tion's policy. I disagree with your commitment, and I regret your statement very much.

Mr. FLORIO. If I might just ask one last question. In the Federal Register notice of February 7, your administration noted that the Distilled Spirits Council says that the data do not demonstrate the effectiveness of setting the drinking age at 21. The response in that notice is it says: The agency strongly disagrees. There is statistically valid data to show that increasing the drinking age results in a decrease in alcohol-related crashes among young people.

Is that still your position?

Ms. STEED. Absolutely.

Mr. FLORIO. Thank you.

I have no further questions, and thank you very much for your participation this morning.

I see we have our colleague here, the Honorable John E. Porter. We are pleased to hear from him. He has taken a very important role in addressing this basic problem of drinking and driving. We are pleased to have you with us this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee and to testify on this very important matter.

I have a statement for the record that I would like to submit. Mr. FLORIO. Without objection, it will be put in the record in its entirety.

Mr. PORTER. I would like to address the question orally.

Let me first tell you, Mr. Chairman, where I come from on this issue. My father was a judge from a time before I was born and was a national highway safety expert, particularly in the area of drunken driving. So this was a subject that was often in our home and discussed throughout my entire upbringing.

In addition, I represent a district that borders Illinois and Wisconsin, where in Wisconsin the drinking age is 18 and in Illinois it is higher. That border has become one which young people repeatedly cross for the opportunity to drink at a younger age, come back intoxicated and are injured and killed. It is now known by the local press as "blood border" and it is a very, very serious problem in my district.

I do not think that the incentive grants approach works, and so I come at this from the use of the stick rather than the carrot.

I also think, however, that there is a problem with H.R. 3870 because it really intrudes into an area that, while it may be constitutional, has traditionally been left to regulation by the States. I think that once you enter into that area and make this simply a matter of national law, you upset an entire balanced relationship between the Federal Government and the States in terms of who has jurisdiction over what and incur a great deal of cost in enforcing the law at the Federal level.

I think it can be achieved far more easily by using the same approach that we used with the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit. That has been adopted uniformly throughout the country. While there have

been some problems with enforcement in some areas, nevertheless each State fell into line when it was suggested, because of the large number of highway fatalities and because of our energy problems, that the national speed limit of 55 would be a wise program to adopt.

I think that same approach can be used in reference to this serious national problem, simply by putting into the law a provision exactly the same as that relating to the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, that highway funds will not be available to those States that do not adopt the drinking age of 21.

I would commend that approach to you. I introduced legislation to that effect last April, H.R. 2441. I think it addresses the same subject that you are concerned with and I think it does it in a far more enforceable manner, one that does not intrude or upset that balance between the Federal Government and States that is so important and traditional in our country.

[Mr. Porter's prepared statement follows:]

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN JOHN PORTER

OCTOBER 19, 1983

Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation and Tourism

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you regarding a national drinking age.

We are all aware of the tragic number of highway deaths which result from alcohol-related accidents. There are 25,000 deaths annually on the nation's highways as a result of accidents caused by drunk drivers and teenagers represent 25% of that amount although the constitute less than 8% of the total number of licensed drivers.

Research has shown that by raising the legal drinking age a state can dramatically reduce its alcohol-related accident rate among teenage drivers. For example, my home state of Illinois raised its drinking age from 19 to 21 for the consumption of beer and wine in 1980 and, following that change, saw a 12% decrease in alcohol-related accidents for youth 19 and 20 years of age.

I am particularly sensitive to the need for states to raise legal drinking ages because I represent a Congressional district where the drinking age is 21, yet borders Wisconsin where the drinking age is only 18. In fact, the local press has nicknamed that part of my district "blood border" to signify the large number of accidents which occur there.

As you know, the House of Representatives has already shown support for programs which encourage states to raise their drinking age to 21. During the last session of Congress I was pleased to lend my support to the drunk driving legislation which included incentive grants for states to raise their drinking ages. In addition, I have co-sponsored a resolution in this session of Congress which expresses the sense of the Congress that states should raise their drinking ages.

Unfortunately, as these hearings today indicate, many states have been slow to implement a uniform drinking age at 21. In fact, only 16 states have established 21 as the minimum age for the consumption of alcohol.

I am aware of several options that the Congress could adopt to encourage states to raise their drinking age. These policy alternatives include: 1. incentive grants to the states, similar to those in last years' drunk driving legislation, 2. establishment of a federal drinking age as in H.R. 3780, Congressman Florio's bill and 3. restrictions linking the receipt of federal highway funds to a minimum drinking age of 21.

Today, testimony is being heard regarding the chairman's bill, H.R. 3780, to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages to those under 21.

While I approve of the intent of this legislation, I believe that my approach to this issue is a more effective way to encourage states to raise their drinking age and is less likely to face serious challenges in the court.

Last April I introduced H.R. 2441 which prohibits the use of federal highway funds in any state in which the minimum drinking age is less than 21 for the consumption of alcoholic beverages. This strategy is similar to that used in the past for adopting 55 miles per hour as the natiowide speed limit in order to encourage energy conservation and reduce highway fatalities.

I would like to share with the committee several reasons why I feel that H.R. 2441 is the best way to encourage states to raise their drinking age.

Establishing a federal drinking age raises several constitutional questions. For example, under the 10th amendment to the Constitution, states are reserved the right to regulate certain activities conducted exclusively within the states borders. The establishment of a minimum drinking age has traditionally been considered within the scope of the state's police powers and as a result the federal government has not intervened in this area.

My legislation conforms to this 200 year tradition by allowing the states to establish their own drinking age, yet providing a strong economic incentive for states to adhere to a minimum drinking age of 21.

My proposal will be relatively simple to implement. As with the 55 miles per hour speed limit, governors of each of the states could be required to pledge that his or her state will enforce a minimum drinking age of 21 as a prerequisite to receiving their federal highway funds.

Unlike H.R. 3780, my bill does not require the federal government to enforce the drinking age, rather it allows the states to continue in their role of enforcement.

In conclusion, I urge you to consider H.R. 2441 as a viable alternative to several of the problems posed by H.R. 3780, especially in light of the serious constitutional questions raised. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Mr. FLORIO. Thank you very much.

Let me ask you some fairly obvious questions. Are you not at all concerned about the fact that if a State should decide, for whatever reasons, good or bad, not to increase the drinking age to 21, that therefore they are effectively depriving themselves of resources that may very well be able to be used in correcting highway safety defects, so that they now have the worst of both worlds: They have young people driving and drinking in their State, and they also have road situations that are not being repaired because they have deprived themselves of those resources.

Mr. PORTER. I would be concerned with that if we had a spotty lack of enforcement or lack of change of law, for example, regarding the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit. But that has not occurred. While some States are known to be not as good enforcers as others, across the country uniformly, if I am not mistaken, every state has adopted the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, and it seems to be an approach that works. The incentive for doing so is so very strong throughout the country that it simply is an approach that has worked.

Mr. FLORIO. So what you are saying is that the prospect of these highway moneys there is so forceful or in a sense so coercive in adducing people to change their conduct in order to qualify for them, that you expect full compliance with an effort to increase the drinking age to 21, so that everyone will get their money and therefore there will be no one denied those――

Mr. PORTER. Not only that. It could not be done if it was not a subject that evokes a strong public concern in every State. I think that people today in this country have become aware of the magnitude of this problem, the slaughter on the highways, the young people being killed, and that in every State there is a strong group of people that are concerned to see that the law be changed.

And when you give that incentive at the national level, I think you are going to see it quite easily adopted in every State. I am not worried, in other words, that it is going to be lacking enforcement in one State as opposed to another. I think it will work.

Mr. FLORIO. One last point. You heard the representatives from the administration here opposing the proposal that is on the table that we are discussing as being too intrusive and in a sense coercive. I find your suggestion, though I agree with the thrust, I find the arguments that can be raised about your proposal being much more coercive, in the sense of the States paying a price unless they take certain actions.

So in a philosophic vein, it seems to me that if someone is opposed to the idea of a national law one is going to be equally philosophically opposed to the approach that you are taking, which is literally to coerce the States into undertaking a national policy of 21 on pain of losing highway safety money.

So I am more concerned about the fact that I do not think your approach is going to find as much support in the Congress. I have talked with people in Public Works. They are not very enthusiastic about it going forward in the direction that you have talked about. Some have referred people who are concerned about the drinking age to our committee, to induce us to take action, because they see no prospect of it happening in the way that you are advocating.