John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 320, S. Con. Res 60.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Wait a minute. I don't want you to get on with that. Judge Kane found there was a compelling interest.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have great affection for the Senator from Utah, but I don't greet his remarks with the enthusiasm that the Senator from Kentucky has. The truth of the matter, Mr. President, is that this is the wrong amendment, at the wrong time, in the wrong place. Why do I say this? This is a transportation bill that every single one of us in this Chamber knows is a very important and difficult bill. Trying to balance everybody's interest has been very, very difficult. There isn't a Senator in this place who doesn't know exactly how much his or her State was getting under ISTEA I, then how much under the first proposal of ISTEA II, and finally how much under these new proposals. And all of them want more. As I say, trying to satisfy all of these senators is very difficult. To come forward with an amendment like this doesn't help. It flies right in the face of an October 1997 letter sent to the majority leader by the Secretary of Transportation. In that letter, which was sent when we first brought up this bill last fall--and there have been no changes in his position since then--Secretary Slater talks about the President's view on this whole Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, or DBE, Program. He closed his letter by saying this: This critical effort to achieve equal opportunity must continue. Removal of the DBE program from S. 1173 would be a serious blow to our efforts to assure fundamental fairness to the citizens of this country. I would find it difficult to recommend ISTEA reauthorization legislation to the President for his signature that did not include the DBE program. This is a gentle way of saying, listen, folks, if you knock out the disadvantaged business enterprise section of S. 1173--which is exactly what the Senator from Kentucky is proposing to do--then there is going to be a veto of this legislation. I see the Senator from Utah here. If I could get his attention for a moment. Now, he spoke against the DBE provision of our bill. But my question is, why pick on the provision in our bill? It is my understanding that similar affirmative action language is contained in some 160 different federal statutes or regulations. The Senator from Utah chairs the Judiciary Committee--and certainly he is masterful in that role, with all the great powers that supposedly appertain to the chairmanship of a committee--and thus out of that committee comes legislation he wants and bottled up in that committee is legislation he doesn't want. I notice that the Senator from Utah now has before him, in his own committee, legislation to eliminate all federal affirmative action programs, not just this program. So I am asking him--don't pick on our little program here that we are desperately trying to get through. Imagine, here is an amendment that puts the whole bill under the threat of a veto if it is adopted. If the Senator wants to debate affirmative action at the federal level, I would say to him, go ahead and deal with that issue in your own committee. Don't pick on our program. I can't name all 160 federal affirmative action programs, but certainly there are Small Business Administration programs and many others that have special provisions for disadvantaged parties. So if the senator so wishes, go ahead and do a generic bill on eliminating affirmative action, and go ahead and have it out here on the floor. But I feel helpless here as you all come forward with a amendment like the one the senator from Kentucky has offered on our bill.

Mr. CHAFEE. I retract that word ``helpless.'' I feel frustrated. I am not totally helpless.

Mr. CHAFEE. Let me answer that quickly. There may be many arguments against the DBE, but I must say that your weakest one is this so-called unconstitutional argument. We all know about the constitutionality issue. In 1995, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Adarand v. Pena. In Adarand, the justices specifically said that federal affirmative action programs are not unconstitutional. As long as the programs meet a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored, then they can pass constitutional muster. Now, US District Judge Kane, to whom the case was remanded, ended up holding that part of the DOT regulations were unconstitutional on the grounds they were not narrowly tailored. But that is going to be corrected under the new regulations that are due out this spring. So as I say, of all your arguments, that really is the weakest. As a matter of fact, I will give you an opportunity to jettison that argument, if you want.

Mr. CHAFEE. The majority leader has informed me that there will be no more rollcall votes tonight. Second, I ask unanimous consent at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 6, the Senate resume the pending McConnell amendment regarding contract preferences and there be 90 minutes remaining for debate, equally divided between opponents and proponents, with 45 minutes of that time equally divided between Senators Baucus and Chafee, and at 11 a.m. on Friday, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the amendment, and no other amendments be in order prior to that vote. I further ask consent that if the amendment is not tabled, it be open to further amendment and debate.

Mr. CHAFEE

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. 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. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Wyden and Graham to improve the provisions of ISTEA II that establish an integrated decisionmaking process for surface transportation projects--the so-called NEPA streamlining provisions. ISTEA II includes a number of provisions designed to better integrate NEPA's requirements into the decisionmaking process for surface transportation projects. The intent was to provide for earlier consideration of environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act and to consolidate the permitting process for highway projects--a goal that we can all share. With the help of the sponsors of the original provisions, Senators Graham and Wyden, as well as others on the committee, I believe that we have reached agreement on a package of improving amendments to that language that will address concerns that have been raised by both the environmental community and the State transportation agencies. The amendment will, among other things: allow greater public access to key decision documents relating to surface transportation projects; provide for early consideration of alternatives that address transportation demand alternatives; and clarify that the state transportation planning process does not trigger NEPA. With these improvements, I believe that we have crafted a process that will indeed improve the decisionmaking process for surface transportation projects. Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been agreed to. It clarifies the integrated decisionmaking process for surface transportation projects. It has been worked out. It deals, to a degree, with the National Environmental Policy Administration Act provisions. We have all worked on it. I want to thank Senators Graham and Wyden for their fine work on this. It is a fine amendment. I know the Senator from Oregon is here. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I don't know where our errant brother is. We are ready. I think the ranking member makes a good point. We have been waiting. The agreement was that we were going to start at 12:30. In the famous words of the Senate, the Senator has been described as being ``on his way'' for the last 45 minutes. So I hope he will be here soon. I must say that I am thinking of, at quarter past, getting up and proposing--and that's 7 minutes from now--that all time after that be deducted from the proponents' side. Let's wait and see. I am going to make an effort to round up the Senator from Kentucky and see if we can't get started.

Mr. CHAFEE. I think now is a good time, I say to the Senator from Texas. She has an amendment that has been agreed to. Why don't we present that and dispose of that? Amendment No. 1703 to Amendment No. 1676

Mr. CHAFEE. Now, the amendment is adopted?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, March 5, 1998, at 4 p.m. for a business meeting. The agenda will be the approval of the Committee Report on the Special Investigation of Illegal and Improper Activities in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. How much time will the Senator from Minnesota need?

Mr. CHAFEE. I think we will have plenty of time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Do you want to speak now?

Mr. CHAFEE. We all know what ``moment'' means. If you want several moments, you go to it. As of now, I'm saying everybody come on over here with their amendments, all individuals come with their amendments, and hopefully we would like to have a vote by a quarter of 3. But because of the urging of the Senator from Florida, a few moments will get us along for a while. Please, all I would say to the Senator from Florida, a few moments really doesn't mean a meeting at 6 o'clock tonight.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned over the high incidence of highway fatalities in our country that involve alcohol. In 1996, more than 17,000 lives were lost as a result of alcohol- related collisions out of the 40,000 deaths overall in our country. So that is about nearly half. I believe that this measure will help reduce that. I understand the views of the opponents who think that it should be left to the States. But when you have a small State such as mine where there are people who are constantly going into the neighboring States, back and forth, it seems to me that in order to make our highways safer, and which obviously involves out-of-Staters, a law such as this is necessary. So I support it, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, and from Ohio, Senator DeWine, in support of the amendment to strengthen drunk driving laws throughout the Nation. I am very concerned about the safety of our nation's highways. I am particularly troubled by the high incidence of highway motor vehicle injuries and fatalities involving alcohol. The statistics are truly alarming. 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 the 40,000 fatalities that occur on U.S. highways every year. The real tragedy, however, is that drunk driving accidents are completely avoidable. This amendment would strengthen drunk driving laws across the country and dramatically reduce the number of fatalities attributable to driving while intoxicated. The amendment specifically targets those states that have not enacted a .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) drunk driving law. In 1997, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a report entitled ``Setting Limits, Saving lives: The Case for .08 BAC Laws.'' The report cited studies which indicate that virtually all drivers, regardless of skill, are significantly impaired at the .08 BAC level. At that level, basic driving skills such as braking, steering and speed control, as well as judgment, reaction time, and focused attention are adversely affected. Contrary to the claims of those who oppose this amendment, the .08 standard does not punish social drinking. To exceed the .08 limit, one would need to consume an excessive amount of alcohol. The NHTSA report includes an example. In order to exceed the .08 BAC level, a 170 pound male would need to consume more than four drinks in an hour, while a 137-pound woman would need to consume three drinks, the report indicates. Despite these statistics, 35 states still maintain the higher .10 standard before someone is considered legally drunk--and that puts many lives at risk. Drunk drivers not only risk their own lives, but the lives of every other motorist on the road. The .08 level is a sensible approach to preventing senseless tragedies on our nation's roadways. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma would like some time. And the opponents have 10 minutes?

Mr. CHAFEE. How much time remains?

Mr. CHAFEE. One minute for the opponents. I see no one prepared to take that time. If somebody from the proponents wishes to use it, with the understanding that as soon as an opponent appears they will yield-- --

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. All right.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 1998, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.