Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I give 15 minutes of our time to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have been standing. With all due respect, I have been here, was here before the Senator from Arizona, and I called for recognition from the Chair. And the Chair, as I saw it, deliberately chose to ignore my appeal for recognition. The Chair I guess has that right. But that is not the way this body is to operate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Arizona is very courteous.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I respect and appreciate it. How long does he intend to speak?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Arizona. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the Sarbanes amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as the Senator from Maryland explained, this amendment would modify a provision of S. 240 that I find very troubling. I know that earlier today our colleague from New York tempered somewhat the existing language relating to the safe harbor provision, but Mr. President, I do not think he went far enough. One goal of this bill is to minimize the existing disincentives to provide detailed forward-looking statements about the economic prospects of their companies. Everyone agrees that is a desirable goal. I certainly do. Indeed, my support is based on personal experience. Prior to coming to the Senate, I worked in the private sector. I cofounded a company with two others, three of us from poor working- class homes, that today employs over 20,000 people. It is an American success story. I say that because I think it is important to occasionally call on one's background as we review some of the legislation that is proposed in front of us. After the company went public in 1961, I filed countless statements with the SEC as its CEO. As the CEO, I believed that it was important for investors to have as much information as possible. Each year, I made it a practice to project earnings for the following year. And if it needed modification during the period due to changes and conditions, I quickly went to the public to alert them to any revision. This process had significant rewards because investor confidence in ADP--my company--caused our stock, which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, to sell at among the highest price-earnings ratios of all listed securities on any exchange. There used to be a company in the investment business, an old name in the financial world, Kidder-Peabody. And each month they would publish a list known as The Nifty 50. These were the highest price-earnings ratio companies that were listed. They did that for over 265 months, for more than 22 years. Every month they would publish lists of the companies that were among the investors' favorites. The company that led that list was my company, ADP. It was on the list 215 out of 265 months, far more than the next best company which listed among the top list more than 200 times. Obviously, the company did well. It performed well year after year. But it was the investors' belief, the investors' confidence, that they could always count on ADP to tell the truth about what was happening that caused the stock price to swell as the earnings grew. As I look back at that period, I know that I was in the forefront of CEO's who provided investors with forward-looking statements on my company's financial health. It made sense to me then. It makes sense to me now. One of the things that I know this bill would like to accomplish is to make sure that the public is as well informed as possible. It is not simply to focus on whether or not litigation is possible or whether there ought to be ceilings on certain claims but, rather, to give the public a chance to know what is going on and at the same time not to encourage frivolous or whimsical lawsuits. It is important that investors have as much information as they can. Everyone knows, especially in the larger companies, that senior executives in the company know very well what they are expecting to happen over a year, 2, 3, 4, 5 years in advance. It may not be precise, but they have a target; they have a goal. Everyone knows that in addition to the executives within the company, the board of directors has to be notified if there are any changes. What does that represent? It represents an advantage that people on the inside have over those on the outside who are investing their money. And there is nothing, no reason at all why anyone on the inside ought to have privileged information with which to sell stock or buy stock ahead of the investing public. It is critical that all investors have as much information about the company as they can to make informed investment decisions. Despite the desire to provide information, many issuers, many companies do not provide sufficient information. They do not because they are concerned about their potential liability, which this bill addresses, should these forecasts turn out to be off the mark. Well, if things change, as I said in my comments, then what ought to happen is the company ought to say: Investors, be prepared. We have to take a hit on [[Page S 9141]] our earnings because of this product or this market or what have you, but we have confidence in the future and this is what we expect. The investors will stay with the ship. This is especially true for the small high-tech companies, which is what my company was. These are companies whose growth we want to encourage. It is not in the public interest for these companies to go out of business because of a lawsuit based on a financial forecast or information which despite the company's best efforts later turns out to be inaccurate. And that can happen despite the best intentions of the company. I remember how much the stock of biotech companies dropped when we were discussing health care last year. And should those biotech companies be held accountable for this drop? Of course not. We want to protect the research and the innovation that develops from such firms. But I believe that this bill goes too far in the effort to do that. The recently amended language in S. 240 provides a safe harbor from liability unless the issuer's statement is knowingly made with the purpose and actual intent of misleading investors, and on its face that legislative language looks reasonable. But the committee report notes that purpose and actual intent are separate elements that must be proven by the investor. To me, this standard, although an improvement over the version reported out of the Banking Committee, is still too high a threshold. This amendment provides safe harbor protections for issuers who make forecasts, but we narrow this protection so that issuers who make statements with the knowledge that the information was false or misleading would be liable. That is a reasonable standard, and it is a standard supported by the SEC and by the administration. It protects those who should be protected. And it does so without creating a safe harbor for those who should be subject to litigation. It may seem to those listening or who may be watching this debate that the Senator from Maryland and I are splitting hairs with single word changes. However, when the next financial scandal rocks our markets and investors are prevented from recovering their losses caused by intentionally misleading forecasts because they are unable to demonstrate actual intent, those affected investors will certainly feel the difference. We do not want to hurt those investors who are able to demonstrate that an issuer intentionally made a misleading statement but are unable to show actual intent. I cannot understand this. I say that again as a person who has been on both sides of the matter--as an investor and as an issuer. I believe that the amendment as proposed provides the right balance. If you make a forward-looking statement knowing it was false or misleading, you should not be immune from liability. You have to pay the price for the deception. Now, I understand why the Senator from New York would want to expand the current safe harbor. Everyone wants that, including the SEC. But I think this bill has gone too far in the other direction. We should not be encouraging or protecting fraudulent statements, which I believe is what S. 240 might inadvertently do. Mr. President, we have the most efficient markets in the world, and this is due in large part to the reliability of information available to investors. I do not understand why we would want to enact legislation that might jeopardize this. Once again, I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and now I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Probably 15 minutes. I am not upset at the Senator from Arizona. I am upset because of common courtesy.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Chair has an obligation to recognize the Senator who stood up first.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I stand here proud of the New Jersey Devils' accomplishment in winning hockey's most treasured prize, the Stanley Cup. I congratulate the players and their coaches for an inspiring series with four straight victories over the Detroit Red Wings. This capped an impressive string of playoff victories over Boston, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia--victories that resulted in the Devils bringing the Stanley Cup to my home State for the first time in history. It is the first time in history that a national professional championship was won by a team with ``New Jersey'' in its name. Mr. President, it took a great deal of determination, courage, drive, and discipline--and no small amount of prayer on the part of fervent fans--for the Devils to bring this cup home. And they did this despite the fact that no one thought they could win it. Not when the playoffs started. Not when they reached the finals. No one gave them a chance against the Red Wings. But, under the guidance of Head Coach Jacques Lemaire and with the great help of Claude Lemieux, the Cup's Most Valuable Player, and Martin Brodeur, the Devils demonstrated everything great about New Jerseyans--we have the heart, the drive, and the stamina to do it when we have to. I will take a moment to mention other outstanding Devils players--Ken Daneyko, Bruce Driver, and John MacLean who have each been with the Devils since 1983 and have helped start the team's long journey to the top. Also we must commend Jim Dowd, a New Jersey native hailing from the town of Brick, who scored the winning goal in game two. Mr. President, anyone who has been in New Jersey knows that the Devils--like our shoreline--are an integral part of our culture. And I, along with 8 million other New Jerseyans look forward to seeing them defend their cup title in the Byrne Arena next year and the year after as well. Once again, I would like to congratulate them on their remarkable accomplishment, and to thank them for the hard fight they fought to bring the Stanley Cup to the great State of New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who never failed to rise to the challenge of serving his fellow human beings; George E. Norcross, Sr. George started as a union organizer in the 1940's. He got involved in the labor movement because he understood that working people needed to come together to protect their common interests and promote their common goals. He translated that theory into practice when he founded and served as president of RCA Local 106 in Morrestown, NJ. His responsibilities to the local kept him busy, but they did not prevent him from becoming involved in other activities. His commitment to the labor movement ultimately resulted in his serving as president of the AFL-CIO Central Labor Council of South Jersey. In that capacity, he made sure that the union movement contributed to the community as a whole as well as its members. George took steps to get the 80,000 members of the central labor council's 73 locals involved in community events. He became active in the United Way and served as chairman of the campaign in 1982 as well as holding other post of responsibility in that organization. While George recognized the need for larger organizations like the United Way, he never lost sight of the obligation that labor unions themselves had to assist those in needs. He served as president of the union organization for social service which provided services to the community ranging from food banks to job training and clothing drives. George is the kind of man who believed that Americans ought to care about their neighbors and accept a responsibility to help them. His life has been devoted to basic values: seeing all men and women as brothers and sisters, realizing that we share common dreams and face a common destiny, accepting the obligation and opportunity to give those in need a helping hand. Mr. President, because of George, literally tens of thousands of lives have been improved and enriched. I join with those tens of thousands in wishing him a rewarding retirement and expressing our appreciation for all he has done, and all that he will continue to do.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator and urge her to continue her quest to see that fairness is finally delivered on this floor. I am astounded by what we have just seen. I assume that the pictures that we saw reflect a woman's decision, that she chose to have that abortion. You can make it look as ugly as you want. But the fact is that it is a medical procedure, and this woman chose to have it. This same Senator--a distinguished Senator and a friend of mine--from New Hampshire voted the other day and led the fight to take helmets off motorcycle riders. They could be laying all over the road, and they wind up in a hospital as paraplegics and quadriplegics, and we pay for it. That is OK. But to permit a woman who, under the law, has a right to make a choice, no, no. Here we are watching a small minority deciding how the behavior of the majority ought to perform. This is an outrage. Yes, this is about abortion because the other side made it about abortion, instead of taking this man with superb credentials, who did what he had to under his oath as a physician and under his compassion as a human being. He obeyed the law and delivered excellent service. Over 10,000 babies delivered. The Senator from New Hampshire wants to pick out a procedure that was required and make that the subject of this discussion. No, it is a narrow minority who says to the women across this country that you have no right to choose, even though the law says so. In his very statement, he said that. He said if we had a Surgeon General who spoke against it, then it would be OK with this Senator and those whom he represents--Senator Gramm and the others. This is an outrage. What we are witnessing here is the truth about this issue. This has nothing to do with Dr. Foster. This has to do with politics, raw politics. I appeal to the people across this country, if you think you are being dealt with fairly, just look at what took place: Decrying a law that is on the books and a physician for doing his duty. We ought to get a couple of friends here with enough courage to stand up and say we are not going to take it anymore and we are going to vote on behalf of the women in this country.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to describe what I think is the result of the discussions that we have been having these past few days. First of all, let me say that I support passage of legislation to designate the National Highway System as directed by ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. I was, in fact, an original cosponsor of legislation in both the 103d and the 104th Congresses to accomplish this task. This $6.5 billion bill authorizes critically needed funds, and I would like to consider just a few of the facts. Almost one-fourth of our highways are in poor or mediocre condition, while another 36 percent are rated in the fair category. One in five of the Nation's bridges is structurally deficient--20 percent--meaning that weight restrictions have been set to limit truck traffic. On urban interstate highways, the percentage of peak hour travel approaching gridlock conditions increased from 55 percent in 1983 to 70 percent in 1991, costing the economy $39 billion. Experts indicate that an additional annual investment of $32 billion is needed to bring our highway and bridge infrastructures up to date, and failure to make those investments increases the costs, both in the short and long term. For example, failure to invest a dollar today in needed highway resurfacing can mean up to $4 in highway reconstruction costs 2 years from now. The ability of our country to sustain higher productivity is the key to economic growth and a higher standard of living. Higher productivity is, in part, a function of the public and private investment. Recognizing that reality, over 400 of our Nation's leading economists have urged Government to increase public investment. They urged us to remember that public investment in our people and in our infrastructure is essential for economic growth. Clearly, the National Highway System program was designed to be part of a comprehensive program of public investment. However, as much as I support moving this legislation forward, I will vote against the NHS bill. Provisions in this bill are totally inconsistent with, and as a result radically undermine, the goal of increasing investment and productivity. My concern here is that specific provisions, amendments to this bill, undermine safety and will substantially increase human and economic costs. While one amendment to the bill was excellent and requires States to institute zero tolerance laws--that means almost no acceptance of any presence of alcohol behind the wheel is accepted. It is .02, very low, and that is the way it ought to be. That is very positive. It is a proposal that I strongly supported, having been the author or father of the 21-age drinking bill and seeing how successful we were over the last 10 years. It was a very positive step. It will save lives and reduce expenditures. But in total, as a result of this bill, more lives will be lost than will be saved. Opponents of speed limits and motorcycle helmet laws--which passed this body--argue that decisions in these areas should be the responsibility of the State. I could not agree more. I want to give some decisions to the States that would increase their flexibility in using Federal transportation assistance. But I cannot buy into the concept that removing speed limits, increasing speeds across our Nation's highways and roads, is going to help anything except to create mayhem. More people will die and more expenses will be incurred. The same thing is true with the helmet laws. To remove helmets is, in my view, positively ludicrous. I do not understand what it is that motivated this body to say take off your helmets, let the wind blow in your hair, and God help you if someone runs over you. I supported the concept in ISTEA for flexibility for States and, again, allowing the States to use NHS funding to support intercity rail service. This is human rights, the right of the individual to be safe. It is the right that all of us have not to have to spend money because people do foolish things in our society. Mr. President, one-third of all traffic accidents are caused by excessive [[Page S 8880]] speed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that total repeal of Federal speed limit requirements will increase the number of Americans killed on our Nation's highways by about 4,750 persons per year. In addition, there will be substantial financial consequences associated with a repeal. Death and injuries will increase as a result of ending Federal speed limit restrictions. But it is going to cost taxpayers $15 billion more each year in lost productivity, taxes, and increased health care costs. This loss would be on top of the $24 billion we already lose as a result of motor vehicle accidents which are caused by excessive speed. So, Mr. President, I want to restate that this bill is a $6.5 billion investment in our Nation's infrastructure, our highways. But, at the same time, we have added an amendment that is going to cost us $15 billion more over the life of this bill than we are presently spending. The total investment for the whole bill is $6.5 billion. Mr. President, the same argument applies to the helmet provisions in the bill. More than 80 percent of all motorcycle crashes result in injury or death to the motorcyclist. Head injury is the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. Now, compared to a helmeted rider, an unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury and 15 percent more likely to incur a head injury when involved in a crash. The NHTSA estimates that the use of helmets saved $5.9 billion between 1984 and 1982. Now, repeal of mandatory helmet requirements will increase the death rate projected for motorcycle riders by 391 persons per year and will increase the costs to society by $389 million each year. And all of us chip in to pay for those expenses. The American public supports a strong Federal role in transportation safety initiatives because they understand the benefit of mandatory helmet and safety belt laws, mandatory 21 drinking age laws, and maximum speed limit laws. Unfortunately, the Senate has chosen to ignore the majority will and the public, and all of the empirical data on the value of transportation safety measures. As a result, Mr. President, this bill gives with one hand and takes away with the other. It authorizes $6.5 billion worth of spending in infrastructure investment, while adding almost $15.5 billion in additional costs to our society. My colleagues recognize this fact as evidenced by the rejection of the amendment by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, which would have, in effect, required States to directly absorb medical costs associated with motorcycle riders who were not wearing helmets and were injured in an accident. She said, very simply--and I agreed with her and we got lots of votes--if a State does not want to take prudent measures to have people protect themselves on our highways, they ought to pay for it when accidents and expenses are incurred. I want the Congress and the country to understand what is at stake in that debate--4,900 lives, tens of thousands more injuries each year, hundreds of millions of dollars in added health care costs and economic opportunities forgone. Very simply, this bill takes one step forward but three steps backward. Mr. President, it pains me to say that I am not going to support this bill, because I believed for all of the years that I have been in the Senate that we do not invest enough in our highways, bridges, and our transportation system, in transit and in intercity rail. So I hate to be one of the people who is going to say no to this bill. But as the underlying legislation dictates, it says that we are going to take more away than we give. It is painful to witness what has happened to what was a program intended to do our country some good. But when each of the interests raised their heads, we wound up taking care of a few at the expense of the many, and that is, unfortunately, what happened to the NHS bill which so many worked on so diligently for so many years.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will see the wisdom of her recommendation and that we will respond to what is an attempt to remove the safety precautions and replace it with a ``if you want to play, you pay'' kind of thing. I think that is quite normal and I think that is quite acceptable. I will close by saying that I do not think this opens up a Pandora's box or other things. If we want to discuss other things, we are going to discuss them, regardless of the outcome of this amendment. I hope that this amendment is agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I was appealing to the Chair for time. I thought the Senator was finished.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is there any more time left?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate the Senators' interests and comments. I say this: If, in Louisiana, a decision was made to build a highway, bridge, or a rail spur, that does not necessarily present any danger or any problems for people in the neighboring States. However, if State ``A'' has an open, or has no restrictions on drinking and driving, no open container law, and does not enforce the 21 drinking age law, it invites disaster, because young people from State ``B''--we call those blood borders. That is why the 21 drinking age bill was put into place in the first place. These are young kids. I have it in my State. It happened between New Jersey and New York and between Wisconsin and Illinois. There are a lot of instances around the country. Young people in New Jersey --at one point, we had an 18-year- old drinking age. When the law turned to 21 because we were losing too many kids on our highways, New York State invited them over. They would go over and they would come back and come down ``slaughter alley,'' a particular road and often would not make it home. Boy, that convinced me, and I said we ought to have a standard that applies all over. What you do in one State can seriously affect the lives and well-being of others in other States.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. I will wrap up my comments by noting that around this place lately we have been talking about values, about family, about structure, about behavior. And while we do not regulate behavior here, we talk often about models, examples, and about conduct. One of the worst ways for any child growing up to get a picture of what he or she ought to do in adulthood is someone moving down the road with a beer can, pouring it down their throat at the same time that they are driving. It is not a good image, and it is not a good result. I hope that in the final analysis, the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota will prevail. It is an excellent amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object. Would the manager on the Republican side be able to tell me, or would the Parliamentarian be able to tell us, how much time remains on the hour and a half at this juncture?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I rise because there is a confluence of amendments and ideas being put forward at this time that come together to me in a very meaningful way. All of us--all of us, I am sure--have known someone who lost a family member or who themselves were lost because someone was casual about booze and driving. Perhaps the thing I am most proud of--I am honored to be elected to the Senate; I am honored to have had that opportunity in my life--but the thing that I am most proud of is that I am the father of four wonderful children and two of the most beautiful grandchildren to ever walk the face of the Earth. I am so taken by them that my thoughts are often consumed by the view of the world in which we live and concerned about things that, again, concern all parents--fathers, mothers--that is, the violence in our society, the destruction of young lives needlessly, about the family that we know where a 14-year-old boy was riding in the passenger seat in a car in Florida. The 16-year-old boy was driving. He had open containers of beer in the car. They hit a telephone pole going 70 miles an hour. My friend's son was incinerated. We do not know whether he died before he was burned or whether it was after, but the thought, the notion, the vision of this child--a bright, beautiful young man--was so vivid that it seared the thinking of the community for years after. There have been memorials, there have been testimonials, but nothing--nothing--can ever remove the memory of that tragedy. But I am also considered the father of the 21-drinking-age bill, not quite like fatherhood in the real sense, but something in which I take a significant measure of pride as well. That law was written in 1984. President Reagan was in office. Elizabeth Dole was the Secretary of Transportation. They were Republicans, devoted Republicans. And yet, throughout that debate, they were very positive. I was invited to be at the signing in the Rose Garden when President Reagan signed the 21- drinking-age bill. That bill was almost forced on us by the anguish and the grief of parents across the country, of young friends across the country, high school kids--SADD was their organization, MADD was the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who came here brokenhearted at the loss of a child, typically to drunken driving. So we worked hard, and we got that bill through. The rewards come every year when we get reports from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, when they say that we are saving about a thousand kids a year from dying on the highways--a thousand kids. It does not sound like something fantastic in the abstract, because a thousand families that do not have to mourn do not know that they escaped the pain. They do not know that they did not lose a child because there is a law on the books that encouraged the appropriate kind of behavior. Here we are, some 10 years later, 10,000 young people saved from dying on the highways, and I feel very good about the effort that is being made throughout my State and many States in the country to reduce drunk driving, ever more harsh in the punishment of those who abuse the privilege and the opportunity to get behind the wheel of a car and forget about it only too quickly. I am a strong supporter of Senator Byrd's amendment, which was offered before this, to continue to make the public and the driver more aware of the fact that when they drive and they drink that there is a penalty to be paid, a penalty far less--far less--than the ultimate penalty of winding up a statistic or a phone call in the dark of night or a police officer at the door. So when we look at legislation, as we consider the national highway bill, and we try, as we develop this 160,000 miles more of supervised or constructive road development, that we focus on the safety issues. One of the things that is apparent to anyone who has ever seen people driving with a drink container, a glass, a bottle in their hands, or a can, bottoms up going along often at a fast rate of speed, it seems to have particular attraction for young men and often people in the prime of life. They just do not understand that it is not cool, that it is not macho, that it is not anything but disgusting, because if they make a miscalculation, the ball game is over.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Byrd's amendment to the national highway system bill relating to zero tolerance for under-age drivers. In 1984, I sponsored legislation that required States to enact laws making it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages. I sponsored this legislation for one simple reason--our children were dying on our highways. And they were dying for the sake of a drink. Studies have shown that alcohol--even at very low levels--can cause young people to lose their judgment and behave without regard to the risks of driving at about twice the rate of drivers 21 or older. Mr. President, since the national 21 drinking age was enacted nationally, 9 thousand lives have been saved. And since 1975, when States first started enacting laws like this one locally, as estimated 10,000 lives and over $30 billion in economic costs have been saved. In 1993 alone, 2,364 youths--young people between 15 and 20 years old--died in alcohol-related crashes. And 23 percent of the 15- to 20-year-old drivers who were involved in these fatal crashes had some alcohol in their blood. So how do we keep our children from killing themselves when studies show that over 95 percent of American adolescents will have experimented with alcohol by the time they are seniors in high school? I believe Senator Byrd's amendment can help us do just that. Mr. President, there is mounting evidence which demonstrates that blood alcohol concentration levels as low as .015 can impair a person's ability to make the kind of judgments needed to operate a motor vehicle safely. And as I indicated before, the evidence is clear: young drinking drivers behave differently from older drinking drivers. For young people, more than adults, alcohol--even at very low levels--may cause them to lose judgment and behave without regard to the inherent risks of driving at about twice the rate of drivers 21 years or older. But despite the evidence, many States still use the same standards to determine if a young person is under the influence as they apply to older drivers. That does not make sense. At present 24 States and the District of Columbia have laws which allow zero tolerance for those under 21 who are caught drinking and driving. These laws consider young drivers in violation the law if they are caught with a .02 BAC level or more. A .02 or .01 BAC level is considered zero tolerance given the present level of technology of alcohol breath-testing devices. There are an additional eight States that have laws which set zero tolerance for drivers less than 18--or have laws that set lower allowable BAC levels for underage drivers. A Maryland study showed a 21-percent reduction in alcohol-related traffic accidents involving youth under the age of 21 after it enacted its .02 BAC law for younger drivers. When Maryland combined the .02 BAC law with a public information campaign, alcohol-related traffic accidents involving youth under the age of 21 dropped by 50 percent. These are impressive statistics. They demonstrate the kind of impact that Senator Byrd's amendment will have on the safety of the American public, particularly young Americans. The human tragedy of teenage drunk driving is measured in the funerals of too many bright and promising young people who made the fatal decision to drink and drive--and too many funerals of law-abiding citizens who were victimized by drunk drivers. [[Page S 8777]] The national 21 minimum drinking age was a step in the right direction. We need to keep going. The Byrd amendment does that. It will save lives--young lives. I encourage my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I think we ought to have 20 minutes to further discuss the issue, if that is acceptable to Senator Roth.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will have to ask the Parliamentarian how much time remains on the Roth-Biden amendment.