[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 21 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S1381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1173, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1173) to authorize funds for construction of 
     highways, for highway safety programs, and for mass transit 
     programs, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill with a modified 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (Amendment No. 1676.)
  Pending:

       Chafee Amendment No. 1684 (to Amendment No. 1676), to 
     provide for the distribution of additional funds for the 
     Federal-aid highway program.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would say to all within listening 
distance that we are anxious to move forward with this legislation. If 
individuals have amendments, if they will bring them over and discuss 
them with us, we may be able to accept them, but we certainly will be 
able to give the proponent a place in line so we can move forward with 
getting this legislation disposed of. So, we are very, very anxious to 
get on with these amendments. Perhaps we can enter into time 
agreements, but at least we can move forward. There is a mass of 
amendments out there, and it is discouraging to be here with nothing 
going on, in a quorum call, when potentially those amendments could be 
taken up.
  I thank the Chair, and now the Senator from New Mexico is ready to 
go, and that is encouraging.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Mexico is recognized to offer an amendment on which there shall be 30 
minutes of debate, equally divided.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me begin by first asking unanimous 
consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Dan Alpert, who 
is a fellow on my staff, during the pendency of S. 1173 and any votes 
thereon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to use 7\1/2\ 
minutes of the proponents' time and Senator Byrd from West Virginia be 
allowed the remaining time allotted to the proponents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1372]]

                Amendment No. 1696 to Amendment No. 1676

   (Purpose: To encourage States to enact laws that ban the sale of 
       alcohol through a drive-up or drive-through sales window)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and 
     Mr. Byrd, proposes an amendment numbered 1696.

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

       On page 236, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 14____. BAN ON SALE OF ALCOHOL THROUGH DRIVE-UP OR 
                   DRIVE-THROUGH SALES WINDOWS.

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

     ``Sec. 154. Ban on sale of alcohol through drive-up or drive-
       through sales windows

       ``(a) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2000.--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, 2000, 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, 2001, 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 
     (including a regulation) that bans the sale of alcohol 
     through a drive-up or drive-through sales window.
       ``(b) Period of Availability; Effect of Compliance and 
     Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Period of availability of withheld funds.--
       ``(A) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2002.--Any 
     funds withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment to any 
     State on or before September 30, 2002, 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, 2002.--No funds 
     withheld under this section from apportionment to any State 
     after September 30, 2002, 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 
     lapse.
       ``(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), the State does not meet the requirements 
     of subsection (a)(3), the funds shall lapse.''.
       (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. Ban on sale of alcohol through drive-up or drive-through sales 
              windows.''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the problem of drunk driving has been 
discussed here for a day or two now. It is clear to all of us that this 
problem is one that wreaks a terrible toll on our communities, a 
terrible toll on the young people of this country. One statistic that I 
cited yesterday, and that I think should be of concern to all of us, is 
that the single largest cause, the greatest cause of death among our 
young people between the ages of 15 and 20 is driving-related 
accidents. That is something we need to all be concerned about. Most of 
those accidents--so-called accidents--relate to alcohol.
  A significant contributor to the problem, I believe, is the sale of 
liquor through drive-up or drive-through windows. We all hear speeches 
and give speeches about how we do not believe we should combine 
drinking and driving. That is sort of a common refrain throughout our 
country and has been for many years. But if you want to know the time 
and the place and the circumstance where that mixing most obviously 
occurs, it is when a person drives a car up to a liquor store that has 
a drive-up window and that person sitting in the car as the driver of 
that car buys liquor or alcoholic beverages. Allowing the sales through 
these drive-up windows has the practical effect of preventing effective 
enforcement of many of our other laws. It also sends completely the 
wrong message to the driver and the public about refraining from 
drinking and driving. Let me give three examples.
  Under a law which has been adopted in virtually every State, it is 
against the law to sell liquor to a minor. In fact, we put that on the 
highway bill several years ago. We put a requirement in that States 
prohibit the sale of liquor to minors and, in fact, prohibit the sale 
of liquor to anyone less than 21 years old.
  But any young person or any law enforcement officer will tell you 
that sales to minors are still common in our country. A main way in 
which minors are able to purchase liquor and alcoholic beverages is by 
presenting a false ID to someone who is selling them liquor through a 
drive-up window. It is virtually impossible for a clerk selling through 
a drive-up window to see clearly who is buying the liquor, to make a 
good comparison between an identification which may be false in the 
first place with the person who is sitting there offering them money. 
So, having these drive-up liquor sales makes it easy for sales to 
minors to occur, in violation of the law.
  It is also, of course, against the law in most States to sell to 
someone who is already intoxicated. Again, having sales of liquor 
through drive-up windows makes it very difficult to enforce this law. 
How can a clerk in a drive-up window tell whether the person sitting in 
that car, offering money, is in fact intoxicated or not? You contrast 
that with the opportunity that a clerk has when a person has to walk 
into a store, a well-lighted store, walk up to a counter, and pay for 
alcoholic beverages.
  A third example of a law which is difficult to enforce because of 
these drive-up liquor windows is that most States make it illegal for 
people to drink while they are driving or to have open containers in 
the car while it is in operation. Senator Dorgan is proposing an 
amendment, which I strongly support this morning, on that very issue. 
But, again, having drive-up windows creates a tremendous opportunity 
and even an invitation to people to violate this law.
  The absurdity of what we are permitting to occur by allowing these 
drive-up sales to continue is highlighted by a practice that has been 
documented in my State many times, and that is a practice where a 
driver pulls into a drive-up window and asks for a fifth of vodka, for 
example, a fifth of vodka and a cup of ice, and is handed both and 
drives away. Clearly, no law has been violated in my State when that 
occurs. But if you look at the time and the place and the circumstances 
of that purchase, it is very difficult to conclude that that driver 
does not intend to violate the law and to drink while driving.
  This is a problem that deserves our attention. The statistics that we 
have are clear that there is a correlation between the States that 
prohibit these drive-up windows and those that have gotten their DWI 
problem under control. There are 26 States that have not yet banned 
these windows. In these States, there is a 14 percent higher alcohol-
related fatality rate than in other States. In the States that do have 
a ban, the average DWI fatality-related rate was 4.6 per 100,000 people 
as opposed to 5.46 in other States. If we look at the 19 Western 
States, the 9 States with a ban had a 31 percent lower average drunk 
driving fatality rate than the 10 States that permit sales.

  Let me just cite one terrible incident that occurred in my State. I 
know Senator Lautenberg talked about the Frazier family in Maryland and 
the pain they experienced when their

[[Page S1373]]

young daughter was killed by a drunk driver. In New Mexico, we've had 
many similar occurrences. One in particular that immediately comes to 
my mind occurred on Christmas Eve, 1992. As part of their holiday 
celebration, Paul Cravens took his wife Melanie and their three 
daughters, Kacee, age 5; Erin, age 8; and Kandyce, age 9, to 
Albuquerque's West Mesa so they could get a better bird's eye view of 
the city's fantastic nighttime lights. They never got to see those 
lights. On the way to the Mesa, they were met head-on by a drunk driver 
traveling 90 miles an hour in the wrong direction on the interstate 
highway.
  People say, is there any kind of Federal concern about this? This was 
an interstate highway. Melanie and her three beautiful daughters were 
all killed. The driver of the other vehicle had been drinking through 
that day. He admitted that he had bought his beer at a drive-up liquor 
window before he took to the road that evening.
  The problem is real. We are talking about real people, real lives, 
real risks and dangers that we can prevent and can avoid.
  The argument about States' rights that we have heard here, to me, 
rings very hollow. I know there are many circumstances that have 
already come up where we have recognized the need to restrict the way 
States handle alcoholic beverages as part of a safe driving system, and 
clearly those issues can be discussed more as we get through the 
debate.
  I just want to add one other point that I believe is significant 
here. As I've said before, the problem of DWI and DWI-related injuries 
and fatalities is important in New Mexico. There is very broad public 
support to eliminate these windows. When I was in New Mexico two weeks 
ago, I held a series of seminars with high school students from 
throughout the state, and I listened to their concerns about the 
problems in the state and in the country. One young man, Simon 
Goldfine, who is a student at Del Norte High School in Albuquerque, 
agreed that the DWI rate in New Mexico is much too high, and one reason 
he explained is these drive-up windows. Simon explained that if a drunk 
person has to walk into a liquor store, it will be easier to determine 
if he is drunk than if he simply sat in his vehicle. And Simon asked if 
something could be done to eliminate these windows. Today, I would like 
to tell Simon that we will do something about it. I believe no one in 
America will disagree with Simon that this ban will make a difference. 
I believe we owe it to everyone, to the young people like Simon and 
especially the people who have been touched and pained by this problem 
of DWI to pass this amendment.
  Mr. President, I gather my time has expired. Let me yield the rest of 
the time to Senator Byrd and thank him for his support of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, the 
offeror of this amendment, for yielding me time.
  I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island would assure 
me of an additional 5 minutes if I need it?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. We can assure the Senator of that. We will even take 
it--by unanimous consent add the time, or else we will take it from the 
opponents' side, if they do not come prepared to speak.
  Mr. BYRD. I trust there will be no interruption of my statement until 
the 7\1/2\ plus the 5 have run their course, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so note.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman has brought to the 
attention of the Senate a new and deadly twist on the idea of 
convenience stores. He has discussed the existence in some States of 
stores that sell alcohol at drive-up windows. That is simply amazing to 
me, a store that sells alcohol at a drive-up window.
  How can we take seriously any campaign to reduce the dangers of 
drinking and driving, while at the same time allowing sales of 
alcoholic beverages to people in their cars! It is crazy. I am sure 
that these drivers will, of course, always, personally, follow the 
guidelines to ``wait until you get home to drink these alcoholic 
beverages!'' I am just as sure of that as I am sure that everyone who 
buys take out food at a drive through window waits until they are 
safely off the highway before trying to eat a dripping burger or a hot, 
salty french fry, while simultaneously steering a three thousand pound 
automobile through traffic!
  I applaud the action being taken by my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Bingaman, to ban these alcoholic beverage sales at drive-up 
windows. There is no reason to take the concept of convenience to this 
extreme. I have been on the face of this beautiful Earth for a little 
over 80 years now, and I have seen a lot of new conveniences come into 
my life, but I can adamantly admit that this is not one that I welcome. 
I want to be able to enjoy life for many more years, and I do not want 
the prospect of a long life put into jeopardy so that some boozehound 
or drunk driver can have great convenience insatiating his or her 
desire for alcohol without even having to leave the car! There are just 
some things in this life that should not be easy to obtain--things that 
should not be so convenient. Easy access to alcohol means easy access 
to drinking and driving, and that is something to which I am vehemently 
unalterably opposed.
  The existence of this kind of easy-on, easy-off establishment only 
increases the potential for drunk drivers to purchase alcohol. An 
intoxicated person, sitting in a car, can easily avoid attracting the 
attention of the sales person by fiddling with the radio or finding 
some other type of distraction, thus preventing the sales clerk from 
noticing that the driver is inebriated, maybe even drunk. Observation 
of customers for clues to their sobriety, or lack thereof, is much 
easier if the customer has to park, get out of the car, and walk into 
the store.
  My strong opposition to establishments which offer drive-up alcohol 
sales is not only limited to my fear of drunk drivers, but also to the 
potentially illegal sale of alcohol to minors. The pitfalls of youth 
and inexperience behind the wheel of an automobile are only exacerbated 
when one throws alcohol into the equation. One question that comes to 
mind is: How does an employee at this type of alcoholic beverage store 
adequately make the comparison between a driver's identification and 
the person sitting in the car presenting that ID? That person is 
sitting in a car! This potential drunk driver could be 5 foot 10, he 
could be 5 foot 7 while his or her identification card might identify 
the person as a six-footer.
  Mr. President, I believe that in order to make a sound decision to 
sell alcohol to a person, the customer should be standing before the 
sales clerk, presenting the necessary documentation, and showing the 
essential sober characteristics that are legally required for that 
person to purchase alcoholic beverages.
  I am all in favor of making life more convenient. It is nice to have 
the liberty of going to a Quik-Mart when you need to purchase a candy 
bar pick-me-up, or for that gallon of milk that your family needs for 
breakfast the next day. But, I do not believe in making it more 
convenient for drunk drivers, potential drunk drivers, or our underage 
youth or anybody else, for that matter, to purchase alcohol. It is this 
type of convenience that can make life very inconvenient for the 
responsible individuals, families, wives, children, our staff people 
and other travelers who make the conscious decision to ``cruise without 
booze!'' Allowing this type of alcohol sales establishment is a leap 
backwards in the campaign against drunk driving.
  I fully support Senator Bingaman's amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I think of an old poem by Joseph Malins. I hope that I can recall it. 
I think it is very fitting here. It makes the whole point that Senator 
Bingaman's amendment is trying to accomplish:

     Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
     Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
     But over its terrible edge there had slipped
     A duke and full many a peasant.
     So the people said something would have to be done,
     But their projects did not at all tally;
     Some said, ``Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,''
     Some, ``An ambulance down in the valley.''

     But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,

[[Page S1374]]

     For it spread through the neighboring city;
     A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
     But each heart became brimful of pity
     For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff;
     And the dwellers in highway and alley
     Gave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence,
     But an ambulance down in the valley.

     ``For the cliff is all right, if you're careful,'' they said,
     ``And, if folks even slip and are dropping,
     It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much,
     As the shock down below when they're stopping.''
     So day after day, as these mishaps occurred,
     Quick forth would these rescuers sally
     To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,
     With their ambulance down in the valley.

     Then an old sage remarked: ``It's a marvel to me
     That people give far more attention
     To repairing results than to stopping the cause,
     When they'd much better aim at prevention.
     Let us stop at its source all this mischief,'' cried he,
     ``Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally;
     If the cliff we will fence we might almost dispense
     With the ambulance down in the valley.''

     ``Oh, he's a fanatic,'' the others rejoined,
     ``Dispense with the ambulance? Never!
     He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could;
     No! No! We'll support them forever.
     Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall?
     And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he?
     Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence,
     While the ambulance works down in the valley?''

     But a sensible few, who are practical too,
     Will not bear with such nonsense much longer;
     They believe that prevention is better than cure,
     And their party will soon be the stronger.
     Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen,
     And while other philanthropists dally,
     They will scorn all pretense and put up a stout fence
     On the cliff that hangs over the valley.

     Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old,
     For the voice of true wisdom is calling,
     ``To rescue the fallen is good, but 'tis best
     To prevent other people from falling.''
     Better close up the source of temptation and crime
     Than deliver from dungeon or galley;
     Better put a strong fence round the top of the cliff
     Than an ambulance down in the valley.''

  I hope my colleagues will vote today to put a strong fence around the 
edge of the cliff, because that is all that is going to work.
  I commend my colleague for his foresight, for his courage, and for 
his good sense in offering this amendment. I thank, again, the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, what is the time situation for the 
opponents and proponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the proponents has expired. The 
Senator from Rhode Island controls 11 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I will say to anyone who wishes to oppose this amendment, 
who wishes to speak in opposition, now is the time to come over to 
speak. As has been pointed out, there are 11 minutes remaining.
  I will make a couple of comments, Mr. President.
  Senator Bingaman's amendment would withhold 5 percent of a State's 
highway construction funds, unless the State enacted or enforced a law 
prohibiting drive-through liquor sales by--it is my understanding the 
date now has been changed to October 1, 2000; am I correct in that?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we are changing it to 2001, October 1, 
2001. I think it will be consistent with the amendment adopted 
yesterday.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Originally, it was 1999, but now it has been changed.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I will make that correction, 2001.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will just add, it is 2001, October 1, 
2001, for a 5-percent reduction and October 1, 2002, for a 10-percent 
reduction, just as the amendment yesterday.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, like the Senator from New Mexico, I am 
disturbed by the incidents of alcohol-related injuries and fatalities 
on our highways, as we all are. I believe the Federal Government should 
support strong national safety standards for our roads and, indeed, I 
was a sponsor of the Lautenberg amendment. In our bill, we have 
provisions dealing with the so-called repeat offender.
  I am not sure the Senator's amendment is an appropriate solution to 
the problem of drunk driving. We cannot expect it to do everything, 
obviously. I have concerns about how much it will accomplish. It does 
place, as originally offered--there was a short time period. That has 
now been extended. Less than 22 of the States have such a law in 
effect. It will require them to pass this legislation by--the latest 
figure now is 2001.
  I am not sure whether such a sales ban would have an impact on 
alcohol-related deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration has no statistical information on the effectiveness of 
such a sales ban. Indeed, we have not considered this measure at all in 
our committee.
  It is a steep sanction, the 5 and the 10 percent. I think it is one 
we ought to approach with great caution. I must say, I am a little 
reluctant to have this bill too filled with sanctions. We have our 
provision in the bill already; namely, the one dealing with the repeat 
offender. We have the provision that was adopted in the Lautenberg-
DeWine amendment. And then we have another amendment coming up from the 
Senator from North Dakota, which also has sanctions. I am just 
reluctant to get in too many sanctions, and the only way they can avoid 
these sanctions is for the State legislatures to take certain actions 
by a period, in this instance, by 2001.
  I think we are putting a lot on the backs of the State legislatures 
in a relatively short time. So I have concerns over that, Mr. 
President.
  If anybody wishes to speak in opposition to the amendment, now is the 
time. If not, I give that time to the proponents. If the Senator from 
New Mexico wishes to speak, he can take some time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, thank you. I thank the chairman of the 
committee for his courtesy.


                    Amendment No. 1696, As Modified

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be modified in accordance with the changes that have been 
referred to by the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 236, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 14____. BAN ON SALE OF ALCOHOL THROUGH DRIVE-UP OR 
                   DRIVE-THROUGH SALES WINDOWS.

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

     ``Sec. 154. Ban on sale of alcohol through drive-up or drive-
       through sales windows

       ``(a) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2000.--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 
     (including a regulation) that bans the sale of alcohol 
     through a drive-up or drive-through sales window.
       ``(b) Period of Availability; Effect of Compliance and 
     Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Period of availability of withheld funds.--
       ``(A) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2002.--Any 
     funds withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment to any 
     State on or before September 30, 2002, 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, 2002.--No funds 
     withheld under this section from apportionment to any State 
     after September 30, 2002, 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.

[[Page S1375]]

       ``(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 
     lapse.
       ``(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), the State does not meet the requirements 
     of subsection (a)(3), the funds shall lapse.''.
       (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. Ban on sale of alcohol through drive-up or drive-through sales 
              windows.''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe Senator Byrd made the case for 
the amendment more eloquently than I could.
  I believe this is a very good opportunity for us to indicate that we 
do have an interstate road system in this country and that it is in the 
national interest to be sure that people are not driving on that 
interstate road system who have purchased liquor under circumstances 
that make it more likely for them to be drunk or under the influence of 
alcohol. Clearly, this is a significant way in which we can further 
that objective.
  I hope very much my colleagues will support the amendment. I yield 
the floor so that the Senator from North Dakota can offer the amendment 
that he intends to offer.
  Mr. CHAFEE. How much time do we have left, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island controls 6 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It does not appear that there is anybody who chooses to 
come to speak in opposition.
  Does the Senator from New Mexico have others who wish to speak?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we do not at this point.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Let me just say again, Mr. President, I am concerned 
about the number of sanctions we would be adding to the States under 
this. I have grave concern whether we might well have a backlash. We 
had a very solid vote on stern sanctions involved in the Lautenberg-
DeWine amendment. There are sanctions in the underlying bill we have 
dealing with repeat offenders. There are sanctions in the legislation 
that the Senator from South Dakota is going to propose immediately. So 
I am worried that there could well be a backlash in the States and 
particularly, when we go to conference, that the attitude might be to 
just dispose of all of these sanctions. So that is the concern that I 
have.
  There being no others who wish to speak, I yield back the remainder 
of our time and am prepared to go to the Dorgan amendment at this time, 
unless the Senator from New Mexico has anything further to say.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I think that is an acceptable course of action. Thank 
you, Mr. President.
  Mr. CHAFEE. All right. I will do that, Mr. President. We are prepared 
now to go to the Dorgan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized to offer an amendment in which there will be 
60 minutes of debate equally divided.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


                Amendment No. 1697 to Amendment No. 1676

 (Purpose: To withhold certain Federal highway funds from a State that 
     fails to prohibit open containers of alcoholic beverages and 
   consumption of alcoholic beverages in the passenger area of motor 
                               vehicles)

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

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] for himself, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
     Glenn, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. 
     Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1697.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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____. OPEN CONTAINER LAWS.

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

     ``Sec. 154. Open container requirements

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Alcoholic beverage.--The term `alcoholic beverage' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 158(c).
       ``(2) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means a 
     vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured 
     primarily for use on public highways, but does not include a 
     vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.
       ``(3) Open alcoholic beverage container.--The term `open 
     alcoholic beverage container' has the meaning given the term 
     in section 410(i).
       ``(4) Passenger area.--The term `passenger area' shall have 
     the meaning given the term by the Secretary by regulation.
       ``(b) 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, 2002, if the State does not have in 
     effect a law described in 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 have in effect 
     a law described in paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(3) Open container laws.--
       ``(A) In general.--For the purposes of this section, each 
     State shall have in effect a law that prohibits the 
     possession of any open alcoholic beverage container, or the 
     consumption of any alcoholic beverage, in the passenger area 
     of any motor vehicle (including possession or consumption by 
     the driver of the vehicle) located on a public highway, or 
     the right-of-way of a public highway, in the State.
       ``(B) Motor vehicles designed to transport many 
     passengers.--For the purposes of this section, if a State has 
     in effect a law that makes unlawful the possession of any 
     open alcoholic beverage container in the passenger area by 
     the driver (but not by a passenger) of a motor vehicle 
     designed, maintained, or used primarily for the 
     transportation of persons for compensation, or to the living 
     quarters of a house coach or house trailer, the State shall 
     be deemed to have in effect a law described in this 
     subsection with respect to such a motor vehicle for each 
     fiscal year during which the law is in effect.
       ``(c) 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 (b) 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 (b) from apportionment are to 
     remain available for apportionment to a State under paragraph 
     (1)(A), the State has in effect a law described in subsection 
     (b)(3), the Secretary shall, on the first day on which the 
     State has in effect such a law, apportion to the State the 
     funds withheld under subsection (b) 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 (b) from 
     apportionment are available for apportionment to a State 
     under paragraph (1)(A), the State does not have in effect a 
     law described in subsection (b)(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. Open container requirements.''.


[[Page S1376]]


  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to apologize. I said the Senator 
from ``South Dakota,'' and I was wrong. He is very much from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island is--it 
is Rhode Island, isn't it? The Senator from Rhode Island is a very 
generous friend, and a lot of folks get that ``North'' and ``South'' 
mixed up. But North Dakota is very distinct from South Dakota. I do not 
have the time to describe all of the reasons today, but even Lewis and 
Clark, nearly 200 years ago, understood that difference because they 
decided, when they had to spend the winter someplace, they would go a 
little farther north and spend it in North Dakota.
  In any event, I have an amendment that I offer today, an amendment 
that I think is very important. I want to describe it very briefly, and 
I think others will come to the floor to support this amendment.
  Three years ago I offered an amendment nearly identical to this, and 
I lost by two votes in a vote on the floor of the Senate. I regret that 
that happened. It is the way the legislative process is--sometimes you 
win, sometimes you don't; sometimes the vote is close, sometimes it 
isn't.
  I feel very strongly about this amendment for a lot of personal 
reasons and also very strongly because of policy reasons. The amendment 
deals with the ability of people in this country to drive down a road 
in America and drink while they are driving, or if not having the 
driver drink, having passengers in the vehicle drinking while the 
driver is driving on.
  Most people are surprised to learn that there are five States in 
America where it is perfectly legal to put one hand around the neck of 
a whiskey bottle and the other on a steering wheel, start the engine 
and drive off, and you are violating no laws.
  It is very surprising for people to hear that in some parts of the 
country, when you take your family on a vacation, you may cross a 
border where in that next State you have someone driving down the road 
drinking whiskey, drinking beer, and they are perfectly legal.
  With all due respect to the States in which that occurs, that ought 
not be legal anywhere in America. It ought not be legal anywhere, any 
time or under any conditions in this country. We ought to expect in 
this country when we drive on our road system--and it is a national 
road system--no matter where we drive, no matter what city, what 
county, what township, what State we are driving in, we ought to be 
able to expect that at the next intersection we are not going to meet a 
vehicle that has a driver that is drinking legally while he is driving 
or while she is driving.
  We ought not expect that in the 22 other States, where it is not 
legal for the driver to drink but it is perfectly legal for the rest of 
the passengers in the car to be having a drinking party, we ought not 
expect to meet a car in that circumstance either.
  My amendment is very simple. It would, as many States have done, 
provide that all States shall have a prohibition on open containers. 
Very simple--a prohibition on open containers. This will not apply to 
vehicles for hire and commercial vehicles and so on. But you would 
expect then, if this legislation passes, that no matter where you drive 
in this country, at the next road or intersection or city or county you 
are not going to meet a vehicle that is full of people drinking, 
including the driver.
  Very simple. It says the States must enact laws that prohibit open 
containers. Many States do. Most States do. Some States do not. You all 
must. There is a sanction here. The sanction is designed not to 
penalize the State. It is designed to say to States, you must pass a 
prohibition on open containers.
  I have described on the floor--and I shall not this morning--the 
telephone call I received the night my mother was killed by a drunk 
driver. Every family in this Chamber knows of someone, a close friend, 
perhaps a relative, an acquaintance who received that telephone call. 
My colleague from Ohio, regrettably, received that telephone call about 
his daughter. My colleague from Arkansas received that telephone call. 
But it is not just us; 17,000 families receive those telephone calls. 
And 17,000 families received that telephone call last year.
  This is not some mysterious illness for which we do not know a cure. 
We know what causes this and we know how to stop it. We have to decide 
in this country that drunk driving is serious business and there are 
several important steps to take to stop it. This legislation, this 
amendment, is one.
  Mr. President, I am proud today that others will join me. The Mothers 
Against Drunk Driving strongly supports this amendment. The Advocates 
for Highway Auto Safety has sent to all my colleagues a letter strongly 
supporting this amendment. Senators Lautenberg, Bumpers, Conrad, 
Wellstone, Glenn, Bingaman, Inouye, Torricelli, and Reid are some of 
the cosponsors of this amendment. I know the chairman of the 
subcommittee has voted for it in the past.
  I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, for a 
statement on this. I very much appreciate his willingness to come to 
the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his fine work 
in this area.
  I rise today, Mr. President, to strongly support the amendment. You 
know, in the past several decades we in this country have made 
tremendous progress in the war against drunk driving. But we have seen 
in the last several years a retrenchment in that. Let me cite the 
statistics that show this.
  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
NHTSA, alcohol-related traffic fatalities dropped from 24,050 in 1986 
to 17,274 in 1995. That was a 28 percent decrease in drunk driving 
tragedies over a decade. I think we, as a nation, can take a lot of 
pride in this. But, unfortunately, from 1994 to 1995, alcohol-related 
fatalities rose 4 percent--the first increase in over a decade.
  I believe we must now act to reverse this disturbing trend by 
reinforcing our commitment and the statement that we make through our 
laws that drinking and driving simply will not be tolerated.
  Yesterday, the Senate took the first step in doing just that. We 
passed an amendment which would make .08 blood alcohol content the law 
of the land, a law which I believe the statistics clearly show will 
save between 2,500 and 3,000 lives over the life of the ISTEA 
reauthorization.
  Today, Mr. President, we can take another step in the right 
direction. Currently, 22 States allow individuals in a car to be 
drinking while the vehicle is in operation. And even more shockingly--
even more shockingly--there are five States where it is perfectly legal 
for the driver of a car to drink while at the same time operating the 
motor vehicle.

  Mr. President, common sense should tell us that this is not a good 
idea. We should be in the business of making it more difficult to drink 
and drive, not encouraging liquor in cars.
  Mr. President, this amendment speaks to what message we send through 
our laws. When we pass drunk-driving-related legislation, our goal is 
not to have more people arrested, our goal is not to have more people 
pulled over; our goal is to deter conduct. That has been the effect of 
drunk driving laws. That is why the fatality level has gone down. That 
is why lives have been saved, because people have been deterred. We 
sent messages to ourselves, to the rest of the country, the people, 
through our laws, what is important and what is not important.
  What kind of a message is it when we say it is OK to have open 
containers of alcohol in a car? In some locations in this country it is 
OK for a driver to be going down the road, driving with one hand and 
holding a beer in the other. What kind of a message is that?
  So I think what the Dorgan amendment does and its greatest value is 
as a deterrent effect. It will help get us back on track. We made 
progress. We have had steady progress for the last 15 or 20 years in 
reducing the auto fatalities caused by drinking and driving. It has 
only been in the last several years that that trend has been reversed.
  Passage of the Dorgan amendment, while it is a relatively simple 
amendment--and it might not seem that it is a huge deal--I think it is 
a big deal because it sends the right message. It says, ``No, it's not 
OK to have alcohol in a car. It's not OK to be drinking and

[[Page S1377]]

driving. And it's not OK to drive down the road with a beer in one hand 
and your other hand on the wheel of a car.''
  I think there are certain minimum standards that should apply whether 
you are driving in North Dakota or on a highway in Indiana or Kentucky 
or wherever you take your family. I think we all have, as parents, the 
right to think that, when we put our family and our loved ones in a 
car, no matter where we are going on vacation or where we are 
traveling, there are some minimum standards that will be followed.
  One of the minimum standards, it seems to me, that is eminently 
reasonable and infringes on no one's rights, is a minimum standard that 
simply says, ``No, you cannot have open containers of alcohol in a car. 
And, no, you cannot be driving that car and at the same time drinking 
alcohol.'' It is that simple.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very, very modest and very 
sensible amendment.
  I yield the floor and thank the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his 
support on the amendment. He has been a strong supporter of this kind 
of legislation. As he indicates, this is not intruding on someone's 
basic right to do certain things.
  I do not believe that most people in this country would say, ``We 
think it's an inherent right on a national road system for any American 
citizen to drink and drive at the same time.''
  I hope very much that those who I know are concerned about this issue 
of drunk driving and concerned about the some-17,000 people who are 
killed, 17,000 fatalities each year as a result of alcohol-related 
accidents, I hope they will join us.
  I know that there are some in this Congress who are sympathetic to 
this issue but believe very strongly that it is something that belongs 
to the States. I certainly respect that feeling, except that I believe 
there are some basic standards that we must assert ourselves on. We 
have done that, for example, on some safety issues such as standards on 
roads.

  How do you build a road to make sure it is standard? We decide there 
is a certain standard, so we don't run from one State to another 
finding roads built without any safety characteristics. We have 
standards for that.
  The same is true with respect to safety relative to drunk driving. 
All we are saying is that we don't think there ought to be anywhere in 
this country where people in a vehicle are drinking while they are 
driving down the road. Or the rest of the folks, four other people in 
the vehicle, are not passing around a bottle of peppermint schnapps or 
a bottle of Jack Daniels and a six-pack of beer, having a fine party, 
while the automobile is being driven down the street. That is not what 
we should expect on our roads and streets in this country.
  Mr. President, as I mentioned, I offered this amendment 3 years ago. 
I lost by two votes. I then switched my vote so I could have it 
reconsidered later. I was unable to do so. The record will show it was 
a four-vote loss, but, in fact, I lost this amendment by two votes. I 
don't know what the vote will be this morning. I expect it will be very 
close. I hope those who decided to join yesterday in the .08 national 
standard will also decide today this modest step, as it is described by 
Senator DeWine, and others, this modest step, is one that is a step in 
the right direction.
  I will use just a couple of minutes to describe some statistics about 
drunk driving. I know others have used some data to describe the amount 
of drunk driving and the amount of casualties on America's roads 
because of it. In 1996, the last year for which we have complete data, 
there were 17,272 alcohol-related fatalities. That is an average of one 
every half hour. In February of 1995, the U.S. Secretary of 
Transportation convened a conference in Washington, DC. He did so to 
discuss future goals for reducing deaths and serious injuries on 
America's highways due to alcohol-related deaths. That conference was 
called Partners in Progress. It established a goal of reducing drunk 
driving deaths to no more than 11,000 per year by 2005. That is a lot 
of highway deaths but substantially below the current level of some 
17,000-plus deaths as a result of alcohol-related accidents. Mr. 
President, 11,000 is a far cry from where we are.
  We must--and I think we have in this Senate--begin to take steps to 
address the issue and see if we can't meet this goal. One step was 
yesterday with the .08 standard. The second step, I hope, will be today 
with a proposition that I offer that says we should not allow, anywhere 
in this country, people who are driving automobiles to be drinking, and 
we should not allow open containers of alcohol in vehicles in this 
country.
  The Senator from Ohio said something very important. The drunk 
driving legislation that we are offering in the Congress is not offered 
in a design to try to catch people, arrest people and throw people in 
jail. It is offered as a design to try to encourage people that it is 
wrong to drink and drive. Don't think about it; don't try it; the 
penalties are severe. We are not looking to go out and arrest people 
and throw people in jail. We are looking to change people's behavior 
and habits.
  Mothers Against Drunk Driving, an organization I mentioned earlier, 
is a remarkable organization. It has done a substantial amount of work 
in recent years to deal with this issue. Frankly, a substantial amount 
of progress has been made. State legislatures, Mothers Against Drunk 
Drivers, and others, have led the way to make some substantial changes. 
I, today, want to congratulate that organization and commend them for 
the work they have done. As they indicate in their letter to all 
Members of Congress, the job is not nearly complete and there are more 
steps to take, one of which we took yesterday, and one of which I hope 
we will take this morning. The one I am asking the Congress to take is 
the simplest of all of these steps and it is to say that when you look 
at what is happening around this country, State by State, you 
understand that the job is not done. In too many regions of this 
country there are people driving their vehicles, drinking while 
driving, and they are perfectly legal; in too many other States, others 
are drinking in those vehicles and that, too, is legal.
  Mr. President, I notice the Senator from New Mexico has risen. I will 
reserve the balance of my time if he wishes to assume the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wondered if I might just be permitted 
to use 3 minutes for three amendments that will be accepted?
  Mr. DORGAN. Of course. I certainly agree to that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We won't interrupt in the Record anything that you have 
been doing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from New 
Mexico?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we yield time from the opponent's side.


                    Amendment No. 1387, as Modified

   (Purpose: To encourage the Secretary of Transportation to use the 
   national laboratories in carrying out the research and technology 
                                program)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am sending to the desk amendment No. 
1387, which is currently filed, and I want to send to the desk a 
modification of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment will be set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for himself and 
     Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 1387, as 
     modified.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       Beginning on page 339, strike line 11 and all that follows 
     through page 341, line 16, and insert the following:
       ``(ii) in cooperation with other Federal departments, 
     agencies, and instrumentalities and multipurpose Federal 
     laboratories; or
       ``(iii) by making grants to, or entering into contracts, 
     cooperative agreements, and other transactions with, the 
     National Academy of Sciences, the American Association of 
     State Highway and Transportation Officials, any Federal 
     Laboratory, any State agency, authority, association, 
     institution, for-profit or nonprofit corporation, 
     organization, foreign country, or person.
       ``(C) Technical innovation.--The Secretary shall develop 
     and carry out programs to facilitate the application of such 
     products of research and technical innovations as will 
     improve the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the 
     transportation system.

[[Page S1378]]

       ``(D) Funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as otherwise specifically 
     provided in other sections of this chapter--

       ``(I) to carry out this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     use--

       ``(aa) funds made available under section 541 for research, 
     technology, and training; and
       ``(bb) such funds as may be deposited by any cooperating 
     organization or person in a special account of the Treasury 
     established for this purpose; and

       ``(II) the funds described in item (aa) shall remain 
     available for obligation for a period of 3 years after the 
     last day of the fiscal year for which the funds are 
     authorized.

       ``(ii) Use of funds.--The Secretary shall use funds 
     described in clause (i) to develop, administer, communicate, 
     and promote the use of products of research, development, and 
     technology transfer programs under this section.
       ``(2) Collaborative research and development.--
       ``(A) In general.--To encourage innovative solutions to 
     surface transportation problems and stimulate the deployment 
     of new technology, the Secretary may carry out, on a cost-
     shared basis, collaborative research and development with--
       ``(i) non-Federal entities, including State and local 
     governments, foreign governments, colleges and universities, 
     corporations, institutions, partnerships, sole 
     proprietorships, and trade associations that are incorporated 
     or established under the laws of any State; and
       ``(ii) multipurpose Federal laboratories.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
Senator Bingaman and myself. Senator Bingaman's name is on the 
amendment as an original cosponsor.
  This permits research and technology programs within this bill. Under 
certain circumstances, it permits the Department of Transportation to 
use Federal laboratories if they have the expertise necessary. This 
amendment cites certain sections, saying that Federal laboratories can 
be used in that regard.
  I understand Senator Chafee has no objections.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator is right. We have no 
objections.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct. It seems to be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1387), as modified, was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1393, as Modified

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary to maximize the involvement of 
  Federal laboratories in carrying out the intelligent transportation 
                            system program)

  Mr. DOMENICI. I call up amendment No. 1393. I send the modification 
to the desk and ask it be immediately considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for himself and 
     Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 1393, as 
     modified.

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

       On page 389, line 4, insert ``the Federal laboratories,'' 
     after ``universities,''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman is a cosponsor.
  This says the Intelligent Transportation System Program can also be 
made available to the Federal laboratories if they have sufficient 
expertise to participate.
  Mr. CHAFEE. This amendment is agreeable to this side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. This side, as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1393), as modified, was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1698 to amendment No. 1676

   (Purpose: To provide a definition for the term Federal laboratory)

  Mr. DOMENICI. I send to the desk an amendment and ask it be 
immediately considered. It is cosponsored also by Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for himself and 
     Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 1698.

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

       On page 337, after line 6, the chapter analysis for chapter 
     5 of title 23, United States Code is amended by striking 
     ``501. Definition of Safety.'' and inserting ``501. 
     Definitions''.
       On page 338, strike lines 2 through 8, and insert the 
     following:

     Sec. 501. Definitions

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Safety.--The term `safety' includes highway and 
     traffic safety systems, research, and development relating to 
     vehicle, highway, driver, passenger, bicyclist, and 
     pedestrian characteristics, accident investigations, 
     communications, emergency medical care, and transportation of 
     the injured.
       ``(2) Federal Laboratory.--The term `Federal laboratory' 
     includes a government-owned, government-operated laboratory 
     and a government-owned, contractor-operated laboratory.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since we are now using the terminology 
``Federal laboratories,'' this amendment merely is the definition of 
Federal laboratories as understood in the U.S. Government. So it is not 
limited to any particular Department's laboratories but rather Federal 
laboratories and they are defined in this amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable to this side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. This side, as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1698), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the manager and the ranking Democrat.
  I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 1697

  Mr. DORGAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Senator 
Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend from North Dakota.
  I stand with Senator Dorgan as a cosponsor of his amendment to 
require States to adopt this so-called ``open container'' law. The law 
will have the practical effect of prohibiting a very dangerous 
scenario. Just think, it is currently legal in some States to be 
driving a car with an open bottle of whiskey alongside, or maybe stuck 
in the cup holder, just an arm's length away from the driver's lips. A 
car should not be a bar on wheels.
  Mr. President, with the passage of my amendment yesterday, .08, this 
body cast a vote in favor of drunk driving victims and their families. 
We can all be proud of that vote. Sixty-two Senators voted to inject a 
sense of sanity in our drunk driving laws, by defining a person as a 
drunk driver at .08 BAC. We don't want them to reach that level while 
they are driving a car.
  This amendment, the National Drunk Driving Prevention Act, is another 
critical amendment. It makes as much sense as the Zero Tolerance Act, 
passed in 1995, and .08 BAC. We have to do all we can to prevent drunk 
driving in this country. Isn't it, perhaps, obvious, that the least we 
should do, nevertheless, is to prevent the act of driving and drinking 
to be performed at the same time?
  We have heard, over the past few days, Mr. President, the extent of 
the national scourge that drunk driving is in our country. I remind 
those who can hear us, in 1996, almost 42,000 people were killed in 
highway crashes. Another 3 million were injured. These crashes cost 
society $150 billion each and every year. Forty-one percent of all 
traffic fatalities are alcohol related. That means that in 1996, 17,000 
people were killed in alcohol-related crashes. Think of what it means. 
That year, more people were killed in alcohol-related crashes by a 
significant measure than those killed by firearms, murdered. That year, 
more people were killed in alcohol-related crashes than were killed in 
the worst year of the Vietnam war, a war that tore this country apart. 
The public was in mourning.
  A death at the hands of a drunk driver is just as final as the death 
at the hand of a gun. Drunk driving deaths are preventable. Acting to 
stop drunk drivers from driving is sensible and responsible. We have to 
do more. We cannot rest on past laurels. A vote for the .08 BAC is not 
the only vote that will reduce drunk driving. Voting for this 
amendment, authored by the Senator from North Dakota, is just as 
important.

[[Page S1379]]

  Remember: When you are in your car, at the wheel, it is a driver's 
seat; it is not a bar stool.
  I commend the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership on this 
and his commitment to the issue. We have learned over these past few 
days that drunk driving has touched his family personally. I urge all 
my colleagues to support this amendment, the National Drunk Driving 
Prevention Act.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I say to any who wishes to oppose this 
amendment, now is the time. We are going to vote at 10:30 on this 
amendment, followed by the Bingaman amendment. So there is time 
reserved for opponents. Now is the time to come over and speak. I urge 
anyone who wishes to oppose this amendment of the Senator from North 
Dakota to come now.
  What is the time situation, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 25 minutes 
30 seconds and the Senator from North Dakota has 8 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Torricelli.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I am very proud to join the Senator from North Dakota 
in offering this amendment. In our Federal system, there is always a 
preference for State and local governments setting standards of health 
and safety for our citizens. By right, those judgments should be made 
in those levels of government closest to the people themselves. But 
there are instances where our State and local governments do not rise 
to those responsibilities to protect our citizens.
  Through the years, as our society changes, so, too, sometimes do the 
standards. We live in a highly mobile society, where in the course of 
any day, week, or month, citizens from any State in America can find 
themselves driving on the highways of another locality, in a different 
jurisdiction. Every Senator has the right and responsibility to know 
that in that travel, in the pursuit of commerce or recreation, their 
citizens are safe to some minimal standard. That, in my judgment, Mr. 
President, is what motivates the Senator from North Dakota today. It 
defies logic that in 22 States in this Union it is still legal for a 
passenger in an automobile on a highway to possess an open container of 
alcohol. And if that is not difficult enough to understand, it is 
unbelievable that in five States it is permissible, acceptable, it is 
legal for a person to have one hand on the steering wheel of a moving 
automobile and the other hand on a container of alcohol.
  Our preference for the States governing these issues cannot blind us 
to a responsibility to protect thousands of lives of our own citizens. 
I know that in this institution there are those who will not join with 
the Senator from North Dakota, but it is instructive that while some 
may vote against him, few, if any, will rise to debate against him, 
because the point cannot be defended.
  In any year in this country, about 17,000 people are losing their 
lives to alcohol-related traffic accidents. Drunk driving is the 
leading cause of death of all citizens in America from the age of 5 to 
25. There is an epidemic of death from drunk driving across this 
country. So if you are persuaded that there is a single reason to 
oppose this in deference to a State law, I offer to the Senate 17,000 
reasons why we have to meet our responsibility to the citizens of all 
50 States who want to travel with safety and confidence across our 
highways.
  To those who believe that this kind of legislative effort cannot be 
successful, the best evidence is that through the years our efforts 
against drunk driving have dramatically reduced the incidents of drunk 
driving themselves, except with a single category--hard-core drinkers. 
The casual drinker who drives has been persuaded to exercise caution 
and to live within the law. But the numbers for hard-core drinkers are 
staggering. Every weekday between 10 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., 1 in 13 
drivers in this country is drunk. Between 1:00 a.m. and 6 a.m., one in 
seven is drunk. It is those drivers, driving with alcohol in the 
automobile, with an open container sometimes in their own hands, that 
we are trying to prevent.
  Mr. President, I can think of no legislation that this Senate will 
consider in the coming weeks that more dramatically could ease the pain 
of individual American families and save lives than this legislation 
offered by Mr. Dorgan. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield my time back to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senator from Rhode Island 
is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment 
offered by my colleague from North Dakota. The terrible problem of 
drunk driving is certainly, as we all recognize, an issue of national 
importance. In 1996, more than 17,000 lives were lost on our Nation's 
highways as a result of alcohol-related collisions. This represents 
nearly half of all the fatalities that occur on our roads each year.
  The laws on how drinking and driving are treated vary from State to 
State. As mentioned previously, six States allow drivers to operate 
motor vehicles and drink alcohol at the same time. In over half of the 
States, even if a driver cannot drink, all the passengers in the 
vehicle can drink.
  Madam President, the sad thing is that drunk driving accidents are 
completely avoidable. There is not a single reason why the driver 
sitting behind the wheel of a car should be allowed to consume an 
alcoholic beverage.
  Now, Madam President, this isn't about freedom and States rights; it 
is about the rights of a driver against other drivers on the road. 
Shouldn't every individual have a right to travel safely on the 
highways? There is a lot of discussion here as to, ``Oh, leave it up to 
each State.'' Well, as we all know, in my State, you can go across the 
State in an hour and, clearly, you are either in Massachusetts or 
Connecticut very quickly. And so it is in most of the States. We travel 
from State to State freely. Very few people stay entirely within the 
borders of their own State all the time.
  So we have a right to know that when we go out of our State, if our 
State should adopt an amendment like this, we will be safe in the other 
States likewise. I believe the amendment of the Senator from North 
Dakota will save lives by keeping alcoholic beverages off the road. 
This is a workable and fair solution to the problem of open containers 
and the larger problem of drunk driving.

  Now, Madam President, we still have time in opposition to the 
Senator's amendment. But absent that, I would be glad to yield some of 
that time to the Senator from North Dakota, or whatever he chooses. We 
have previously committed to not go to a vote until 10:30. I would like 
to stick by that commitment, even though it might require some dead 
time here.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I will certainly yield back if Senator 
Chafee has somebody who wishes to speak in opposition. He has been very 
generous and courteous. I appreciate that.
  Madam President, let me read to the Senate a letter that I just 
received this morning from the Secretary of Transportation, Rodney 
Slater. It is dated today.
  He writes:

       Dear Senator Dorgan: Earlier this week, President Clinton 
     spoke strongly about the need to reduce the risk of drinking 
     and driving by calling on Congress to lower the legal limit 
     for blood alcohol content to .08 percent. Yesterday, the 
     Senate overwhelmingly agreed by passing the Lautenberg-DeWine 
     amendment. I applaud the Senate for supporting this measure. 
     Today, the Senate has the opportunity to approve another 
     amendment which will help fight drunk driving by voting to 
     prohibit open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles.
       In 1996, there were more than 17,000 alcohol-related 
     fatalities in this country. The amendment to be offered by 
     Senators Dorgan, Lautenberg, Bumpers, et al., will further 
     efforts to reduce the terrible loss of life on our highways 
     due to drinking and driving.
       I urge the Senate to support adoption of this important 
     highway safety provision.

                                                    Rodney Slater,
                                      Secretary of Transportation.

  Madam President, I indicated a bit ago that this amendment was 
offered by myself 3 years ago and I lost by two votes. I don't know 
what the vote is going to be today, but I hope that we will prevail 
with this amendment.
  The Senator from New Jersey noted that no one is speaking in 
opposition to this amendment, and the reason is quite simple: To oppose 
this amendment requires someone to come to the

[[Page S1380]]

floor of the Senate and say they support someone's right to drink and 
drive.
  To the extent that I support the States' rights to determine that 
they want laws allowing people to drink and drive, it requires someone 
to stand up and say: This amendment is wrong because I support the 
right of people to drink while they are driving.
  No one will come to the floor to say they support the right of people 
to drink while they drive in this country--for good reason. Almost all 
of us know that it's fundamentally wrong. Alcohol and automobiles don't 
go together. Alcohol and automobiles together represent, in too many 
instances, drunk driving and, therefore, murder and mayhem on our 
highways. There is one more dead every 30 minutes, and two dead during 
this very short debate. The carnage on our roads must stop and can if 
we decide as a Senate that there are things we can do in public policy 
to tell the American people not to even think about drinking and 
driving.
  Yesterday, we passed a measure that provides a uniform .08 standard 
for blood alcohol content. A 170-pound man would have to drink 4 drinks 
in 1 hour on an empty stomach to get to .08. This question was asked, 
and I think it is an important question: Would you like to put your 
children in an automobile driven by someone who has just had four 
drinks on an empty stomach in the last hour? Or do you think deep in 
the pit of your belly that would not be a safe thing to do with your 
children? I think I know the answer. Every American would answer that 
question saying, no, that is not where I want to put my children.
  I would ask the same question with respect to this amendment. Would 
anyone like to put their children in the automobile where, on the cup 
holder next to the driver for ready access as the driver drives, there 
is a can of beer or a bottle of bourbon, because it is legal to do it 
in some States? Would anyone want to put their children in the front 
seat or back seat of that car and think, gee, I feel pretty good about 
sending my kid on that drive? I don't think so. Would anyone want to 
put their child in the back seat of a car where, if the driver isn't 
drinking, all the other three passengers are drinking? I don't think 
so. I think most of us know the answer to that question. There is no 
vocal opposition to this amendment on the floor of the Senate, because 
you can't stand up here in the Senate and say that it makes sense to 
allow people in America to drink and drive.
  There was a little boy named Jesse--actually not so little, but kind 
of short. He was a wonderful boy with an infectious grin, one of the 
most well-mannered young people you would ever find in life. He was the 
son of my cousin in Mandan, ND. Jesse is dead now. Jesse went to a 
party the night before his high school graduation. Jesse was a good 
boy, but, unfortunately, he accepted a ride with the wrong person. At 
the end of that matter, he got into the passenger side of an automobile 
driven by a young man who was drunk, and about 2 minutes later they 
were hit by a train. Jesse died.
  Jesse was just one of those 17,700 people who become a statistic, but 
his life was important, he was important, and his death was a tragedy. 
Everyone here has those stories.
  I was in an automobile on the main street of Fargo, ND, one night 
with my daughter. She was driving, and a drunk hit our car. 
Fortunately, neither of us was injured. The car was totaled--total 
damage. And I remember my daughter weeping, sobbing uncontrollably, 
because we had been involved in this crash, and it was traumatic. But 
by God's grace, we weren't injured. The fellow who hit us was so 
incredibly drunk that he could not walk when he got out of the car. All 
he could do was fall. He was too drunk to walk. Every day, every night, 
every hour, all across this country, you will hear stories like that. 
People cause property damage, people are injured, people are killed, 
and it used to be that drunk driving meant someone would give someone a 
slap on the arm and a wink and a grin, and say, ``Well, I saw you in 
your pickup truck driving,'' sort of knowing well, ``Ah, shucks.''

  Fortunately, we have moved from that point to a point of better 
understanding that drunk driving in this country kills people. It is 
not funny. It is not acceptable. We have done a lot of things to reduce 
deaths by drunk driving in this country. But we have not yet done 
enough.
  The step we propose today to complement the step the Senate took 
yesterday is very simple. This amendment is not rocket science; this 
amendment is painfully simple. It says the following: In our country, 
as we wage the fight against the carnage on our road from drunk 
drivers, the simple step that must be taken is to say that no vehicle 
in this country should be driven by someone who is drinking, and no 
vehicle in this country should be traveling down America's roads with 
either the driver or the passengers having open containers of alcohol.
  That is so simple and so fundamental, and, yet, I expect will be the 
product of a rather close vote. And I regret that. Again, I respect 
everyone's interests, motives and reasons for voting, and, as I said, 
there are some who believe that the Federal Government has no business 
intruding into this area. It is the States' business. I say in many 
areas I agree with that. There are many things that are not the 
business of the U.S. Senate. They are not the business of the Federal 
Government. But there are some things that are.
  When we designed a national road system, we said the transportation 
and the free movement across this country on good roads and reliable 
roads and safe roads is part of that national system. How safe is that 
movement on roads for someone to load up a car with their children and 
their spouses and go on a family vacation, and then cross that next 
line and drive into that next State without much warning and without 
much thought in the back of your mind that at the next intersection in 
the next county you might meet someone who is drinking and driving--and 
it is legal--and that someone who might be drinking alcohol as he or 
she drives down the road might just miss that green light, turned 
yellow, then turn red, and come to that intersection and meet your 
family or meet your neighbor's family? That is what happens in this 
country. It happened in the last half hour and the half hour before 
that.
  I can't go to a meeting and ask the question of any group of 
representative people in this country, ``How many of you have been 
affected by drunk driving? How many of you have a relative, a friend, 
an acquaintance, how many of you know someone who has been killed by a 
drunk driver?'' You can't do that without having most of the hands in 
the room raised. That is the impact drunk driving has on our country.
  My amendment, as I indicated, is painfully simple. It does not 
attempt to say to the States, ``Those of you who do not have open 
container prohibitions, you are bad States.'' That is not what it says. 
It just says there is a national purpose and a national interest on 
this issue, and the national purpose and the national interest is that 
anyone driving anywhere, anytime in this country should be able to 
expect that the next vehicle they meet on the road is driven by and is 
occupied by people who are not drinking alcohol.
  Those of us who have visited with law enforcement people, who spend 
their days and nights on America's roads, have heard the stories of 
tragedy and horror by the folks we pay to keep the peace and to enforce 
our laws. I encourage anyone who has doubts about whether this issue is 
important to take some time and just sit down for a few minutes with 
the men and women of the police forces of our country and let them tell 
you what happens on our roads with those who are impaired from 
drinking. Let them tell you the tragedy that occurs virtually every day 
in every way on America's roads. Only then, I think, will those whose 
lives have not been touched by this tragedy understand that this is a 
national problem. It is not someone else's problem; it is our problem. 
This is a problem we can do something about, something real, something 
tangible, and something important.
  Madam President, the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, has come 
to the floor. I remember 3 years ago, when I offered this amendment, as 
I indicated the other day, I heard one of the most touching speeches I 
have ever heard on the floor of the Senate. His family has been visited 
with the awful tragedy of drunk driving as well. I am pleased he has 
come. I hope he will not

[[Page S1381]]

mind if I call on him immediately and ask him to consume as much time 
as he needs.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, let me thank first the Senator from 
North Dakota for his very kind remarks and for yielding to me 
immediately, because I do have a committee that I need to get back to.

  I have come to the floor every time I have had an opportunity for the 
past 23 years to express my moral and vocal support for legislation 
that has any potential for curbing drunken driving.
  I grew up in a devout Methodist household where, in a small town, 
drinking was absolutely forbidden. Everybody in town knew who drank. We 
didn't have anything but Presbyterians, Catholics, Methodists, and 
Baptists. The Catholics drank wine. We could not have wine at communion 
in the Methodist Church because the Methodist Church was adamantly 
opposed to any alcoholic beverage. So we drank grape juice at 
communion. But my mother, considering the fact, as I have said many 
times on this floor, that I grew up in a household where we were taught 
that when we died we were going to Franklin Roosevelt. My mother and my 
father thought he was the greatest man who ever lived. But my mother 
could not abide Eleanor Roosevelt because she had been accused--I am 
not sure, according to Doris Kearns' book, ``No Ordinary Time,'' what 
the real circumstances were. But, anyway, it was a widely held belief 
in this country that Eleanor Roosevelt had told young women how not to 
drink too much, which was, if you drink, you only have one drink, or 
drink in moderation. That was more than my mother could abide. She 
detested Eleanor Roosevelt until her dying day.
  The interesting thing about growing up poor in the South in those 
days was, as I say, most people couldn't afford to drink, even if they 
wanted to. But my mother and father, until the day they died, never--
either one--tasted alcohol in any form.
  So it was on March 22nd. I was a freshman law student at Northwestern 
University in Chicago. One Sunday evening somebody came in--there was a 
telephone booth down the hall in the dormitory--and said, ``Dale, 
somebody wants to talk to you. It is long distance.'' I went down. My 
sister's brother-in-law was on the phone saying my mother and father 
had been in an accident and he thought I should come home. He described 
it for me, and still it didn't really sink in. But, in any event, that 
was about 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening. I made arrangements to fly 
home the next morning. That was back when air traffic was almost 
nonexistent.
  But the sum and substance of the story, Madam President, was my 
mother and father and another couple had been out on a Sunday evening 
jaunt and had gone over to Oklahoma to look at the spinach crop on some 
land that my father owned. They were returning about dusk on a narrow, 
two-lane highway where I-40 runs today.
  So this drunk comes roaring over, sliding into my father's side of 
the road. And that is the end of the story. The woman, who was a 
friend, was killed instantly. My mother and father were taken to the 
hospital in Fort Smith, where my mother died 2 days later and my father 
died 6 days later.
  The interesting thing about that whole thing is--you can think of all 
kinds of interesting sidelights to a story like that--that the man who 
hit them had been run out of town in a small town. I believe it was 
Danville, AR. The sheriff told him to get out of town. He was drunk. So 
I don't know where he was heading. Some people said he was heading for 
California. And the State Police picked him up on the way. They didn't 
pick him up. They saw that he was drunk. The State trooper started 
chasing him, had a flat, and had to give up the chase.
  So here was a family as close as any family could be. Interestingly, 
my brother was himself in law school at Harvard. I believe he was a 
classmate of Senator Chafee. He was a sophomore at Harvard Law School. 
They didn't have semesters like they did at Northwestern. This was in 
March. Of course, he had to drop out of school. We both dropped out of 
school because we were so devastated. He lost the whole year and had to 
go back and take the whole year over because he was not there for final 
exams.
  I am taking up too much time, I see. I just want to say that ever 
since that tragedy happened in my household, I have done everything I 
could do, both here and as Governor of my State, to make sure other 
families were not devastated in such a way. I had always been opposed 
to the death penalty before that happened, and I had a tough time after 
that reconciling my position. I came down on the side of the death 
penalty later on because I couldn't make much of a distinction between 
a drunk driver killing my father and mother than I could if he had done 
it with a gun.
  When I have a chance to vote for an amendment like Senator Dorgan's, 
it is a pleasure. I compliment him for doing something that may--just 
may; no, it will--keep a lot of families from enduring the agonies that 
this close family, as close knit as any family ever, endured being 
totally destroyed in the blinking of an eye because of a roaring drunk.
  I am pleased that the Senator from North Dakota has asked me to come 
over and speak on it. It is my honor.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the majority 
leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have scheduled two more votes 
at approximately 10:30. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to use leader time just to make 
reference to the Budget Office report. I will use my leader time to 
make some brief remarks. I believe Senator Domenici, chairman of the 
Budget Committee, will want to respond also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.

                          ____________________