[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 20 (Wednesday, March 4, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1297-S1298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     THE LAUTENBERG-DeWINE AMENDMENT REGARDING BLOOD-ALCOHOL LEVELS

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as I understand the amendment, it would 
require States to enact the .08 alcohol content legislation instead of 
the present, I think, .10 level of alcohol to be considered drunk. That 
has to be done by September 30, 2000. Noncompliant States would lose 5 
percent of highway funding on October 1, 2000, and then 10 percent 
thereafter. Currently, 15 States already have the .08 level of alcohol 
content to be considered drunk in drunk driving cases.
  Mr. President, I think we should encourage people not to drink. We 
should encourage all people not to drink excessively. We should do all 
that we can to get the States to pass the lower level of .08. I support 
that. We need to combat the problem of drunken driving.
  I understand the tragedy and the ravages of people that drink and 
drive. My father was killed in just such an accident. So this is not an 
issue that I take lightly. But I will oppose this amendment. This is a 
typical Federal Government attitude--not to encourage you to do right, 
not to say if you do the right thing, there will be incentives in it 
for you; no; you do it our way, or we will punish you; you will lose 
funds if you don't do it the way we say. Some people say President 
Reagan did the same thing. Yes, and I opposed it then, too.
  I am very much opposed to alcoholism and drinking and driving. But 
for us to stand here and pontificate about how you must do it our way, 
that this is the solution, or we are going to take your funds away, 
what about poor States like mine where people are killed every week 
because of bad roads, potholes in the roads, dangerous bridges? What 
about safety? If a State, for whatever reason, by mistake or obviously 
for the wrong reasons, doesn't do it, we take a big chunk of money away 
from them. Is that going to save lives? No. As a matter of fact, it may 
lead to more lives being lost.
  So while I know this is well-intentioned, and while I support the 
intent or the goals of this legislation, the idea that we are going to 
punish States because you don't do it our way I think is the wrong 
thing to be doing. I hope my colleagues will think about this very, 
very seriously before they cast a vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Will the able Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

[[Page S1298]]

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend our able majority leader on 
his statement and the position he has taken in this matter. I am sick 
and tired of the Federal Government trying to dictate to the States and 
threaten to withhold funds if the States don't do what the Federal 
Government wants. Let us take a stand here today to show that the 
States have their rights and will not be invaded by the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota----
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, when we go back on the bill, we will have 
an hour, equally divided, and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey 
isn't here, who controls that time, but let's get started here.

                          ____________________