SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF 2003
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator, my dear friend, yield for some questions?
Mr. ALLEN. I would be happy to.
Mr. WARNER. I think as the two of us are here on the Senate floor, I am reminded that when Ben Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention, a reporter asked him: Well, what have the delegates to the convention rendered America? He said: A republic, if you can keep it. And this is the very essence of the Republic, if we can keep it, because here we are, two of the best of friends, proud to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia, and 90 percent of the time we are aligned. Yet our system allows the two of us to debate opposite positions on a piece of legislation I offered. I think that is magnificent, not only for our State but for the country.
Mr. ALLEN. If I may, I would much rather be debating this issue with your colleague on this, the junior Senator from New York. It would be much more enjoyable than with someone who is such a great partner. I yield back.
Mr. WARNER. I believe there would be somewhat greater notoriety, but I think some of the folks down in Virginia would be rather amused that here we are, the two elected Senators, having an honest and forthright debate, and in a friendly spirit.
But I picked up on one or two of your words. I know you love that word, Congress being the "nanny." But, first, I ask my junior Senator, have I ever been a nanny toward you?
Mr. ALLEN. Of course not.
Mr. WARNER. Fine.
Mr. ALLEN. I wouldn't allow it, and you wouldn't either.
Mr. WARNER. So be it. Let's put that to one side.
Mr. ALLEN. I would say for the record, Mr. President, no, the senior Senator from Virginia has given me guidance but never in a sense of being an officious nanny whatsoever.
Mr. WARNER. Nor will I ever because I have tremendous respect for the Senator. We come to the Senate with different career backgrounds: You, a very distinguished State legislator, then Governor, and now U.S. Senator. How well I know that. I campaigned as a U.S. Senator when you were a State legislator, when you were running for the governorship, and then for the Senate. I am privileged and delighted that the Senator is here.
But you used one word I have to ask you to reconsider: This will establish a dangerous precedent. I ask my good friend-Virginia has the .08 drinking law, which has been very effective. It has saved lives. That is the purpose of this legislation, to save lives. To me, a little less concrete, a little less asphalt, and we may save a life, and we may save thrusting expenses on the local communities-whether it is the small community of Hopewell, VA, or the large community of Richmond. When an accident happens, they are the ones who bear the cost of sending out the police, the rescue squads-fortunately, Virginians volunteer in many instances-to attend to the wounded, the sick, and, indeed, the dying as a consequence of the accident.
That is costly, and it is clearly documented that we save lives with the increase in the use of seatbelts. The Secretary of Transportation, on behalf of the President, wrote this body a letter, addressed to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Inhofe, which is in the RECORD. It explicitly says the increase in the use of seatbelts saves lives. I do not think throughout this debate-I have been here throughout this debate-not one single Member of the Senate has taken the floor and addressed this legislation that it does not save lives. That is a given.
So let's go back to the .08 law. Is that not a direct precedent for this piece of legislation? This legislation is drawn, sentence by sentence, comparable to the .08 law. That was my objective.
Mr. ALLEN. I say to my colleague, the senior Senator from Virginia, it is similar in some respects.
Let me make a few points. Talking about cost-local rescue squads, volunteer fire departments, and so forth, having to work accidents-well, it is not as if the State legislatures do not care about these costs because, after all, if it is State police or if it is local supervisors or whoever it may be, they all care about that as well. And that is the proper forum for this because I think the people in the States do care just as much if not more and are much more in tune with what they would like to do in their laws than the Federal Government.
The difference on .08-I did allude to it, and it is a good, probative question-the .08 blood-alcohol level for drunk driving, or driving while under the influence of alcohol, is something that I advocated when you were alongside of me campaigning for Governor in 1993. There was opposition to that. But I thought, as well as you do, that at .08 most people are going to be impaired and, therefore, a danger, in that case to themselves, but what I cared most about was the danger to others.
In the case of somebody's lap, whether they are wearing a seatbelt or not, if it is a danger, it is only a slight increase in danger to themselves. It is not a danger to others on the road. Whereas, for somebody who is a drunk driver, clearly it is going to be a danger to themselves, but what might they do to an innocent pedestrian, somebody else driving on the road? So even .08, while we had it-and so the dictate and the extortion, whatever term you want to use on .08, it did not matter to Virginia because we had already passed that law, imagine that, without the wisdom of Washington. We actually did that. The point is, in this case, unlike a drunk driver, not wearing a seatbelt is not a danger to others, while a drunk driver is. And that is a distinction I would make.
But in either case, just personally-this is just philosophical to me, and maybe it is because of my experience serving in the State legislature and as Governor-I think the people in the States are perfectly capable of making these judgments themselves. And to restrict or take away funds unless you follow the dictates of the Federal Government in something that while desirable is not really the proper jurisdiction of the Federal Government, to me, is just wrong.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I full well know, having had the privilege of working with you
throughout much of our public service careers, your strong feeling about States rights. And I have mine also. But I have to tell the Senator, the facts do not bear out the assumption that that individual driving without the seatbelt is of minimal danger to an innocent person, be it a pedestrian or one in another car, for this reason: It is very clear that if an accident occurs with an individual driving under the restraint of a seatbelt, he or she has, in that split fraction of a second, better control over the car than one who is totally jostled out of the driver's position and loses the ability to operate the controls of the car because of the absence of a restraint to keep that individual in the position of the driver.
Now, the record is replete with those facts. Secondly, yes, you think the people of Virginia-and we love them dearly and they will be on your side, not on mine; they will be on your side-should make the decision. But, tragically, for children, 6 out of 10 die who do not have the seatbelt put on them.
By the driver putting on his or her seatbelt, there is more of an inclination, then, to do the same with the other passengers in the car. The death on our highways today cuts into the young people, the younger generation coming along behind us far more deeply than our age group. The main category of deaths in this country, on the highways, is between the ages of about 17 and 30. There is the preponderance of deaths.
How well you know and I know when we were that age, you know: The laws be damned; we can handle anything.
That is the magnificence of youth, the exuberance, to meet the challenges, whatever they are, and "don't tell me." I always admire that flag of New Hampshire that says: Don't tread on me. But now and then we have to tread ever so lightly upon our citizens to induce them to take those fundamental steps, not only to protect themselves but to protect that innocent victim on the streets or in another vehicle.
This formula is drawn up, yes, that some funds are withheld if the State does not go ahead. We only lost by one vote in the Virginia General Assembly on two occasions to get this very piece of legislation. You acknowledge that fact.
Mr. ALLEN. It has failed for many years.
Mr. WARNER. One vote. All I am saying to you is, if you just require the State, all right, if you don't do it, you will have to give up a little asphalt, a little more concrete, but in return we are saving lives, not only the lives of the young people in that car but the innocent victims, the passengers of another vehicle, or the pedestrian. For a very few cubic yards of concrete and asphalt, we may well save a life.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WARNER. He enumerated a number of States that still do not have it. If you go back, as I have done, and studied the .08 law, it was vigorously resisted here on the floor of the Senate repeatedly for the very same reasons you have given. But once it was passed and it became mandatory, suddenly the States joined up. There are now 49 States that have the .08 law as a direct consequence of the Congress having given the impetus for those additional States that were hanging out, all of which you just enumerated; in this instance they joined.
Lastly, I think it is also important in the debate to mention your own personal experience of an individual who was concerned that it would begin to have cars pulled over by virtue of race. But one of the most interesting individuals who attended a press conference the day before yesterday was a black legislator from Arkansas who is chairman of the National Conference of Black State Legislators. He brought with him that organization's endorsement of this bill. So I do believe there is some legitimate difference within one minority with respect to the question of how this law will be felt.
Five States had 21 minimum drinking age, when President Reagan, your idol and mine, signed that into law. So I am just telling you, .08 is an example of how Congress finally acted, and then all the States, save one-I won't mention the one; somebody can do their homework; it is rather curious which State it is-have accepted the .08 law.
I say to my good friend, we have had a marvelous debate. I have enjoyed it. My respect for him as a consequence of the debate has increased, my dear friend.
Mrs. CLINTON. Will the distinguished Senator from Virginia yield for a question?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. ALLEN. What is the question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is asking the Senator to yield for a question.
Mr. ALLEN. I will yield, but before I do, I want to make a statement. After that I would be happy to answer a question.
This is the fundamental difference. On .08, as Governor, as a candidate, I thought it was a great idea. The reason all the States have the .08 but for one is because you are withholding or the Federal Government is saying we are going to withhold some of your highway funds for it. It is blackmail. It is extortion, raising the beer-drinking age in Virginia because of that. Ronald Reagan is my hero. He is the one who motivated me to get into organized politics. I think he was wrong to do that. I think for people who are 18, the States can make these decisions. They can enter into binding contracts. They can vote for President, vote for Members here, and they can also theoretically be drafted to fight and potentially die for their country. I think the people of the States can make those decisions.
On this issue, in particular, the .08, I am with you, I am for it. I think that should be done at the State level. The mandatory seatbelt law and primary enforcement is something that when I held Mr. Jefferson's seat in the House of Delegates I voted against. So if I have voted against it and was opposed to this nannyism when I was in the State legislature, I know the air is more rarified up here, but I still have some of those senses. I certainly do not want to do something in the Senate I would not want to do as a legislator and, moreover, tell the folks in other States to do it.
With that, I yield to the junior Senator from New York.
Mr. WARNER. If I could just make one reply to my colleague and then we will yield the floor. This bill is carefully crafted, that, yes, there is a withholding of those yards of concrete and asphalt, but once the State complies, what has been withheld by way of funds comes back to them to go right into the mainstream of their funding, not unlike .08.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 2286
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yesterday I had an opportunity to offer the amendment which is now pending before the Senate and to engage in debate with my colleagues on the important issue of increasing the use of seatbelts in this country.
At the request of my colleague, the manager of the bill, Chairman Inhofe, my amendment was modified last night to give States a full 2 years before it takes effect.
I wish to take a few moments to summarize this amendment and be sure that my colleagues understand precisely what this amendment is and what it is not.
To the point, this amendment is not a mandatory seatbelt law.
This amendment sets as our national policy that States are to reach a 90-percent seatbelt use rate by 2006-a full 2 years from now.
States can meet this goal in two ways. First, they can meet this goal by any means or programs they devise. They can implement new programs or modify their existing occupant protection programs. Funding is also provided to assist States with implementing or expanding their existing programs. This language is identical to the provisions recommended in the administration's bill, but it is not included in the bill before us.
States can also meet the requirements of the amendment by enacting a primary seatbelt law.
This 90-percent belt use rate is not a number that I have invented. It is the figure recommended in the President's highway reauthorization bill.
Wearing seatbelts is a critical public health and safety issue. For the first time in a decade, highway deaths are on the rise. In 2002, nearly 43,000 persons were killed on our highways and over half of these deaths involved people who were not wearing their seatbelt.
If for no other reason to support this amendment, we must protect our Nation's youth. Today, automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34.
These tragic statistics are reversible if we take action today.
That is why over 130 organizations are endorsing this amendment. The support includes major national organizations such as the American Medical Association, law enforcement officials, major insurance companies, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the list goes on.
These are the people who deal every day with the wasteful and avoidable deaths on our highways. They are on the front lines in responding to a crash. They are in our hospitals providing care to those who have sustained serious injuries because a seatbelt was not worn. They are the ones who see ever-increasing insurance costs for all Americans because seatbelts are not used. They are the ones who know that safety devices in our cars-such as air bags and enhanced bumpers-are less effective when seatbelts are not worn.
My colleagues who do not support this amendment have read letters of concern from State groups and others. That is no surprise. At every turn in our Federal transportation policy for the past 15 years these same groups have opposed every public safety initiative. They opposed raising the minimum drinking age to 21, they opposed the zero tolerance for minors alcohol program, and they opposed the .08 BAC drunk driving level.
My only interest is to ensure that this critically important legislation contains some meaningful protections for drivers and passengers.
In TEA-21, there was a 40-percent increase in construction funding, which I proudly supported, to make our roads safer. Yet, traffic deaths are increasing. In SAFETEA, there is a $65 billion increase for highway construction, yet inadequate protections for our drivers. No engineering features of our roads will protect against reckless driving behavior. That is what causes a majority of our accidents.
Unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol remain the three biggest safety problems on our roads-not unsafe roads. We are taking meaningful steps to get tough on those who irresponsibly use alcohol and drive. Now it is time to do what we know works to address the other major problem-unbelted drivers.
For the benefit of my colleagues, let me summarize the amendment. States are to achieve a 90 percent belt use rate by 2006-2 years from now-or have a primary seatbelt law enacted.
If a State does not meet either of these two provisions, 5 percent of one category of their construction funds are transferred to their highway safety programs. The purpose of this transfer is to provide States with additional funding to dedicate to their own programs to encourage drivers and passengers to wear their seatbelts.
If by 2008-4 years from now-a State has not met the 90 percent belt use rate or has not enacted a primary seatbelt law, 2 percent of a portion of their construction funds are withheld. For each of the following years, 4 percent of a portion of their funds are withheld.
States will receive any funding that is withheld when they reach the 90 percent belt use rate, or enact a primary safety belt law. This is the same provision that is law today for the .08 BAC drunk driving standard. Since it was enacted in 2001, 47 States now comply.
There is a solution to the tragic deaths that are occurring on our highways every day. This amendment is the beginning. Let's do what we know works to save lives on our highways.
Let's not pass the buck by believing that it is the responsibility of others to take action. It is our responsibility. I urge my colleagues not to support the motion to table.