[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.
____________________