story in American society, the reduction 
in automobile deaths. While it deals with the State of Washington, I am 
certain that it is of relatively universal application, to a greater or 
lesser extent, all across the United States.
  An early paragraph in the article reads:

       The numbers are clear: The state's roads are not just a 
     little safer in the 1990s than in decades past, they're much 
     safer. You're a lot less likely to be in an accident than in 
     earlier times. And if you are in one, you're less likely to 
     be seriously injured or killed.
       Last year, there were 1.3 deaths for every 100 million 
     miles driven on Washington's roads and highways. In 1953, as 
     far back as comparable statistics are available, the figure 
     was four times higher--at 5.1 deaths per 100 million miles.

  Incidentally, Mr. President, 1953 was the year in which I moved to 
the State of Washington straight out of school. So our roads are now 
four times safer than they were in 1953.
  The article goes on to speak about causes for this remarkable social 
success, and says:

       Dr. Fred Rivara, director of Harborview Medical Center's 
     Injury Prevention and Research Center, says the long-term 
     improvement is ``clearly due to a combination of a lot of 
     factors''--safer cars, high seat-belt use, air bags, a 
     gradual reduction in drunken driving, construction of 
     interstate highways and improved trauma care for the 
     seriously injured.
       Moffat, of the Traffic Safety Commission, identifies 
     freeway construction as ``the single most significant safety 
     factor'' because interstates are roughly three times as safe 
     as other roads and city streets. . . .

  They go on to say--and it is relevant directly to the amendment of 
the Senator from New Jersey--

       With the freeways built, the traffic-safety focus shifted 
     to drunken driving and the simple defensive measure of 
     encouraging drivers to use their seatbelts.
       ``Organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving 
     deserve a lot of credit for bringing that about,'' says 
     Rivara. ``They succeeded in changing public attitudes about 
     drunk driving.''
       One result has been a renewed effort in Olympia to pass 
     tougher drunken-driving laws. One bill would lower the blood-
     alcohol concentration for driving under the influence to 0.08 
     percent from 0.10 percent. . . .

  Precisely what the Senator from New Jersey proposes.

       The state's death rate essentially has remained at its 
     record-low level for the past six years. Further improvement 
     will require a renewed focus on drunken drivers and seat-belt 
     use, Moffat says, because at this stage ``belts and booze are 
     the secrets of success.''
       Figures from the National Highway Transportation Safety 
     Administration clearly indicate part of the problem. 
     Nationwide, alcohol played a role in about 41 percent of 
     traffic deaths in 1996. . . . In California, the figure was 
     40 percent and in Oregon, 42 percent.
       But in Washington, alcohol was involved in fully half of 
     all traffic fatalities. Furthermore, NHTSA figures show that 
     the influence of alcohol in traffic deaths hasn't dropped 
     nearly as much in Washington as it has nationally or in 
     California and Oregon.
       Moffat, a Seattle policeman for 25 years before moving to 
     the Traffic Safety Commission in 1995, is convinced that 
     tougher

[[Page S1248]]

     drunken-driving laws are the key to safer roads. Oregon and 
     California both have them, and they work, he says. Moffat 
     estimates that similar legislation here would cut fatalities 
     by at least 10 percent.
       ``What that means in real terms is 70 fewer deaths'' each 
     year, he says.

  Now, Mr. President, that, in one State, is what we are discussing 
here in this amendment. In the State of Washington, with roughly 2 
percent of the population of the United States of America, 
approximately 70 fewer traffic deaths per year.
  Now, that figure may be smaller in some States that already have the 
.08 standard. I suspect it may be larger in those whose drunken-driving 
laws are less significantly enforced.
  But, Mr. President, this brings it down to the basic level of 
individual deaths in individual parts of our country. I found that 
article to be overwhelmingly persuasive. I trust that the legislature 
of my State will in fact pass a law which is now halfway through the 
legislative process. But to encourage strongly, to encourage every 
State to do exactly the same thing is the key to fewer traffic deaths.
  We are not dealing with unknowns here. We are not dealing with 
predictions. We are dealing with now a history, a history of more than 
40 years of keeping track of traffic deaths in my State, a four-times 
reduction in traffic deaths. And now we have an opportunity to reduce 
them by another 10 percent, perhaps more than 10 percent through this 
action.
  It is, Mr. President, action that we ought to take and ought to take 
promptly.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the entire news 
article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Seattle Times, March 1, 1998]

                   State's Roads Are The Safest Ever

                             (By Tom Brown)

       Forget road rage, rampaging sport-utility vehicles and 
     tailgating semis.
       Despite those and two more-serious road hazards--drunken 
     drivers and failure to buckle up--driving in Washington is 
     safer than it has ever been.
       The numbers are clear: The state's roads are not just a 
     little safer in the 1990s than in decades past, they're much 
     safer. You're a lot less likely to be in an accident than in 
     earlier times. And if you are in one, you're less likely to 
     be seriously injured or killed.
       ``When we're frustrated by some civic problems, this is one 
     where we're actually making progress,'' says John Moffat, 
     director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.
       This progress gets overlooked amid reports of pistol-waving 
     road-ragers and horrific accidents such as one last month in 
     Bothell in which three people died when a van was crushed 
     between two trucks and exploded in flames.
       Last year, there were 1.3 deaths for every 100 million 
     miles driven on Washington's roads and highways. In 1953, as 
     far back as comparable statistics are available, the figure 
     was four times higher--at 5.1 deaths per 100 million miles.
       Despite a big increase in population and a jump in the 
     number of miles driven in the state, the actual number of 
     people who die annually in traffic accidents has declined 
     over the past 20 years.
       The last time more than 1,000 people died on Washington 
     roads was in 1979. Last year, there were 663 traffic deaths, 
     even though 73 percent more miles were traveled on 
     state roads than in 1979.
       One of the most striking aspects of the traffic record is 
     that the major measures of safety--death rate, serious-injury 
     rate and collision rate--have all either declined or held 
     steady despite worsening congestion and the consequent driver 
     frustration that leads to occasional violence.
       In the past decade, while the central Puget Sound region 
     was establishing its reputation as one of the most-congested 
     driving areas in the country, both the state's traffic-death 
     rate and serious-injury rate have declined by about 50 
     percent.
       Dr. Fred Rivara, director of Haborview Medical Center's 
     Injury Prevention and Research Center, says the long-term 
     improvement is ``clearly due to a combination of a lot of 
     factors''--safer cars, high seat-belt use, air bags, a 
     gradual reduction in drunken driving, construction of 
     interstate highways and improved trauma care for the 
     seriously injured.
       Moffat, of the Traffic Safety Commission, identifies 
     freeway construction as ``the single most significant safety 
     factor'' because interstates are roughly three times as safe 
     as other roads and city streets. The first major decline in 
     the state's traffic-death rate coincided with the replacement 
     of Highway 99 by Interstate 5 as the state's north-south 
     arterial in the 1960s.
       More recently, the new Interstate 90 Floating Bridge also 
     has helped cut the death toll, Moffat says. The original 
     bridge across Lake Washington, which sank in 1990, had an 
     awkward bulge in the middle where it opened occasionally for 
     shipping. It also had reversible lanes during rush hours.
       These features produced six or seven deaths a year, Moffat 
     says, while traffic deaths on I-90's two new bridges are 
     rare. He estimates the new bridges, alone, have saved about 
     70 lives in the past decade.
       With the freeways built, the traffic-safety focus shifted 
     to drunken driving and the simple defensive measure of 
     encouraging drivers to use their seat belts.
       The first major legislative shots in the state's war on 
     drunken driving were fired in 1979, when traffic deaths 
     peaked at 1,034. Since then, the death rate has plummeted by 
     nearly two-thirds, from 3.6 to 1.3 per 100 million miles.
       ``Organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving 
     deserve a lot of credit for bringing that about,'' says 
     Rivara. ``They succeeded in changing public attitudes about 
     drunk driving.''
       Celebrated cases also have galvanized people to act. One 
     such case was the death last year of Mary Johnsen of 
     Issaquah, who was struck and killed by a van driven by a 
     repeat drunken driver while walking along a residential 
     street with her husband.
       ``I don't know that Mary Johnsen's death was inherently any 
     more tragic than any of the 300 other drunk-driving deaths 
     last year, but it touched a lot of people,'' says Moffat.
       One result has been a renewed effort in Olympia to pass 
     tougher drunken-driving laws. One bill would lower the blood-
     alcohol concentration for driving under the influence to 0.08 
     percent from 0.10 percent. Another would allow authorities to 
     impound and forfeit the vehicles of drunken drivers.
       The state's death rate essentially has remained at its 
     record-low level for the past six years. Further improvement 
     will require a renewed focus on drunken drivers and seat-belt 
     use, Moffat says, because at this state ``belts and booze are 
     the secrets to success.''
       Figures from the National Highway Transportation Safety 
     Administration (NHTSA) clearly indicate part of the problem. 
     Nationwide, alcohol played a rule in about 41 percent of 
     traffic deaths in 1996 (1997 figures are not yet available). 
     In California, the figure was 40 percent and in Oregon, 42 
     percent.
       But in Washington, alcohol was involved in fully half of 
     all traffic fatalities. Further more, NHTSA figures show that 
     the influence of alcohol in traffic deaths hasn't dropped 
     nearly as much in Washington as it has nationally or in 
     California and Oregon.
       Moffat, a Seattle policeman for 25 years before moving to 
     the Traffic Safety Commission in 1995, is convinced that 
     tougher drunken-driving laws are the key to safer roads. 
     Oregon and California both have them, and they work, he says. 
     Moffat estimates that similar legislation here would cut 
     fatalities by at least 10 percent.
       ``What that means in real terms is 70 fewer deaths'' each 
     year, he says.


                       more of us use seat belts

       Despite more drunks on the road, Washington's highway-death 
     rate is substantially below the national average, which was 
     1.7 per 100 million miles in 1996. That's because more 
     drivers here use their seat belts--about 85 percent, Moffat 
     says, compared with an average of about 60 percent 
     nationally, a figure that varies widely from state to state.
       In Washington, of those who die in auto accidents, only 35 
     or 40 percent have their seat belts on.
       ``Some accidents are going to kill anyway,'' Moffat says. 
     But in a potentially fatal crash--defined as two vehicles 
     colliding head-on at 35 mph or an auto hitting a solid object 
     at 60 mph--seat belts raise the chances of survival to 50 
     percent.
       Moffat concludes that of the 60 percent or so who die 
     unbelted each year, half could save themselves with this 
     simple, two-second maneuver. That would be perhaps another 
     150 lives saved.
       But as Rivara notes, those most at risk for fatal 
     accidents--the intoxicated and young, male drivers--are the 
     least likely to use seat belts.
       As for road rage, it's no laughing matter--particularly for 
     those who have been shot at or otherwise threatened. But 
     statistically, it is a minuscule contributor to highway-
     safety problems, and Moffat suggests that residents keep 
     their focus on more fundamental concerns.
       ``When I look at 330 drunken-driving deaths, that is a 
     tremendous problem,'' he says. ``Road rage doesn't even raise 
     the needle.''

  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, does the Senator from Ohio wish a few 
minutes. I say to the Senator from Ohio, how much time would you like?
  Mr. DeWINE. Ten minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. All right, fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Ohio is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague and thank the Chair.
  This amendment has received a great deal of attention from the 
editorial boards across this country. I would like just to read 
excerpts from several of them because I think their reasoning is quite 
good.
  Let me cite first the Austin American Statesman, October 30:

       Let's say it one more time: DWI laws don't have a thing to 
     do with prohibition,

[[Page S1249]]

     partying, or Puritanism. They aren't intended to interfere 
     with anyone's right to drink alcohol socially or 
     antisocially, responsibly or irresponsibly, in vast or 
     moderate quantities. The law just asks drinkers not to 
     operate heavy machinery on the States' roads and highways 
     while under the influence of alcohol.

  The Baltimore Sun:

       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.

  And they end up:

       Four drinks in one State makes you no less drunk than four 
     drinks in another State. The abundant evidence justifies a 
     national response.

  The Omaha World-Herald:

       Yes to a national drunk driving law. Congress uses the 
     threat of withheld funds too often, in our opinion, to force 
     its will upon the States. In this case, however, the States 
     would merely be required to set an intoxication standard that 
     reflects research on how alcohol affects driving.

  That is the Omaha World-Herald, October 29.
  The Wall Street Journal said this:

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

  The Toledo Blade:

       Complaints from the beverage industry that the new limits 
     would target social drinkers and not alcoholics are 
     ridiculous and dangerous. All that matters is whether the 
     person behind the wheel has had too much to drink. Whether he 
     or she is a social drinker is irrelevant.

  Finally, New York Newsday:

       It should be obvious that cracking down on drunk driving is 
     an urgent matter of health and safety. The attack is not 
     against drinking; it's against drinking and driving.

  Mr. President, my colleagues have said it very, very well. My 
colleague from North Dakota a few moments ago said it well. He says it 
is not complicated. It is not complicated how you reduce auto 
fatalities. This is an easy way to save lives. And this is a way that 
will save lives.
  At 10:30 tomorrow morning we are going to have a chance to do 
something very simple. We are going to have the chance to come to this 
floor and cast a yes vote on this amendment. It is one time when we 
will know the consequences of our act. And the consequence of that act, 
if we pass this, if it becomes law, will be simply this: Fewer families 
will have their families shattered, fewer families will have their 
lives changed forever. That is what the loss of a child or loss of a 
mother or father to drunk driving does--it changes your life forever.
  We will save some families from that tragedy. We will never know who 
they are. They will never know. But we can be guaranteed that we will 
have done that and done that much tomorrow morning. This is a very 
rational and reasonable proposal. I say that because it sets the 
standard at .08.
  I will repeat something I said a moment ago--and I am going to 
continue to state it because I think it is so important --and that is: 
No one, no expert who has looked at this believes that someone who 
tests .08 has not had their driving ability appreciably impaired. No 
one who has looked at this thinks that someone who tests .08 should be 
behind the wheel of a car. If any of my colleagues who might be 
listening doubt that, tonight or early tomorrow morning--we all know 
police officers; we all know people who have been in emergency rooms; 
we all know people who have seen DUIs and who know who they tested--
pick up the phone and call one of your police officers.
  Pick up the phone and call a member of the highway patrol who may 
have picked up someone, who has picked up probably dozens of people who 
have been drinking and driving, and ask them if, in their professional 
opinion, they think someone who tests .08 or above has any business 
being behind the wheel of a car. I will guarantee you, the answer will 
be unanimous.
  The fact is, the more someone knows about the subject, the more 
adamant they will be about that. I became involved in this issue a 
number of years ago when I was an assistant county prosecuting 
attorney. One of my jobs was to prosecute DUI--DWI cases we used to 
call them in those days.
  I can tell you from my own experience, someone who tests .08--and I 
have seen the videotape, as they say. I have seen the replays. I have 
seen the tapes that are taken right before the person takes the test. 
And I have compared those videotapes where you can see the person 
staggering, you can see the person's speech slurred, you can see their 
coordination impaired. I compared that with the tests. I will tell you 
from my own experience in observing, a person at .08 absolutely, no 
doubt about it, should not be behind the wheel.

  Look what other countries have done. Senator Lautenberg showed the 
chart. Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Austria, all at .08 or below. 
This is a rational and reasonable thing to do. It is reasonable, as 
Ronald Reagan said, to have some minimum national standards that assure 
highway safety.
  We live in a country where we get in a car and we think nothing of 
crossing one, two, three, four, five State lines, and we do it 
literally all the time. There ought to be some national standard, some 
floor, some assurance when you put your child in a car, when you get in 
the car with your wife and your loved ones, some assurance that 
whatever State you are in, wherever you are driving, that level is .08. 
That is a rational floor. It is a rational basis.
  Again, despite all the scientific evidence, despite all the 
arguments, still there are some who would say this bill is an attack 
against social drinkers; this amendment will mean if I have two beers 
and a pizza I will not be able to drive. That is simply not true. All 
the scientific data, all the tests, all the anecdotal information tells 
us that is simply not true.
  Let me again go back and repeat what the scientific data shows. It 
shows that when a male weighing 160 pounds has four drinks in an hour--
it takes four drinks on an empty stomach in an hour for that adult male 
at 160 pounds to reach the .08 level. I don't think anyone believes 
that person should be behind the wheel, and I don't think there is 
anyone in this Chamber who will turn their child over to that person.
  Mr. President, again we will have the opportunity tomorrow to save 
lives. I urge my colleagues to cast a ``yes'' vote on the Lautenberg-
DeWine amendment. It will, in fact, save lives.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President, we have made valiant efforts to get 
the opponents of this measure here. We have given them every chance in 
the world. They have not shown up. Any opponents who want to speak will 
have half an hour tomorrow to speak.
  I therefore propose that we close shop here.

                          ____________________