Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to temporarily reduce the rate of duty imposed on a fragrance additive with the chemical name of Benzenepropanal, 4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)- Methyl-. The chemical has a lily-like floral aroma and used in fragrances. My constituent who requested this duty reduction, Bush Boake Allen Inc. of Montvale, New Jersey, knows of no opposition to this legislation. The last United States manufacturer of this chemical, Givaudan-Roure, will cease all production of this additive by June 1998. I have drafted this legislation to ensure that it will not go into effect before July 15. Givaudan-Roure, which is also a constituent, knows of this legislation and the effective date, and does not oppose it. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Reducing the duties paid by American companies for products which have no American manufacturer keep our companies from being placed at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. In addition, these lower duties will benefit American consumers and business customers of Bush Boake Allen Inc. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to temporarily reduce the rate of duty imposed on a fragrance additive with the chemical name of Benzenepropanal, 4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)- Methyl-. The chemical has a lily-like floral aroma and used in fragrances. My constituent who requested this duty reduction, Bush Boake Allen Inc. of Montvale, New Jersey, knows of no opposition to this legislation. The last United States manufacturer of this chemical, Givaudan-Roure, will cease all production of this additive by June 1998. I have drafted this legislation to ensure that it will not go into effect before July 15. Givaudan-Roure, which is also a constituent, knows of this legislation and the effective date, and does not oppose it. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Reducing the duties paid by American companies for products which have no American manufacturer keep our companies from being placed at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. In addition, these lower duties will benefit American consumers and business customers of Bush Boake Allen Inc. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I'm pleased that the Senate confirmed the nomination of Judith M. Barzilay to a seat on the Court of International Trade. Over the past 16 years, Ms. Barzilay has had a unique mix of experiences that I believe will make her an excellent Judge on this most specialized court. I strongly supported her nomination. Ms. Barzilay has worked as an attorney in the field of international law for both the government and the private sector. In the private sector, she also worked as a manager and business advisor. Ms. Barzilay began her career in international trade law in 1983 as an attorney with the International Trade Field Office of the U.S. Justice Department in New York City. In that position it was her job to represent the U.S. Customs Service before the Court of International Trade on matters such as import classification and the valuation of imported goods. It was also her job to defend the legality of Customs' seizures and import prohibitions before the court. She also represented United States manufacturing interests in fair trade cases. In 1995, Ms. Barzilay was appointed by Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin to his advisory committee on Customs Service Operations and was recently reappointed for a second term. Currently, Ms. Barzilay is the Vice President of Government Affairs with Sony Electronics, where she handles such cutting edge trade issues as world standards for High Definition Television and the Information Technology Agreement. She also sits on the executive board of the American Association of Exporters and Importers and chairs its committee on trade policy. Ms. Barzilay's expertise in international law is well known and she has lectured before groups such as The National Association of Manufacturers, The Council on Logistics Management and the World Trade Association of Southern California. Although she has a busy professional life, Ms. Barzilay has always found time to do volunteer work in her community. She often speaks at local high schools, educating students on the importance of international trade. She also works as an advisor to the Bergen County, New Jersey, court system in an innovative program that tries to reduce repeat crime by putting juvenile offenders through mock trials. When you put it all together, Judith Barzilay will be a welcome addition to the Court of International Trade and I again applaud her confirmation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have risen on a few occasions before to pay tribute to a good friend and a man I much admire, Larry Doby. And I have excellent cause to do so again. Just last Tuesday, Larry Doby was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, not only for being a great baseball player, but also for being a person of outstanding character and drive. On July 5, 1947, Larry Doby became the first African-American to play in the American League with the Cleveland Indians, only 11 weeks after the famed Jackie Robinson stepped onto the major league diamond with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Because Robinson was the first African American to play professional baseball, Larry has often been overlooked as a deserving player of Hall of Fame status. But he is worthy of that distinction beyond the shadow of a doubt. I knew Larry when we were both students at Eastside High School in Paterson, N.J. He had already astounded all his observers by his exceptional skill in four sports--baseball, basketball, football and track. We would watch with envy and amazement as he won prize after prize in any of the sports in which he competed. All who knew him believed he would be successful. I was not surprised when he went to the Indians, only disappointed that it didn't happen sooner. He had to wait his turn, but then played with elegance and class. He waited his turn to enter the Hall of Fame, which he also did with same elegance and class. Mr. President, Larry Doby did more than play a good game of baseball in the major leagues. Larry swung at racism with every crack of his bat, opening the doors of opportunity to future generations of Americans. Larry weathered the racist insults and vicious invectives hurled at him both on and off the playing field as Jackie Robinson did. While traveling, he stayed alone in dingy hotels only for blacks, while the rest of his team stayed together across town. The color barrier had been broken when Larry started playing, but the blockades of prejudice in people's minds against blacks still stand. Mr. President, each of us takes a great measure of satisfaction that Larry Doby, this great athlete and superb human being, survived all of the obstacles put in his way to be recognized as the champion that he is. In honor of Larry Doby and his election to the Baseball Hall of Fame, I would like to share some recent commentary on this milestone with my colleagues. I ask that the text of the articles be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From the Star Ledger, Mar. 4, 1998] Hall Selection Caps Doby's Hard Journey (By Jerry Izenberg) It was the punctuation mark that finally ended baseball's most shameful unfinished business. Yesterday, down in Tampa, the Major League Baseball Veterans Committee voted Larry Doby into the Hall of Fame. Fifty-one years after he integrated the American League by following an agonizing trail that left him alone and friendless through 90-mph beanball nights and lonely and segregated through separate and unequal days, baseball formally acknowledged the role Doby played in bringing its mores into the 20th century. Along with Doby, the committee chose Lee MacPhail, former American League president; ``Bullet'' Joe Rogan, a Negro Leagues pitcher, and George Davis, a turn-of-the-century shortstop. When a friend called Doby with the news out in California, where he was visiting former Dodgers pitcher Don Newcombe, he spoke, as you might expect, about his wife, Helen, and the bond they share that helped him endure what no man should have had to endure simply because he wanted to play professional baseball. He spoke about his grandmother, Augusta, and his mother, Etta, and the quiet dignity they projected to him, starting through his early years in South Carolina and Paterson, and the way that dignity carried him on a journey through baseball's version of Hell. And then he paused, because deep within the back roads of his mind there was yet another memory--one of people he never met and whose names he never knew but whose emotions were joined at the heart with the pain he felt as he ran his initiation miles in the kind of spiked shoes nobody else will ever have to fill. They shaped his life and he promised he would never forget them. He didn't. Not after his bat helped win a World Series for Cleveland in 1948 . . . not after he won two American League home run titles . . . not when he couldn't get a job in baseball . . . not later when he wound up as a manager. Not then. And not yesterday, when the Hall of Fame doors finally swung open for him. Not ever. In his mind's eye he still sees them--an ocean of black faces in the left-field and center-field seats in St. Louis and Washington, bracketed by the grandstand and the box seats where they were not allowed and by faces that were always whiter than the baseball. And when he thinks of them, he can still hear the echoes of the Niagara roars they triggered that grew in a steady crescendo that seemed to say: ``We are here. You can seat us in the outfield and make us come in through the back door but we are not going to go away. Swing that bat, Larry, and remind them that this is our game, too, and we have come to claim a piece of it.'' ``I always hit well in those parks,'' Doby said. ``I could see them out there in the Jim Crow seats. I felt like a high school quarterback with 5,000 cheerleaders of his own. I knew who was making the noise and I knew where it was coming from. And they made some noise. When I hit a home run, it was deafening. ``Most of them had never been in a major-league ballpark before except maybe for an occasional Negro Leagues game. They weren't comfortable. They were nervous and some of them couldn't afford it. But I knew why they came and I knew what they wanted. Part of this honor today belongs to them.'' They needed each other. They leaned on Doby with the same intensity that a camel driver leans on the map that will point the way to the next oasis. He, in turn, leaned on them for strength in ballparks in towns like Boston and St. Louis and Washington and . . . well, no place was easy. From the very beginning, he was virtually alone . . . alone the day that Lou Boudreau, the Indians manager who didn't want him, introduced him to a roster that felt the same way and, with three exceptions, wouldn't even shake his hand . . . alone that first day when he went out to warm up and nobody would throw him the ball until Joe Gordon, a class act, waled over and said, ``Are you gonna pose or throw with me?'' ``I feel relieved,'' he said over the phone yesterday, ``that this is off my shoulders. I never really thought it would happen all these years, but then the last two or three, people started talking about it and I got to thinking about it. And now that it's happened, I thank God that I could make it through all those years without losing my self control, or who knows if Mr. Veeck (Bill, the Indians' owner) would have been allowed to hire other African-Americans?'' Bear in mind the way it was when Doby became the first African-American in the American League in 1947. That same year, Tom Yawkey, the owner of the Red Sox, had said, ``Anyone who says I won't hire blacks is a liar. I have about 100 working on my farm down south.'' Now, at 73, Doby would be less than human if he did not remember the worst of it as if it were yesterday . . . the Philadelphia shortstop who spit tobacco juice in his face . . . the knockdown pitches that were thrown behind him . . . the red-necked chain of segregated spring-training towns . . . the barrage of beer bottles aimed at the back of his head from the outfield seats in Texarkana . . . the exhibition game crowd that drowned out the announcer with its boos and curses down in Houston and the roar that shot back from the Jim Crow seats when Doby hit the longest homer in the history of the park . . . the times he put on his uniform in all- black boarding houses because he was forbidden to use the dressing rooms in Washington and St. Louis and the times, wearing that same Cleveland Indians uniform he had to enter the stadiums through a back door. Small wonder there came a time when a heckler's comments about Doby's wife were so vicious and so salacious that Larry, who was in the on-deck circle, dropped his bat and headed into the stands. ``I would have been gone except for Bill McKechnie (a coach, who wrestled him to the ground),'' he said. ``He was one of the guys who cared . . . him and Gordon and Jim Hegan. And Mr. Veeck, who I believe did something courageous for America. ``I remember something else. ``After the World Series game against Boston that I had won with a home run, Steve Gromek (the winning pitcher) and I were photographed embracing. That picture made all the papers . . . a white man and a black man sharing a triumph. ``I believe America needed that picture and I'm proud I could help give it to them.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the New Jersey Arya Samaj Mandir as it celebrates the Hindu New Year. The New Jersey Arya Samaj Mandir was incorporated to serve the religious, educational, and cultural needs of the Arya and Hindu immigrant population in New Jersey, demonstrating my state's rich and diverse heritage. My colleagues may know that the Hindu New Year, called Holi, occurs at the advent of spring and is a time when Hindus focus on the joys of the new season and the passing of the cold, harsh winter. The day also marks a time to emphasize reconciliation, forgiveness, unity, and tolerance. I am glad to be able to contribute to this celebration as New Jersey's Arya and Hindu population gathers with family and friends to mark the coming of spring and another New Year. Hindus in our country have contributed a great deal to America's heritage. The strength of our country is built upon the melding of its many languages, customs, and traditions, including those of the Hindu community. Our diversity is a strength. It is important that we celebrate the contribution that Hindu Americans have made to American society.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I join with the cosponsors of this amendment, Senators Warner, Moynihan and Chafee in offering this amendment. This amendment will make so-called ``ports of entry'' eligible for the planning and infrastructure funding authorized for this new trade corridor program. To qualify for funding, a port would have to show that there had been a significant increase in the transportation of cargo by rail and motor carrier through that facility since the enactment of NAFTA. The trade corridor and border crossing program is intended to address the strain on the U.S. transportation system caused by the increase in international trade following enactment of NAFTA. However, in addition to the increase in commercial traffic at border crossings and along highways, other areas, such as ports of entry, are significant trade corridors for the movement of cargo, either by ship, rail or air, since NAFTA. These ports of entry, including the Port of New York and New Jersey, and the Port of Philadelphia/Camden, bears significant infrastructure costs from the increase of this cargo. This amendment would enable ports of entry to compete for funds in the Trade Corridor program. In a State-by-State comparison of the total value of international truck shipments through each State, New Jersey ranks third, trailing only New York and Pennsylvania, for total value of international shipments moving through the State. Thus, New Jersey's ports are supporting a significant portion of the Nation's international trade activities and are contributing a great deal to the sound economic status we are now enjoying. However, this increase in trade and traffic is taking its toll on the infrastructure of ports in States like New Jersey. With this amendment, these ports, that are working so hard to support international trade and the U.S. economy as a whole, will be able to apply for assistance. This amendment is a significant step toward addressing the burden of increased international trade on States with very active ports, like New Jersey. With this amendment, the trade corridor program will be balanced so that those areas and facilities that have indeed seen increases in cargo shipments will be eligible to compete for these scarce funds.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as co-sponsor of this amendment and author of the original freeze on longer combination vehicles in the first ISTEA in 1991, I strongly support maintaining this freeze. By adopting this amendment, the Senate will declare loudly and clearly, that the freeze should not be weakened with more exemptions. Six years ago, Congress recognized the need to stop the growing presence of big rig trucks on our roads. We included in ISTEA a provision I authored that froze the lawful operation of LCVs to only those routes where they had been operating up until that time. It was the right thing to do then and it's the right thing to do now. We, as Members of Congress, have a duty to actively ensure the safety of all our Nation's roads, not just the roads in our individual States. By allowing monster trucks to terrorize our highways are we not failing to fulfill that duty? LCVs can be as long as 123 feet (that's longer than a 737 jetliner) and can weigh up to 164 tons. If it's raining when one of these trucks passes you, the spray from its 32 sets of wheels can blind you for over a minute. That's a long time when you're driving at 55 miles an hour. It means you can't see anything for over a mile. LCVs pose extraordinary safety risks to other motorists. Quick lane changes can cause them to exhibit a ``crack-the-whip'' effect--throwing the last trailer into other traffic lanes, causing the vehicle to roll over, or causing the last trailer to rupture its connections with the truck. In addition, LCVs are big and slow, especially when they have to accelerate. Thus they create dangerous traffic hazards when they have to merge or change lanes. They also have difficulty maintaining speed on upgrades, and reducing speed and braking on downgrades. Speed differentials between trucks and other traffic of only 15 miles per hour are known to dramatically increase the risk of crashes, and speed differentials could be aggravated by the recent speed limit increases in many States. As a result of all these dangerous features, multi-trailer trucks are involved in much more serious crashes than single-unit trucks or small tractor-trailer combinations. In 1994, over 5,000 people in the U.S. lost their lives in big truck crashes, and more than 100,000 were injured. Although big rig trucks make up only 3 percent of all regulated vehicles, they are involved in 21 percent of all fatal multi- vehicle crashes. Clearly these big rig trucks are a deadly menace. It's no wonder that of the over 42,000 people polled last summer, 87 percent said they are opposed to permitting the use of even bigger trucks, and 91 percent said large trucks should not be allowed on roads other than major highways. Trucking companies are constantly pushing drivers to drive longer and longer hours and heavier and longer trucks to meet ever tighter deadlines. This is a trend that has to stop now. And if the safety risks these vehicles impose on everyone else wasn't enough, these big rigs also cause significant damage to our roads and bridges. On top of that, they don't even pay their fair share of costs. A recent study found that in virtually all truck classes, the heaviest vehicles pay considerably less in taxes than the costs they impose on our Nation's highway system. For example, LCVs registered at over 100,000 pounds pay only about half their cost responsibility. Highway agencies are losing money every mile traveled by one of these vehicles. That will mean poorer roads, higher taxes, or both. To maintain road conditions States must turn to funds from other sources-- i.e., gas taxes paid by other motorists. This shifts the cost savings experienced by truck companies, who can hire fewer drivers if they use LCVs, onto other highway users. This is outrageous. Not only do other motorists get less return on their highway investment because they have to share the road with these life-threatening juggernauts, they also have to pay more for it. The least we can do is maintain the status quo and not let LCVs branch out onto roads they aren't already on now. I hope you'll join Senator Bond, Senator Reid and me in maintaining the freeze on LCVs. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise to express my support for Senator Mike DeWine's amendment that would establish minimum standards of punishment and treatment for repeat offenders of drunk driving. These standards will send a strong message that repeated convictions for drinking and driving will not be tolerated. We have heard, over the past few days, the extent of the national scourge that is drunk driving in our country. Let me remind you, in 1996, 41,907 people were killed in highway crashes. Another three million were injured. These crashes cost society $150 billion every year. Forty-one percent of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related. In 1996, 17,126 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes. 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. Driving While Intoxicated, or DWI, is one of the most prevalent crimes in this country. In 1994, more people were arrested for DWI--1.5 million--than for any other reported criminal activity including larceny or theft. We need to start treating this epidemic. A shocking number of DWI convictions are repeat offenders. When the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration studied this issue, it found that about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. One out of eight drunk drivers in a fatal crash has had a DWI conviction in the past three years. The danger of these repeat offenders is illustrated by the fact that drivers with prior DWI convictions are over represented in fatal crashes. These drivers have a 4.1 times greater risk of being in a fatal crash, as do intoxicated drivers without a prior DWI, and the risk of a particular driver being involved in a fatal crash increases with each DWI arrest. According to the National Commission Against Drunk Driving, about 2,300 innocent victims are killed each year due to so-called persistent drinking drivers, or those who repeatedly drive after drinking. Annually, persistent drinking drivers represent an estimated 65 percent of fatally injured drinking drivers and 15 to 20 percent of all injured drivers. This translates into 7,000 dead drivers and 250,000 injured drivers each year. And, Mr. President, persistent drinking drivers cost the economy $1.5 billion each year in enforcement and court costs and $45 billion each year in crashes. One study in California demonstrated the extent of this problem over the long-term. It found that 44 percent of all drivers convicted of DWI in California in 1980 were convicted again of DWI within the next ten years. Madam President, when we talk about drunk driving, too often we talk about it in statistical terms. But there are real people attached to those statistics. In the spring of 1995, a young man, from Tuckerton, New Jersey, full of goodness and potential, was struck down by a drunk driver while he and his friend were in-line skating. Matthew Hammell was exceptional. All those who knew him talk about being touched by his kindness and caring. At one point Matt dreamed of being a baseball player, but as he matured he knew he wanted to be a missionary. His dream became living a life of helping others. But this dream never materialized. Robert Hyer, drunk and driving, struck Matthew with his car while passing another vehicle. Hyer should not have been on the road. Not only was he drunk, but he had a history of driving drunk. Before this fateful incident, Hyer had been charged with DWI six times, though he was convicted only twice. Hyer lost his license in New Jersey in 1984, but somehow he obtained a North Carolina License just two years later. He was a habitual offender who kept bucking the system. A system which kept letting him go. A system which, in the end, was too late in responding. Madam President, it may be too late for Matthew Hammell, and all of the other Matthew Hammells who are taken from us too early, but it is now that we must become serious about drinking and driving. I introduced a bill one year ago that I named in his honor the ``Deadly Driver Reduction and Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act.'' That bill required states to adopt a ``three strikes and you're out'' law that took away the driver's license. While I introduced that bill, I am pleased to say that the amendment proposed by Senator DeWine is a positive step toward combating this terrible epidemic. The amendment before us provides a comprehensive approach toward reducing repeated drinking and driving. First, the amendment recognizes that the large percentage of DWI arrestees, from 40 to 80 percent of all offenders, are alcohol dependent, by requiring alcohol assessment and treatment, as necessary, after the second and each subsequent offense. Experts suggest that combining treatment and legal sanctions will produce the largest benefit to traffic safety. It makes sense. Second, the proposal requires states to revoke a driver's license for one year after the second and each subsequent offense. Most states already require license suspensions after the first and subsequent offense, and states have found that the threat of taking away one's license has been very effective deterrent for the general population. However, studies have also found that for the chronic drinking driver, license suspensions have very little effect--upwards of 80 percent of drinking drivers continue to drink and drive after license suspension. That's why this amendment seeks to employ other methods that will make it difficult for the repeat offender to drive when he or she is drunk, or to drive at all. The amendment requires that, after the second and subsequent offense, the person is subject to vehicle impoundment or immobilization, or the installation of an ignition interlock device on the car. These tools have found to be extremely effective in reducing recidivism of drunk driving. After the City of Portland, Oregon adopted an ordinance to take cars away from repeat offenders, the City saw a 42 percent decrease in drunk driving fatalities, and a recidivism rate of only four percent for offenders whose cars had been seized. Ignition interlock devices are those that are locked into a repeat offender's car. Before the person can drive, he or she must blow into the device, and if the device registers more than .02 BAC--or zero tolerance--the car will not turn on. The repeat offender usually is responsible for paying the costs of the device, which is about two dollars a day. Over 35 states have passed some form of legislation that uses ignition interlock devices to combat repeat offenders. According to the NCADD, ignition interlock programs used in several states have reduced recidivism to about one percent while the program is in effect. Finally, the amendment requires states to adopt laws if they have not already, mandating jail time or community service for the second (five days in jail or 30 days community service) and subsequent (ten days in jail or 60 days community service) offense. Repeat offenders must know the severity of their crime. States are given three years to adopt laws that have, at a minimum, these provisions. States that fail to do so must transfer one and one- half percent of their highway construction funds in the fourth year, and three percent in the fifth year, to their Section 402 impaired driving program, or to the state police, to assist in enforcing drunk driving laws. The NCADD has proposed strategies to deal with the persistent drinking driver. I am pleased to say that this amendment incorporates almost all of those strategies. License revocation. Vehicle immobilization or impoundment. Imposition of an ignition interlock device. Alcohol assessment and treatment. Another strategy the NCADD proposes to deal with the persistent drinking driver is to reduce the legal BAC limit to .08 BAC for adults, because studies have shown that .08 BAC laws have reduced drunk driving at even higher BACs. As we all know, the Senate approved that amendment last week. Madam President, I want to commend Senator DeWine and Senator Warner on their effective leadership on behalf of this issue. The programs that we have passed--the .08 BAC amendment, Senator Dorgan's open- container amendment, and this repeat offender amendment--create a comprehensive program that when in place, will show measurable effects. We will see a reduction of alcohol-related crashes. Fewer families will face the crippling grief of a loved one lost to drunk driving. This amendment matters. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this comprehensive amendment that will save lives.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Montana. Mr. President, I stand here in opposition to the amendment that is being offered. I hope that the Senate will reject this amendment because, despite the best intentions of so many, we still do not have a level playing field when it comes to Government contracting. There is still discrimination. Sometimes it's overt, sometimes it's subtle; but it definitely still exists, and the facts bear this out. Consider the following: for transportation construction contracts, minority-owned firms get only 61 cents for every dollar of work that a white male-owned business receives. Unfortunately, it's even worse for women-owned businesses--they only receive 48 cents. This amendment will only exacerbate these numbers. I have to take 1 minute, Mr. President, to describe a personal situation. My mother was widowed early in the war. I had already joined the Army, and she went to work for an insurance company, a large insurance company, and she did a good job for 3 years. At the end of that time, they said to her, ``Molly, thank you very much, but Joe is back from the Army.'' She said, ``Well, give me another territory.'' They worked in territories at the time. They said, ``Well, you know we don't hire women for these jobs.'' It was shocking. My mother was shocked, my sister was shocked, and I was shocked, because she did her job and did it perfectly. They said, ``We don't hire women for these jobs.'' We are past that stage, thank goodness. But the fact is that women, whether it is in salaries or in business, are always operating at a different level than white men. Mr. President, there are a few more figures I would like to give. Few are aware that white-owned construction companies receive 50 times as many loan dollars--and I know this having served for a short time on the Small Business Committee--as minority-owned construction firms with the same equity. And women-owned businesses have a lower rate of loan delinquency, yet still have far greater difficulty in obtaining loans. The majority of women business owners have to resort to personal resources, such as maxing out their credit cards, to finance their business. Mr. President, we all know what the problems are with the traditional affirmative action programs. But we ought to work to correct them because people who don't have the same advantage, whether it's education or family exposure or a job opportunity, deserve to be able to come into the mainstream of America's economic and cultural life. And if they don't, we know what the problems are. Mr. President, Jim Crow laws were wiped off the books over 30 years ago. However, their pernicious effects on the construction industry remain. Transportation construction has historically relied on the old boy network, which until the last decade, was almost exclusively a white, old boy network. I do not imply that the individuals running these white-owned companies were racist, rather, I blame the discriminatory laws and practices that shut minorities out of this industry for so many years. This is an industry that relies heavily on business friendships and relationships established decades, sometimes generations, ago--years before minority-owned firms were even permitted to compete. In 1982, President Reagan signed into law legislation attempting to put an end to the old boy network. That legislation, creating the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, or DBE program, has been a success. Mr. President, let me explain briefly what the DBE program does. The Secretary of Transportation sets a nationwide goal for participation by socially and economically disadvantaged businesses in transportation construction contracts. The program does not contain a quota or create a set-aside, but merely sets a goal for states to follow as they wish. To their credit, the overwhelming majority of states have chosen to follow or exceed the recommended goal of ten percent. Those states that have opted out of this goal have neither been the recipient of any retaliation nor have otherwise suffered from any adverse consequence. Furthermore, states and municipalities are given the flexibility to adjust their goals to reflect the availability of minority and women- owned businesses in their area. Who are the participants in the DBE program? They are hungry small businesses that are just trying to get a chance at a Federal contract. These are competitive firms. As one of my constituents who participates in the DBE program told me, if a pie is sliced ten times and nine pieces are eaten by a ``big guy'' and one piece is thrown to ten hungry little guys, you can be certain that those ten hungry little guys are going scramble, shove, kick, and scuffle to get that one piece. Congress and President Reagan were right back in 1982 and the Chairmen of both the transportation subcommittee and the full committee were right to continue this program in ISTEA. Why do we still need an affirmative action program for federal construction contracts? Because we know that the private sector looks to the public sector for leadership on this issue. And we also know that once affirmative action programs stop, the inclusion of qualified minorities, be it in education or in business, drops. We have seen this with law school admissions in California and Texas. We have seen it in state contracting in Michigan and Louisiana. I fear this would occur at the federal level and that it would spill over into lower levels of government and into the private sector. Mr. President, it would be a shame to allow this to occur. I urge my colleagues to oppose the junior Senator from Kentucky's amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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. 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. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the changes that have been made to the ISTEA II bill. This legislation is now much more balanced and fair to all states than the original bill last fall. I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Committee, Senator Chafee, and other Senators involved for their assistance in improving this bill. I was never happy with the original bill, because it falls way short of addressing New Jersey's growing needs. While the underlying bill recognized the special situation of some states, particularly large, western, low-density states, and those in the Southeast, it did not recognize the unique needs of densely populated, urbanized states with significant passenger, commerce and freight traffic. Mr. President, last year, the ISTEA II bill that came to the floor was not regionally balanced and did not recognize the special needs of high density, urban states like New Jersey. This amendment includes a program that I authored which is designed to address the needs of high density, urban states. Called the High Density Transportation Program, this new program addresses the special needs of states where high population density and heavy traffic volume create perpetual bottlenecks in the flow of goods and people through our national transportation system, resulting in tremendous wear and tear on the roads and reduced economic productivity. We can all argue over how much money should go to one region or another, but to deliberately leave out factors that allow for consideration for high density, urban states in a major transportation bill is unacceptable. That's what happened in the original bill. That's why I am very pleased that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Chairman of the relevant Subcommittee, agreed to include this new High Density program in the new bill. And that's why this is now a more balanced bill. The High Density Transportation Program is a $360 million annual program, distributed over five years. New Jersey will be guaranteed $36 million each year, and will be eligible for more, for projects that reduce congestion, increase mobility, and maintain the infrastructure. Those projects may include construction and maintenance of roads, mass transit, bridges, even bike paths. As long as those projects reduce congestion and improve mobility. This program, coupled with the increase in apportionments and the funds the Committee included in the Bridge Discretionary account last fall, show a total highway funding increase for New Jersey of approximately $780 million over the life of the bill. This comes out to an average of about $130 million a year over six years. This increase is on top of the yearly average of $532 million a year the original ISTEA II bill included for New Jersey. Mr. President, this proposal is simple. It gives all states an increase, but also accounts for the needs of states that were not fairly accommodated in the original bill. With this new proposal, New Jerseyans can breathe a sigh of relief, since our needs will begin to be met. Mr. President, those needs are great. Transportation funding is especially critical in my state. The Garden State is one of the most important links in our nation's transportation system. The most densely populated state in the nation, it also has the highest vehicle density on its roads. Located between two heavily populated metropolitan areas, New Jersey is known as the corridor state, linking commerce and travel to the northeast and the rest of the country. Over 60 billion vehicle miles are traveled on New Jersey's roads annually. The ability of trucks and cars to move freely on New Jersey's roads directly affects New Jersey's economy, as well as the entire region. Millions of people have traveled along New Jersey's highways. They travel from the South and West to New York City, Boston and New England. And people in New York and New England travel through New Jersey on their way to places like the Jersey shore, Florida or Washington, D.C. But our roads are used for more than just vacations. Every day, 324,000 tons of goods made in New Jersey are transported on New Jersey's roads by 134,000 trucks. Many of these trucks are coming from the Ports of Newark and Elizabeth. They are transporting cars and other goods that arrive from countries like South Korea, Great Britain, Germany, Taiwan and Indonesia. The Port of New York and New Jersey is the busiest on the East Coast. Despite the critical importance of New Jersey's infrastructure to the nation, it is in dismally poor shape, and it is getting worse by the hour. Nearly 20 percent of New Jersey's interstate mileage is in poor or mediocre condition. And more than 45 percent of our bridges are in deficient condition. Mr. President, New Jersey's roads and bridges take an unbelievable pounding. Our hot summers and harsh winters take a huge toll on its infrastructure. Road salt in the winter and ocean salt year round add to the damage. In addition, New Jerseyans and those who travel through my state often face untenable congestion. Travelers in both cars and trucks struggle for hours every day with New Jersey's highway stops and starts. And our heavily used roads and bridges are badly in need of additional maintenance. Mr. President, the status of New Jersey's transportation infrastructure has a direct effect on the state and region's economic vitality and on every resident's quality of life. But, more importantly, it affects the entire nation's economic vitality. And, the future challenges to that infrastructure are ominous. In the next six years, there probably will be more travel on our roads, more cargo coming into our ports and more rapid deterioration of our transportation infrastructure. Mr. President, I seek to educate my colleagues about my State, because I believe that New Jersey should get its fair share. No more, no less. Regrettably, last fall's ISTEA bill provided New Jersey with less money in 1998 than it received in 1997. Our transportation needs increase every year, but our funding level went down under the previous ISTEA bill. This was not acceptable. The last time I took to the floor to discuss S. 1173, I spoke for nearly four hours about the devastating effects this bill will have for New Jersey's transportation infrastructure. Since then there have been important changes which have greatly improved this bill. New funding has enabled the Environment Committee to ease the pain to some states which were hit the hardest by the original Environment Committee apportionment formulas. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation, and our roads carry more traffic per lane mile than any state in the country. New Jersey is the true corridor state. Ten percent of the nation's total freight either originates, terminates, or passes through New Jersey. These conditions create burdens that have a direct negative impact of the state's transportation infrastructure, the environment, and economic productivity. In addition, our high level of urbanization increases the costs associated with road repair and construction. The High Density Transportation Program is established to address those conditions. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Chafee for his work on this bill and commend him for his continuing efforts to produce a good and balanced ISTEA reauthorization bill. The Committee's decision to include the High Density program truly improves this bill over last year's. As I said at the Committee mark-up, we may have to nominate Senator Chafee for a peace prize by the time this process is over. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Warner and Senator Baucus for all of their hard work and their leadership on this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman and other Committee members in the coming months as we debate this bill on the Senate floor and in Conference.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield myself such time as we have available, with the hope that when the Senator from Rhode Island returns we will be able to--will the Senator from Rhode Island allow 5 minutes to me at this juncture if there is no one else?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. The arguments have been made abundantly clear. We are talking about something that will save lives. We are talking, on the other hand, about whether or not the process is appropriate or whether or not the penalties are too high. I submit to Members that there is no penalty too high to permit a child like this to live a full life. No penalty too severe. I think when Senators vote here, that is what they ought to be thinking about-- thinking about the people back home and how they will react to a vote they are making here.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. By the time we finish with the 1 minute--we could yield back all 37 seconds that remain.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. By enacting this law, we can stand with our Nation's families and prevent the loss of life that tears a family apart. We can stand with the public interest against the narrow opposition of special interests. Mr. President, we should do the right thing and pass this amendment. The Washington Post said it this morning in its editorial: The vote is a vote to create ``a single, clear certified and effective standard across the country as to what constitutes drunk driving.'' Let us vote to protect our children, our families--not drunk drivers. And I ask everybody to take one final look at this beautiful child's face before they cast a vote. I will yield the floor, but before doing that, Mr. President, I say thank you to my friend and colleague from Rhode Island for his support for this amendment, and also to the Senator from Montana who has been forthright and supportive of this amendment as well. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been asked for?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself as much time as I have available. First, I ask unanimous consent we add Senator Hollings as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. OK.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. About 3 more minutes?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are getting to the point where we are going to wrap up this debate. I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, for his support, his commitment, and his work on this issue. He has fought tenaciously to reduce drunk driving. I hope he and I at the end of this debate will be able to shake hands on behalf of the American people and say we have done something good this morning. I remind our colleagues, as I listen to the debate, about the issues that I hear being discussed. Frankly, it bewilders me, because I stand next to the picture of a child who was 9 when a drunk driver took her life. I hear discussions of process, that the process is the issue. The process is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we want to say to every American parent, ``We have done something more to save, perhaps, your child or your grandchild or your sister or your brother.'' That is the issue, and that is, I hope, what the American people are going to say when they look at the vote count and say, ``My Senator stood up for life.'' ``My Senator,'' on the other hand, they can brag, ``proudly, stood up for process.'' Can you imagine in the homes across America, all the people who are going to be applauding because someone stood up for process? It is outrageous. It cannot be that way. In the balcony sit people I have come to know, people I have come to know very well: Brenda, Randy and Stephanie Frazier--mother, father and sister of Ashley. I wish I could ask them to speak about their view of process, whether or not they think that process is the thing that we ought to be talking about. Or should we be talking about the loss that they had, that they do not want anyone else to experience. Before Senators vote on this amendment, I ask them to think about their children and think about the pain that could come from the loss of a child they know and love. Today we can spare parents across this country, in all 50 States, the grief experienced by the Frazier family. Mr. President, I hope that the happy hour is over for drunk drivers. Every year in this country more people are killed in alcohol-related crashes than were killed in our worst year of fighting in Vietnam. And the country stood in national mourning at that time. By lowering to .08 the blood alcohol level at which a person is considered legally drunk, we can save more than 500 lives each year. Mr. President, drunk driving is a crime, a crime like assault, like shooting at someone, like murder; and it should be treated with the same severity as other crimes that bring harm or death to another person. We can prevent many injuries and deaths that result from drunk driving by making .08 the national alcohol limit, just like 21 is the drinking age limit across the country. And if we do that, we could save lots of lives, like other westernized countries--like Canada, like Ireland, like Great Britain, Germany and Switzerland. Poland has a .03 BAC, and Sweden .02. We can make .08 work in America, if we pass this amendment and declare our opposition to violence on our highways. Because it is at .08 that a person's capacity to function is impaired. Their vision, balance, reaction time, judgment, self-control--this is the level at which they are medically drunk. And if they are deemed medically drunk, we ought to deem them legally drunk, in every State, no matter where they live. Mr. President, the alcohol lobby is trying to bottle up this bill. We are not targeting social drinkers. We are targeting drunk drivers. And when you get drunk, it is your business. But when you get drunk and drive, it is our business. We are not asking people to stop drinking. We are not running a temperance society here. We are asking them not to drive if they are drunk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield another minute to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to the Senator from Ohio, 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Rhode Island, whether or not, if he does not have any opposition speakers, he might help us out with a few minutes?