[Senate Hearing 110-1230]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1230
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL DRUNK DRIVING PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SAFETY,
INFRUSTRUCTURE SECURITY, AND WATER QUALITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 25, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-580 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and
Water Quality
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OCTOBER 25, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from The State of New
Jersey......................................................... 1
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from The State of Minnesota.... 3
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from The State of California... 5
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from The State of Louisiana..... 24
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 49
WITNESSES
Barrett, Hon. Thomas J., Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Rosenker, Hon. Mark V., Chairman, National Transportation Safety
Board.......................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Scovel, Hon. Calvin L., III, Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation.............................................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Fields, Hon. Michael R., Judge, Harris County Criminal Court of
Law, Number 14, State of Texas................................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Responses to additional questions from Senator Lautenberg.... 32
Wheeler, John, Governor's Crime Advisor, Department of Public
Safety, State of New Mexico.................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Birch, Glynn R., National President, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving........................................................ 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Responses to additional questions from Senator Lautenberg.... 39
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA).................. 51
American Mediacal Association (AMA).......................... 57
International Association of Chiefs of Police................ 61
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Impaired
Driving Subcommittee; Impaired Driving Guidebook: Three
Keys to Renewed Focus and Success.......................... 63
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety....................... 93
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL DRUNK DRIVING PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure
Security, and Water Quality,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank Lautenberg
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, Vitter, Klobuchar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. This Subcommittee will come to order
and the hearing will start.
I want to just add a quick note, though, and that is that I
am compelled to be on the floor of the Senate to manage a bill,
so we may have to take a short recess until the Chairperson of
the Committee gets here, Senator Boxer. We will try to move
expeditiously, but we don't want to leave out things that are
important.
Thank you all for being here and helping us review what
kind of progress we have made in getting drunk drivers off the
road, and how to save even more people from dying a preventable
death.
Since 1984, the Federal Government has taken tough action
to prevent senseless drunk driving deaths on our highways. Two
of the most successful examples are the national minimum
drinking age of 21; and the national .08 blood alcohol content
standard for drunk driving. These tough laws have saved tens of
thousands of lives.
Though my children were a little annoyed with me because
they were college age, I was proud to author the Age 21 law and
pleased also that we have saved so many mothers, fathers,
sisters, and brothers from the grief of losing a child because
of that law.
But even with these laws, our job isn't complete. Drunk
driving remains an epidemic. Seventeen thousand victims still
die each year in vehicle crashes involving alcohol. That is 41
percent of all the highway deaths. In my home State of New
Jersey, 341 of our residents died in alcohol-related crashes
last year, a 20 percent increase over the year before.
Despite these grim figures, some people want to roll back
the lifesaving laws that we have put in place. It is hard to
understand. I want to be clear. We will not be revisiting these
well established and successful laws. Any attempt to diminish
the effectiveness of these laws or subsequent laws will have to
face a huge fight if they want to expose more of our young
people, or more of our people. We talk primarily about young
people here, but there are lots of not so young people who die
on the highways as a result of alcohol and driving.
We will be looking at head to what Government can do to
protect more Americans from drunk drivers. Congress has got to
take action to convince States to pass more effective laws to
combat drunk driving. For example, not every State has tougher
laws for repeat drunk drivers. Arrests and even convictions can
pile up without repercussion.
One news report tells the story of a man who was caught
drunk driving 11 times and who never had his license taken
away. Amazingly, there are many places in this Country where
you can refuse to take a blood alcohol test even after causing
a fatal crash, and the penalty is only the loss of a driver's
license.
Now, when it comes to better enforcement of laws, sanctions
do work on States. When we offered incentives to States to pass
the .08 blood alcohol laws, only three States took us up. But
when we passed a sanction to withhold some of their Federal
highway funding, 32 States changed their minds. So the proof is
there.
To prevent more injuries, we ought to make greater use of
technology such as ignition interlocks that lock a car's
ignition when a driver's blood alcohol level is too high. I
look forward to hearing about those efforts.
The bottom line is that drunk driving kills. Seventeen
thousand American families a year who lost a loved one can
testify to that.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
actions that Congress can take to further save lives on our
roads.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Jersey
Today we will review the progress we have made in getting
drunk drivers off the road, and how to save even more people
from dying from a preventable tragedy. Since 1984, the Federal
Government has taken tough action to prevent senseless drunk
driving deaths on our roads.
Two of the most successful examples are the national
minimum drinking age of 21, and the national .08 blood alcohol
content standard for drunk driving. These smart, tough laws
have saved tens of thousands of lives. Though my children were
a little annoyed, I was proud to author the ``age 21'' law--and
am proud that we have kept so many mothers, fathers, sisters
and brothers alive because of it. But even with these laws, our
job is not complete.
Drunk driving remains an epidemic. Seventeen-thousand
victims still die each year in vehicle crashes involving
alcohol. That's 41 percent of all highway deaths. In my home
State of New Jersey, 341 of our residents died in alcohol-
related crashes last year--a 20-percent increase over the year
before.
Despite these grim figures, some people want to roll back
the life-saving laws we have put in place. Let me be clear: We
will not be revisiting these well-established and successful
laws. Instead, we will be looking ahead to what the government
can do to protect more Americans from drunk drivers.
Congress must take action to convince states to pass more
effective laws to combat drunk driving. For example, not every
State has tougher laws for repeat drunk drivers. Arrests and
even convictions can pile up without repercussion. One news
report tells the story of a man who was caught driving drunk 11
times--and who never lost his license.
Amazingly, there are many places in this country where you
can refuse to take a blood-alcohol test even after causing a
fatal crash and the penalty is only the loss of a driver's
license. When it comes to better enforcement of laws, sanctions
on states work.
When we offered incentives to states to pass .08 blood-
alcohol laws, only three took us up. But when we passed a
sanction to withhold some of their Federal highway funding, 32
states changed their minds.
To prevent more injuries, we should make greater use of
technology, such as ignition interlocks, that lock a car's
ignition when a driver's blood alcohol level is too high. I
look forward to hearing about those efforts. The bottom line is
that drunk driving kills. Seventeen-thousand American families
a year who have lost a loved one can testify to that.
Today I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
actions Congress can take to further save lives on our roads.
Now we are joined by Senator Klobuchar. Senator, I have a
10:30 management on the floor on the transportation bill. So I
wonder, would you be able to chair?
Senator Klobuchar. I would love to, but I have the farm
bill markup.
Senator Lautenberg. OK. Would you like to make a short
statement?
Senator Klobuchar. I will make it very quickly.
Senator Lautenberg. OK.
Senator Klobuchar. One minute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this critically important hearing and for your
leadership on this issue.
Simply put, your work in drunk driving, Senator Lautenberg,
has saved lives. It has been over 20 years since your
legislation made 21 the national drinking age. In that time,
over 20,000 lives have been changed. Your legislation made our
roads and our communities safer and for that we are all
grateful.
But there is so much work to be done, as each of our
panelists will highlight. There are well over 16,000 alcohol-
related highway traffic deaths in the U.S. each year.
In Minnesota, we have had some success in containing these
hardcore drunk driving fatalities by being strict with
enforcement and aggressive with prevention. As Hennepin County
Attorney, I would say one of my, if not the proudest
legislative accomplishment I had, and it took 2 years, was to
pass Minnesota's felony DWI law. When I came into office, I
realized we had felonies for things like stealing a cable TV
cable and various theft of animals, but someone could have 20
DWIs and it was still a misdemeanor and they really could only
go to prison for one or 2 years, and in fact is was a county
workhouse.
Today in Minnesota, if you get four DWIs within 10 years,
you are charged with a felony and face the possibility of
prison time up to 7 years.
Again, an example of why we had to do it, there was a man
named Raymond Sherman. In his early 40's, he had more than 20
DWIs on his record. When he was arrested when we had the felony
DWI law in place, right near the Mall of America, he tested at
well over the legal limit. What we found out when we looked
back at his record was the last time he had gotten it, he said,
well, you can't get me because Minnesota doesn't have a felony
DWI. Well, we did get him the next time and he went to 5 years
in prison.
The goal here is not to put a bunch of people in prison,
but it is to prevent them from going out and driving and
drinking again. I have experience with this in my own life. My
dad had three DWIs and it was the third DWI that really made
him stop drinking, and his whole life has been turned around.
He has been a successful journalist his entire life and is now
very happy in his retirement, being sober and it has really
turned him around. So I believe that strict rules can make a
difference.
I just want to leave you with one thought. One of our rural
judges has embarked on a successful and innovative program in
Minnesota for repeat drunk drivers. It is Judge James Denn, and
he has been sentencing some repeat drunk driving offenders to
staggered jail terms, allowing them to serve one third of their
time immediately, one third a year later, and one third a year
after that.
Now, it doesn't work for everyone, but the idea is that in
between those jail stints, if the offenders can prove that they
have reformed, they can earn their way out of the remaining
jail time. But if they get another DWI, they serve the full
sentence. He has been doing this not necessarily with the ones
I am talking about like Mr. Sherman, who has 20--it wouldn't
work for him--but for some of the ones who have smaller numbers
of DWIs.
It is the use of effective monitoring and prevention
programs such as staggered sentencing, ignition locks, vehicle
impoundment, highly visible checkpoints and advertising
campaigns, coupled with this strict kind of enforcement that we
have started to do now the last few years in Minnesota that I
believe has made a difference.
I also want to thank the advocacy groups in our State that
have been at our side. We had the most powerful testimony to
get our law passed, which involved a man who had lost his son
to a drunk driver, and a repeat drunk driver who had killed
someone. When he got out of prison, the two of them went
together and testified in favor of stricter drunk driving laws.
So I believe in this kind of redemption, and I believe you
get there by having incentives, but I also believe you need the
strict enforcement.
I also wanted to thank you for the .08 incentives. Our
State was one of the last to do it. People where my relatives
are from in Northern Minnesota were not that excited about it,
I will tell you that. One of my favorite legislators actually
took to our House floor and said, if you change the standard to
.08, how will my constituents get home in the morning?
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. However, we have now turned around and
we have it in place, and I think that would not have happened
without having these kinds of incentives on the Federal level.
So I want to thank you all for your good work, and
especially Mr. Chairman, and if it is possible, I would love to
fill in. You know how much I like to chair hearings, so if it
works out, I will do it.
Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. I just started to say before that when
I wrote the law, two of my four children were in college and
they said, Dad, you know, we would like to have a party, but we
can't just serve Coca-Cola at our age, and they were 18 or so.
I said, well, Pepsi will have to do. We are not going to permit
that. Of course, now today when they have children, they sure
don't want drunks on the road where we can avoid it.
I am going to recess this session for now. I thank you all.
You are excellent candidates for your testimony today.
Senator Boxer will be here shortly. So forgive the delay,
but other duties call and I have to do it, especially when the
Majority Leader says so.
Senator Klobuchar. Senator, if you would like, I could stay
for 10 minutes if we want to get started.
OK. Whatever you say, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
Senator Boxer. [Presiding.] The Committee hearing will
begin. I understand we had a couple of colleagues here. As you
know, we have an insane schedule today which affected
everybody's ability to be here. I myself just came in this
morning back from California where I was very concerned about
the devastation in my State. I thank everybody from all over
the Country for caring and asking me about it. It looks like
the winds have changed in our favor and we will be dealing with
the aftermath for quite a while. But I am glad to be back here
to be able to conduct this hearing.
As you well know, Senator Lautenberg, to say he is
passionate on the subject is an understatement. He has to
manage a bill on the floor, the Amtrak bill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. I thank you all for being here to discuss
the effectiveness of Federal drunk driving programs. Alcohol-
related crashes are among the biggest highway safety challenges
we face, accounting for 41 percent of overall traffic
fatalities in 2006, 17,602 lives needlessly lost. Drunk driving
causes thousands of deaths and injuries each year that could
otherwise have been avoided, changing the lives of families and
accident victims really forever.
But the consequences of drunk driving are not limited to
the families of those who are killed or injured. A 2002 study
by NHTSA estimated that alcohol-related crashes cost the
American public more than $114 billion. That is just in 1 year,
the year 2000.
And here we are struggling to find funds for children's
health care. You know, we are having a problem, fighting over,
you know, $30 billion, with $114 billion lost in 2000 alone. So
we can't ignore this problem. The regulation of alcohol and its
use by the operators of motor vehicles is largely left to the
States. However, Congress has encouraged States to adopt
legislation aimed at reducing drunk driving through the use of
sanctions that withhold or transfer Federal funds and incentive
grants that are given to States if they take certain actions.
There are currently five different provisions in Federal
law that either withhold Federal funds from States that would
be available for the national highway system, InterState
maintenance and surface transportation programs, or transfer a
portion of these funds to a State's highway safety program. It
will take a coordinated effort on behalf of the States and the
Federal Government to address the problems of drunk driving.
Drunk driving is a serious problem which has seen little
improvement over the past decade. This hearing will help the
Committee make the record as to what we are learning and what
we are not learning. I look forward to working with the other
members of the Subcommittee as we review this issue in
anticipation of the next transportation bill, which as you all
know will be coming next Congress.
So we are grateful to the witnesses for being here, and I
look forward to testimony. We will get right to it. Because of
the loss of time, we are going to just start at 4 minutes and
see if you can do that so we can have time to ask you
questions.
Senator Boxer. The Honorable Thomas Barrett, Deputy
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. Sir, we welcome
you.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Barrett. Madam Chairman, thank you. I am pleased to
represent the Department this morning on this important safety
issue. Secretary Peters takes this very seriously, as do I. And
I know you do and the Committee does as well.
Alcohol-impaired driving is a serious public health
problem. As you know, there were over 13,000 deaths last year
in which a driver or operator had a BAC above .08. As you
indicated, Senator, this number has remained relatively flat
for the past decade. This is not acceptable to the Department
and we are working aggressively with State law enforcement
partners, criminal justice partners, advocacy groups like MADD,
to address what is a complex and tragic social issue.
I also want to note we have just updated the driving under
the influence model code to assist States in fashioning their
laws. I want to thank Senator Lautenberg for his personal
leadership on this issue.
The program we have set at DOT calls for comprehensive
solutions, education, strong laws, law enforcement, and
suitable legal consequences for offenders. NHTSA is emphasizing
high visibility law enforcement, support for improved
adjudication of drunk driving cases, and technology to prevent
impaired driving.
We believe that these measures will be effective in
reducing the numbers that we see. We also want to thank the
more than 9,000 State law enforcement agencies that
participated in our recently completed Labor Day national drunk
driving crackdown. We could not be successful without their
help.
You may have heard the phrase ``Over the Limit. Under
Arrest.'' Thanks to the support of Congress, the nationwide
drunk driving enforcement crackdowns are supplemented by $18
million of national advertising, $11 million over Labor Day and
an additional $7 million purchase in December during the
holiday season.
NHTSA has also recently focused renewed attention on
ignition interlocks. Studies show interlocks can reduce
recidivism by as much as two thirds. However, currently only
about 10 percent or about 100,000 offenders potentially
eligible for the devices actually must use them.
We have also convened a National Interlock Ignition Summit
to develop recommendations from the criminal justice community
for increasing the benefits of this technology. The agency is
involved in developing guidance on model programs and curricula
for educating judges and others on the benefits of expanded
deployment of interlocks.
As longer term countermeasures, we are pursuing more
advanced technology and have established a cooperative research
initiative with the automotive industry to lead to new
technologies that would prevent impaired drivers from operating
vehicles.
I also want to note that the particularly tragic aspect of
the drunk driving problem is impact on the youngest drivers. We
believe it is essential that the 21 minimum drinking age be
retained and strictly enforced. The model code that we
developed notes zero tolerance for underage drinking and
driving.
Madam Chairman, the Department is committed to reducing
alcohol-impaired driving problems, especially as it affects our
youngest drivers and their families. Our plans include both
shorter and longer term solutions to provide very aggressive
steps to reduce the horribly tragic consequences we see in
this.
I thank you and I would be pleased to answer any questions
when appropriate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barrett follows:]
Statement of Hon. Thomas J. Barrett, Deputy
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members of
the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to represent
the Department on this very important safety issue.
Alcohol impaired driving is a serious public health
problem. In 2006, there were more than 13,000 deaths in crashes
in which a driver or motorcycle rider had a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) above 0.08 grams per deciliter of breath,
the legal limit in every state. Following a decline through the
1980's, the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has
remained at essentially the same level since the late 1990's.
Further progress in reducing alcohol-related traffic deaths has
been inhibited by a number of factors, including changes in the
demographics of the driving population and a decline in the
rate of enactment of State drunk driving laws as most States
completed their basic legislative package.
While impaired driving affects individuals of all ages,
both genders and every area of the Nation, some groups have
much higher involvement rates than others. Males comprise more
than 80 percent of annual alcohol-related fatalities and those
between ages 21 and 34 years of age are greatly over-
represented. Per licensed driver, the highest rate of
involvement in a fatal crash with a BAC at or above 0.08 in
2005 was for 21--24 year olds. The next highest rate was among
18--20 year olds, despite the fact that every State has a
minimum drinking age of 21 years. Alcohol-related fatality
rates vary considerably among States. In 4 States, the
proportion of all traffic deaths that are alcohol-related is 50
percent or more, while in 7 other States the proportion is less
than 35 percent.
Most drivers with positive BAC who are involved in fatal
crashes are well over the legal limit. In 2006, about 84
percent of those with positive BAC were above the legal limit
of 0.08, and the median among those with positive BAC was 0.15,
nearly double the legal limit in every State.
Impaired driving is a complex social issue and requires a
comprehensive solution including education, strong laws, law
enforcement, suitable legal consequences for offenders, and
appropriate treatment for those with abuse or addiction
problems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) works with States to address a full range of
countermeasures. However, the agency emphasizes several
priority programs because of their effectiveness and the
benefit of coordinated State implementation. These priorities
include high visibility law enforcement, support for improved
adjudication of drunk driving cases, and technology to prevent
impaired driving.
High visibility law enforcement has proven to be an
especially effective means to reduce impaired driving crashes
because it not only removes drunk drivers from the road, but
also serves as a general deterrent, creating an increased
perception of risk of arrest that discourages community members
from drinking and driving. NHTSA coordinates nationwide high
visibility impaired driving enforcement crackdowns twice
annually, during the Labor Day and December holiday travel
periods. During the Labor Day 2007 crackdown, about 9,000 law
enforcement agencies participated by conducting highly visible
enforcement operations such as sobriety checkpoints or
saturation patrols. State Highway Safety Offices devoted a
total of about $21 million to support these law enforcement
activities.
NHTSA supports the nationwide enforcement crackdowns with
the purchase of national advertising on television, radio and
other media, using the message Drunk Driving. Over the Limit.
Under Arrest. to alert motorists of the increased enforcement
activity and enhance the general deterrent effect. Using high
visibility enforcement funds appropriated by Congress, NHTSA
purchased $11 million of national advertising for the Labor Day
period and plans an additional purchase in December. These
advertisements are placed in media outlets that reach the
demographic groups most likely to drink and drive. In addition
to the national advertisements, State Highway Safety Offices
spent about $16 million on paid advertising using the same
theme and message.
To provide financial support for States to conduct high
visibility law enforcement and other impaired driving program
activities, NHTSA administers a number of grant programs for
States. Under SAFETEA-LU, the Section 410 impaired driving
incentive program provides funds to States if they carry out
specified impaired-driving countermeasures. These statutory
activities include high visibility enforcement campaigns and
programs that deter underage drinking. Over the past 2 years,
NHTSA has provided over $200 million in Section 410 grant funds
to support State impaired driving programs in every State, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Several statutory provisions require States to have certain
impaired driving laws in place. These requirements include laws
that establish a minimum drinking age of 21 years, a per se
impairment level of 0.08 BAC, harsher sanctions for repeat
offenders, and restrictions on open alcohol containers in motor
vehicles. States that do not enact and enforce these laws face
the prospect of reduced or transferred highway construction
funds. NHTSA is responsible for making the legal findings of
noncompliance that would result in the Federal Highway
Administration transferring or withholding of highway funds.
NHTSA has recently focused attention on another impaired
driving priority, alcohol ignition interlocks. Evaluations
indicate that, while installed on offenders' vehicles,
interlocks reduce recidivism by as much as two-thirds. Experts
also agree that interlocks may offer even greater potential
when integrated in a State impaired driving system as a means
to link court and treatment functions. Currently about 100,000
offenders are using ignition interlocks, a small proportion of
those who could be eligible for this technology.
In August, NHTSA Administrator Nicole Nason convened a
national ignition interlock summit to develop recommendations
from judges, prosecutors and treatment professionals for
increasing the benefits of interlocks. The agency is now
engaged in developing guidance on model interlock programs and
curricula for educating judges, prosecutors and others on
interlock technology and its benefits.
As a longer term countermeasure against impaired driving,
NHTSA is pursuing more advanced technology. The agency is
currently establishing a cooperative research initiative with
the automotive industry that could result in technology that
would prevent an impaired driver from operating a vehicle. In
order to be effective, any technology would need to be passive,
requiring no deliberate driver action, and sufficiently
accurate, reliable and affordable for widespread use. The
timeframe for developing and deploying such technology is
estimated to be 10--15 years.
A particularly tragic aspect of the impaired driving
problem is its impact on the youngest drivers. Nearly a quarter
of deaths of drivers less than 21 years of age have a BAC of
more than 0.08 despite the fact that it is illegal for these
drivers to drink alcohol. In 2005, about 3,500 drivers younger
than 21 years of age were killed in crashes, nearly 1,000 of
whom had been drinking. Young drivers are especially vulnerable
to the risks of impaired driving due to their inexperience both
with driving and with drinking alcohol.
While these young driver statistics are tragic, they are
much improved from the situation 25 years ago, prior to
enactment by all States of Age 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age
(MLDA) Laws. MLDA laws have proven to be one of the most
effective impaired driving deterrents, resulting in nearly
25,000 lives saved since 1982, according to NHTSA estimates.
The scientific evidence behind MLDA laws is unequivocal. In
2001, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) conducted a review
of 23 studies of the effect of changes in minimum drinking age
laws that met strict standards of scientific rigor. The CDC
review concluded that raising minimum drinking age laws results
in a 16 percent decline in underage crashes, while lowering the
minimum drinking age results in a 10 percent increase in
crashes.
More recent evidence comes from studies of a policy change
in New Zealand, where the minimum drinking age was lowered from
age 20 to 18 in 1999. A study of New Zealand data from before
and after the change in drinking age was published last year.
The study found that the rate of traffic crashes and injuries
increased 12 percent for 18--19 year old males, and 14 percent
for 15--17 year old males following the lowering of the
drinking age. The change was even greater among females, with
the rates increasing 51 percent for 18--19 year olds and 24
percent for 15--17 year olds. The study concluded that raising
New Zealand's minimum drinking age would prevent 400 serious
injuries and 12 deaths among 15--19 year olds each year.
There are clear physiological and behavioral reasons for
maintaining and strictly enforcing MLDA laws. The National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) of the
National Institutes of Health reports that impaired driving is
just one of the risks associated with underage drinking and
that the total impact of alcohol on those under 21, including
homicide, suicide and other injuries, amounts to approximately
5,000 deaths per year. NIAAA studies point to the tendency of
younger drinkers toward risky binge drinking, a greater
tendency among those who begin drinking earlier to develop
alcohol dependence at some point later in their lives, and a
greater likelihood of young drinkers to engage in other risky
behaviors, including drug use.
The Department of Transportation is committed to reducing
alcohol impaired driving, especially as it affects our youngest
drivers and their families. We have set an ambitious goal to
reduce the number of deaths in crashes where a driver or
motorcycle rider had a BAC at or above 0.08 BAC to 0.48 per 100
million vehicle miles traveled by 2008. Our plans for
addressing the problem include both short and longer term
solutions that together provide the most aggressive strategy
feasible for reducing impaired driving and its tragic
consequences.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir.
Our next speaker is Hon. Mark Rosenker, Chairman of the
National Transportation Safety Board.
When we finish this panel, I will turn to Senator Vitter
for his opening statement.
Honorable Mark Rosenker.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK V. ROSENKER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Mr. Rosenker. Thank you and good morning, Madam Chairwoman,
Ranking Member Vitter. Thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the NTSB
regarding oversight of the effectiveness of Federal drunk
driving programs.
While the Safety Board has testified before Senator
Lautenberg on several occasions, we have not testified before
this Committee. I thank you again for the opportunity to do so.
Progress has been made at the Federal, State and local
levels in reducing alcohol-related crashes, injuries and
fatalities. In 1982, there were more than 26,000 alcohol-
related fatalities, almost 60 percent of all highway
fatalities. We are now down to about 17,600 alcohol-related
fatalities, or about 41 percent of the highway fatalities in
general.
Most of that progress, though, was achieved in the 1980's
and the 1990's, likely attributable to implementation of the
National Minimum Drinking Age Act and State passage of the age
21 laws, along with administrative license revocation, sobriety
checkpoints, mandatory seatbelt use laws, and public education
campaigns on the dangers of impaired driving.
We have been stuck, unfortunately, in a decade-long plateau
where the number and percent of alcohol-related fatalities have
not declined further. The Safety Board issued recommendations
in 2000 aimed at eliminating hardcore drinking and driving as
the means to further reduce the toll of impaired driving.
The NTSB is particularly concerned with hardcore drinking
drivers who are involved in about 54 percent of the alcohol-
related fatalities. The Board defines hardcore drinking drivers
as individuals who drive with a blood alcohol content of .15
percent or greater, or who are arrested for driving while
impaired within 10 years of a prior DWI arrest.
Drivers with a high BAC are at much greater risk of being
involved in a fatal crash. The Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety estimated that the relative fatality risk for drivers in
single vehicle crashes with a high BAC is 385 times that of a
zero BAC driver. For young male drivers between the ages of 21
and 34, the risk is 607 times that of a sober driver.
The American Psychological Association states that even one
DWI offense is indicative of a substance abuse or a dependency
problem. A high BAC or repeat DWI arrest supports the
conclusion that the individual has an alcohol abuse problem and
will continue dangerous driving practices unless significant
countermeasures are imposed.
From 1983 to 2005, more than 183,000 people died in
hardcore drinking driving crashes. Impaired drivers persist in
their behavior because they believe they won't get caught or
convicted. That belief is based on reality. An individual it is
estimated is driving on 1,000 drinking driving trips before
being arrested.
Senator Boxer. A thousand?
Mr. Rosenker. Yes, ma'am.
The hardcore drinking driving problem is complex. We need a
comprehensive system of prevention, apprehension, punishment
and treatment to reduce these crashes, injuries and fatalities.
The Board's model program is derived from State programs that
were proven effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes,
injuries and fatalities, or recidivism. Some elements make the
system work more efficiently. Only five States, unfortunately,
have implemented a sufficient number of elements of the Board's
program to close these recommendations, and I applaud the
people of California because they are part of this program and
it is working.
With regard to age 21 laws, the Safety Board thought the
minimum drinking age was resolved a quarter century ago. The
change in the legal minimum drinking age has been one of the
most extensively studied policy changes in our transportation
history. All the rigorously drawn and peer-reviewed studies
have concluded that lowering the drinking age increases both
alcohol consumption and alcohol-related fatalities among young
drivers, and raising the drinking age reduces consumption and
fatalities.
NHTSA estimates since 1975, age 21 laws have prevented
almost 25,000 young people traffic deaths. Research and current
data do not justify changing our recommendations. Motor vehicle
crashes remain the leading cause of death for teenagers, and
alcohol remains the leading drug of choice.
Madam Chairwoman, that concludes my statement and I would
be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenker follows:]
Statement of Hon. Mark V. Rosenker, Chairman,
National Transportation Safety Board
Good morning, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter, and
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Mark Rosenker, and I am the
Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. I want to thank
you for allowing me the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of
the Safety Board regarding the oversight of the effectiveness of
Federal drunk driving programs. While the Safety Board has testified
before Senator Lautenberg on several occasions, we have not testified
before this Committee. Thank you again for the privilege.
As you know, the Safety Board is an independent agency charged by
Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United
States and significant accidents in railroad, highway, marine, pipeline
and hazardous materials in order to determine the causes and issue
safety recommendations to prevent future accidents.
Each year, there are between 42,000 and 44,000 highway fatalities,
more than any other mode of transportation. Of that number, roughly 40
percent of highway accidents is attributed to alcohol related deaths.
For that reason, the Safety Board has had a long history of
recommending action to reduce alcohol-related fatalities, injuries, and
crashes. Many of these recommendations were issued in 1983, 1984, and
1989 as a result of our investigation of the Carrollton, Kentucky
church activity bus crash which is still the worst drunk driving crash
in the nation's history. Addressing impaired driving has been on our
list of Most Wanted Safety Recommendations since its inception in 1990.
We have made a lot of progress at the Federal, state, and local
level in reducing the alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and
fatalities. In 1982, there were 26,173 alcohol-related fatalities,
almost 60 percent of all highway fatalities. We are now down to 17,602
alcohol-related fatalities, or 41 percent of highway fatalities. Most
of that progress was achieved in the 1980's and early 1990's, likely
attributable to implementation of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act
and State passage of Age 21 laws, administrative license revocation,
sobriety checkpoints, mandatory seat belt use laws, and public
education campaigns on the dangers of impaired driving. We have been
stuck, however, in a decade-long plateau where the number and percent
of alcohol-related fatalities have not declined further. The Safety
Board issued recommendations in 2000 aimed at eliminating hard core
drinking driving as means to further reduce the toll of impaired
driving.
the hard core drinking driver
The Safety Board is particularly concerned with hard core drinking
drivers, who are involved in about 54 percent of alcohol-related
fatalities. The Board defines hard core drinking drivers as individuals
who drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.15 percent or
greater, or who are arrested for driving while impaired (DWI) within 10
years of a prior DWI arrest.
Drivers with a high BAC, 0.15 percent or greater, have consumed
large amounts of alcohol, much more than is generally considered to be
social or responsible drinking. High-BAC offenders are also likely to
be repeat drinking drivers. Research has found that drivers with a high
BAC are at a substantially greater risk of being involved in a fatal
crash. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has estimated that
the relative fatality risk for drivers in single-vehicle crashes with a
high BAC is 385 times that of a zero-BAC driver and for male drivers
the risk is 607 times that of a sober driver.
The Safety Board defines repeat offenders as individuals who are
arrested for a DWI offense within 10 years of a prior DWI arrest. The
Board specifies arrest, not just conviction, because DWI offenders are
not always convicted of DWI violations. Their charges may be reduced to
a lesser, non-alcohol-related offense or erased. The original DWI could
not be used as a prior offense for the court to impose more rigorous
measures for a subsequent offense. The American Psychological
Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual states that even one DWI
offense is indicative of a substance abuse and/or dependency problem. A
high-BAC or repeat DWI arrest, therefore, supports the conclusion that
the individual has an alcohol abuse problem and will continue to engage
in dangerous driving practices unless significant countermeasures are
imposed.
From 1983 through 2005, more than 183,000 people died in crashes
involving hard core drinking drivers. Most experts agree that impaired
drivers persist in their behavior because these drivers believe that
they will not be caught and/or convicted. That perception is based on
reality. NHTSA estimates that on average, an individual makes about
1,000 drinking driving trips before being arrested.
One of the accidents investigated by the Safety Board occurred on
October 23, 1999 in Irving, Texas. A Chevrolet pickup truck driver was
merging onto a highway when it veered to the south, crossed over three
lanes and a shoulder, and struck the guardrail. The collision with the
guardrail caused the truck to become airborne and travel 98 feet before
striking the ground in the center median. It then continued traveling
for an additional 97 feet and collided with a tractor-semitrailer,
which eventually crashed through a guardrail, and collided with a
bridge pillar. A post crash fire ensued, destroying the tractor-
semitrailer and damaging the bridge structure. The debris from the
initial collision struck a Ford pickup truck and a Cadillac during the
accident sequence. The tractor-semitrailer truck driver was killed. The
Chevrolet pickup truck driver was found partially ejected and was also
killed. He was an unlicensed driver with a BAC of 0.29 percent.
The problem of hard core drinking drivers is complex; no single
countermeasure by itself appears to reduce recidivism and crashes
sufficiently. We need a comprehensive system of prevention,
apprehension, punishment, and treatment to reduce the crashes,
injuries, and fatalities caused by these drivers.
The Safety Board's model program includes such countermeasures as:
Sobriety Checkpoints: States must take measures to convince
motorists that there is a strong likelihood that they will be caught,
thereby deterring impaired driving before an arrest. Well-publicized
and frequent sobriety checkpoints are a key component of deterrence
because they increase the perception among drivers who potentially
would drive impaired that they will be caught.
Vehicle Restrictions: States should authorize vehicle restrictions
such as license plate impoundment, vehicle immobilization, vehicle
impoundment, vehicle forfeiture, and ignition interlocks. Most can be
administratively imposed. Vehicle restrictions substantially decrease
the opportunity for hard core drinking drivers to operate vehicles
illegally.
Habitual Offender Tally (HOT) Sheet Programs: States should promote
this special enforcement program where the State licensing agency, on a
regular basis, provides lists of drivers whose licenses have been
suspended or revoked for alcohol-related offenses. Law enforcement
agencies then use these lists to identify drivers who subsequently
operate vehicles without a license.
Zero BAC Limits: States should require DWI offenders, upon
conviction, to operate vehicles without any alcohol in their system.
Such a provision forces DWI offenders to demonstrate that they can
operate a vehicle legally and separate their drinking from their
driving.
High BAC Limits: For those offenders arrested with a BAC of 0.15
percent or higher, States should impose penalties and employ
countermeasures similar to those penalties and countermeasures used for
repeat offenders. These drivers require strong intervention.
Confinement Alternatives: States should implement alternatives to
traditional jail confinement, such as jail-treatment facilities, home
detention with electronic monitoring, and intensive supervision
probation. These alternatives, which reduce prison overcrowding, allow
offenders to remain productive members of society and address any
underlying alcohol problem, offer greater benefit than the traditional
confinement alternative, community service, which has not been proven
to reduce crashes.
Plea Bargaining Restrictions: States should prohibit DWI offenders
from pleading to non-alcohol-related offense, or at least include
information on the original arrest/charge in the offenders' criminal
record. This provision would help ensure that prosecutors and judges
know when they are dealing with a hard core drinking driver who may
require countermeasures beyond the traditional punishment of a short
jail term and a fine.
Diversion Elimination: Diversion is a system by which an offender's
record is wiped clean if the offender complies with certain
requirements. States should eliminate diversion as an option for DWI
offenders, again, because it makes it that much harder to identify and
develop appropriate rehabilitation measures for hard core drinking
drivers.
Administrative License Revocation: States should authorize
administrative license revocation, which gives a law enforcement
officer the authority, on behalf of the State licensing agency, to
confiscate the license of any driver who either fails or refuses to
take a chemical breath test. The driver then receives a temporary
license that is valid for a short, specified period of time. During
that time, he or she may seek an administrative hearing--independent of
any criminal proceedings.
10-Year Look-Back Period: The likelihood of arresting, let alone
convicting, a person even once for impaired driving is small. For
penalty enhancement, the length of time a State will ``look back'' to
determine how many convictions an offender has should be at least 10
years.
Individualized Court-Based Programs: States should develop and fund
programs, such as a DWI court, that allow judges to tailor the
sanctions to an offender's circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
Attached for your review is a summary of the model elements
recommended by the Safety Board to address hard core drinking driving.
The Board's model program is derived from programs operated in the
States that have been shown through research to reduce alcohol-related
crashes, injuries, and fatalities or have been shown to reduce
recidivism. Some elements of the model program aid the workings of the
impaired driver control system. Only five states have implemented a
sufficient number of elements for the Board to close this
recommendation to them.
age 21
The issue of the minimum drinking age has recently been in the
news. This is an issue we thought was solved a quarter century ago
through extensive congressional, Federal, and State action.
The change in the legal minimum drinking age has been one of the
most extensively studied policy changes in our transportation history.
All of the rigorously drawn and peer-reviewed studies have essentially
come to the same conclusion; lowering the legal drinking age increases
both alcohol consumption and alcohol-related fatalities among young
drivers and raising the drinking age reduces consumption and
fatalities.
In 2005, 28 percent of teen drivers killed in traffic crashes had a
positive BAC, and 74 percent were unrestrained by safety belts. Teen
drivers (age 15 through 20) made up slightly more than 6 percent of the
driving population. But although this population is not allowed to
drink, almost 11 percent of alcohol-related fatalities (1,800 people)
still involved a teen driver with a positive BAC. This is down from the
20 percent involvement we had in 1982. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration estimates that since 1975, Age 21 laws have
prevented almost 25,000 traffic deaths.
Research and current data do not justify changing the Board's
recommendations. Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of
death for teenagers, and alcohol remains the leading drug of choice.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
hard core drinking driver model program
Sobriety checkpoints (frequent, statewide)
Vehicle restrictions
License plate actions (impoundment, confiscation, etc.)
Vehicle immobilization
Vehicle impoundment
Vehicle forfeiture
Ignition interlocks (court-ordered and administrative)
State and community cooperative enforcement programs for driving
while suspended/revoked/unlicensed
Zero BAC for DWI offenders
Aggravated offense for high BAC (0.15 or greater)
Alternatives to confinement
Home detention with electronic monitoring
Intensive supervision probation
Jail-treatment facilities (for multiple DWI offenders)
Eliminate community service (does not reduce recidivism)
Plea bargaining restrictions
Prohibit lessening of DWI offense to non-alcohol-related
offense
Require reasons for DWI charge reduction to be entered into
public record
Eliminate diversion programs that allow erasing, deferring, or
otherwise purging the DWI offense record, or that allow the offender to
avoid license suspension
Administrative license revocation for BAC test failure and
refusal
10 year DWI record retention and offense enhancement period
Individualized court-based sanction programs with frequent
offender contact, unannounced testing, mandatory assessment, treatment,
and long-term follow-up
``Actions to Reduce Fatalities, Injuries, and Crashes Involving the
Hard Core Drinking Driver,'' June, 2000.
Senator Boxer. Thank you for your testimony.
Honorable Calvin Scovel, welcome. Mr. Scovel is the
Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Scovel. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Vitter, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on the effectiveness
of Federal drunk driving programs. This Subcommittee has played
a key role in passing significant legislation to reduce
alcohol-impaired crashes and lessen their emotional toll and
costs.
Curbing drunk driving is key to reducing all highway
deaths. In 2006, over 42,600 highway traffic deaths occurred in
the United States. Over 17,600, or about 41 percent, were
alcohol-related, almost the same as in 2005. No appreciable
improvement in reducing the total number of fatalities can
occur unless alcohol-related fatalities also drop.
The Administration and Congress recognize the seriousness
of this problem and have provided significant resources to
counter alcohol-impaired driving. We estimate that States will
expend more than $1 billion in grants and penalty transfers
through TEA-21, the prior surface transportation authorization
law. SAFETEA-LU, the current law, provides further resources,
most notably $555 million for grants dedicated solely to
reducing alcohol-impaired driving.
To ensure the wise use of this funding will require three
things: good laws, well-run State traffic safety programs, and
effective leadership from NHTSA. We realize that impaired
driving is a complex problem with no simple solution.
Accordingly, our ongoing work focuses on providing NHTSA and
the States with better tools such as improved performance
measures to oversee and implement safety programs aimed at
impaired driving.
My statement today concentrates on three areas: first,
identifying key strategies. Our work found significant
agreement on specific strategies that are most promising. State
and Federal officials identified sustained enforcement of
existing laws and effective prosecution and full application of
available sanctions as key strategies of a successful program
for countering alcohol-impaired driving.
Best practices for carrying out these strategies in the
States we reviewed included using fines to support enforcement
efforts and streamlining the grant process for local
communities. Challenges identified for fully implementing these
strategies included lengthy arrest procedures and State-
specific restrictions on sobriety checkpoints.
NHTSA has issued guidelines to carry out these key
strategies, but better tools are needed to more effectively
implement them.
Second, effectively implementing key strategies with better
performance measures. NHTSA could better measure the success of
key strategies if States used better performance measures. For
example, State officials and NHTSA agree on the use of
sustained enforcement, and NHTSA defined the strategy as a
sobriety checkpoint or saturation patrol conducted weekly in
areas where 60 percent or more of fatalities occur. We found,
however, that State plans and reports didn't use this
definition to measure sustained enforcement. As a result, the
degree to which the strategy was used, and thus its
effectiveness, could not be determined.
Third, action NHTSA needs to take with the States to
improve performance measures. Currently, each State is
responsible for developing performance measures tailored to its
specific safety challenges. NHTSA cannot mandate performance
measures. However, NHTSA can exercise its leadership with
States and in response to our March, 2007 audit, NHTSA agreed
to take the lead to work with States and other key stakeholders
such as the Governors Highway Safety Association, to improve
performance measures for alcohol-impaired driving.
Specifically, it agreed to work with the States over a 3-year
period to develop improved performance measures, encourage the
use of those measures, and modify its own State reviews to see
if these measures are adopted and utilized.
NHTSA must act with a greater sense of urgency. While we
support the actions planned by NHTSA, given the importance of
this issue, NHTSA must work with its State partners more
aggressively to accomplish these actions in advance of the 3-
year period scheduled.
Prompt action will provide more timely information on the
degree to which States are using limited Federal resources to
carry out the key strategies identified. Moreover, these steps
will benefit State programs by providing data the States can
use to promote best practices and identify and correct the
challenges that States face in implementing laws designed to
reduce alcohol-impaired driving.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scovel follows:]
Statement of Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the effectiveness of Federal drunk driving programs.
We are pleased to discuss our past and ongoing work in this
important area. We recognize the Chairman's long-standing role
in passing significant legislation designed to reduce alcohol-
impaired crashes and lessen the emotional toll and significant
costs these tragic deaths cause to the victim's families and
the Nation as a whole. Our work has focused on ensuring the
effective implementation of these laws--work that we believe
complements the efforts of the Committee and of the other
witnesses here today.
The Department's efforts to curb drunk driving are a key
component in its overall work to reduce highway deaths. In
2006, over 42,500 highway traffic deaths occurred in the United
States--the 17,602 alcohol-related highway traffic deaths
accounted for about 41 percent of those reported fatalities.
The number of alcohol-related fatalities essentially remained
unchanged from the 17,590 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005.
(A detailed breakout on alcohol-related fatalities by State
through 2006 is in the Appendix to this statement.)
In addition to reducing the overall number of highway
fatalities, a reduction in alcohol-related crashes would yield
significant monetary savings, as the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that these crashes cost
the Nation over $100 billion annually. Figure 1 shows traffic
fatality trends for all traffic deaths and for alcohol-related
fatalities from 2000 through 2006.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Recognizing the seriousness of this problem, the
Administration and Congress have provided significant resources
to counter alcohol-impaired driving.
We estimate that appropriations authorized by the 1998
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA--21) will
result in states' expending $1.1 billion in Federal resources
provided through grants and fund transfers for alcohol-impaired
driving programs.
Further significant resources were authorized in August
2005 by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
Most notably, SAFETEA-LU increased funding for the grant
program dedicated solely to reducing alcohol-impaired driving
to $555 million and also increased funding for grants that are
not dedicated solely to reducing alcohol-impaired driving but
which can be used, in part, for these efforts.
Ensuring the effective use of this funding requires good
laws, well-run State traffic safety programs, and effective
leadership from NHTSA. We realize that impaired driving is a
complex problem, with no simple solution. Accordingly, our
recent\1\ and ongoing work focused on providing NHTSA and the
states with better tools (such as improved performance
measures) with which to oversee and implement safety programs
aimed at impaired driving. We believe that prompt
implementation of our recommendations by NHTSA and its State
partners will help ensure that key strategies for countering
alcohol-impaired driving are more effectively carried out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\OIG Report Number MH-2007-036, ``Audit of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Alcohol-Impaired Driving Traffic Safety
Program,'' March 5, 2007. OIG reports and testimonies can be found on
our website: www.oig.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement today concentrates on three areas:
First, key strategies identified for countering alcohol-
impaired driving. Our work found significant agreement across
State and Federal jurisdictions on what strategies are most
promising. State and Federal officials identified sustained
enforcement of existing laws and effective prosecution and full
application of available sanctions as key strategies of a
successful program for countering alcohol-impaired driving.
States identified a number of best practices for carrying out
these strategies, including using fines to support enforcement
efforts and streamlining the grant process for local
communities. On the other hand, states identified individual
challenges with fully implementing these strategies, such as
lengthy arrest procedures and state-specific restrictions on
sobriety checkpoints. NHTSA has published and provided to the
states guidelines on carrying out key strategies for countering
impaired driving; but better tools are needed to more
effectively implement these strategies.
Second, effectively implementing key strategies with better
performance measures. NHTSA could better measure the
effectiveness of key strategies if states included in their
annual plans and reports more meaningful performance measures.
For example, State officials and NHTSA agreed on the use of
sustained enforcement--a strategy involving regular enforcement
events, such as sobriety checkpoints or saturation patrols in
high-risk areas. However, State plans and reports did not
always detail the measures and data needed to assess the
implementation of this strategy. As a result, the degree of
progress, or lack of progress, this key strategy was having on
the state's drunk-driving problem could not be determined.
Third, specific actions NHTSA needs to take, in concert
with the states, to improve performance measures. Federal
regulations place responsibility on each State to develop
performance measures that are tailored to its specific safety
challenges. Thus, NHTSA cannot mandate those performance
measures. However, NHTSA can exercise its leadership with
states and other key stakeholders, such as the Governors
Highway Safety Association, to improve performance measures for
alcohol-impaired driving and other traffic safety areas.
As a result of our audit work regarding alcohol-impaired
driving, NHTSA has agreed to take a number of specific actions.
These include working with the states to develop improved
performance measures that communicate the degree to which key
strategies are being implemented. NHTSA also agreed to
encourage states to use this guidance; and it has committed to
overseeing the degree to which these measures are adopted and
used. Our ongoing work also shows the potential for improving
performance measures for all traffic safety programs that NHTSA
is responsible for, such as improving motorcycle safety.
We believe that the states and NHTSA's actions, if carried
out, would provide states with better tools to judge their
performance and would allow NHTSA to make valid comparisons
across states. These actions would also enhance public
accountability for programs to counter alcohol-impaired driving
and other traffic safety problems by providing stakeholders
with the information on the degree to which states are carrying
out key strategies as they expend resources provided by
Congress.
The balance of my statement provides further details on
these three areas.
KEY STRATEGIES IDENTIFIED FOR COUNTERING
ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING
Our March 2007 audit reported on 10 state\2\ programs
implemented to counter alcohol-impaired driving under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (fiscal years
1998 through 2005). Our work did not assess the impact that
laws or sanctions had on the states. Rather, we concentrated on
what the states had done to implement their programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\California, Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, Texas, and South Carolina were selected for
review based on 2003 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State officials attributed the success of their alcohol-
impaired driving programs to a number of factors, but two key
strategies emerged as prevalent: (1) sustained enforcement of
laws and (2) effective prosecution with full application of
available sanctions. Other prevalent strategies we identified
addressed educational and medical aspects.
A sustained enforcement strategy focuses on high police
visibility through sobriety checkpoints or saturation
patrols\3\ and media efforts to raise public awareness. We were
not able to make valid comparisons across states on the
implementation of this strategy because the performance data
were not available. However, we did note an array of best
practices for achieving a sustained enforcement strategy in all
states. For example, enforcement programs were provided steady
funding, local community needs were addressed, and arrest
procedures were streamlined. To illustrate this, presented in
table 1 are examples of best practices reported in five states
with low alcohol-fatality rates visited during our review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Saturation patrols are coordinated law enforcement efforts in
locations known to have high concentrations of alcohol-related arrests,
crashes, injuries, or fatalities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Our work also highlighted the fact that more needs to be
done to improve the use of a sustained enforcement strategy. As
demonstrated in table 2, states we reviewed reported challenges
in carrying out the strategy. Specifically, some states
reported their inability to fund all requests for police
patrols, which either produced gaps in enforcement or decreased
the states' ability to target areas with a higher incidence of
alcohol-impaired driving. Some states also noted lengthy arrest
procedures that increased the cost of making arrests, decreased
the number of offenders arrested during peak alcohol-impaired
driving periods, and acted as a disincentive for police to make
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
arrests.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In the other key strategy, ensuring that offenders were
convicted and sanctions were applied,\4\ all states we reviewed
reported challenges. Some officials perceived that ineffective
prosecution and the states' failure to apply sanctions against
those convicted of alcohol-impaired driving were weakening
deterrent effects. For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\According to NHTSA, one aspect of effective prosecution depends
on the involvement of well-trained police officers and effective
prosecutors. Another aspect is the application of sanctions as
determined by an adjudicating official.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A safety official expressed concern that judges imposed
court supervision against guilty parties instead of fines or
penalties.
Officials reported difficulty in preventing individuals
from driving with a revoked or suspended license and in
identifying repeat offenders.
To address these challenges, some states trained
prosecutors and educated judges regarding applicable laws;
tried cases in courts specializing in alcohol-impaired driving;
and established a prosecutor liaison responsible for addressing
questions on the enforcement strategy from prosecutors
throughout the state.
The states we reviewed also applied educational and medical
strategies.\5\ However, in contrast to the key strategies of
sustained enforcement of laws and effective prosecution with
full application of sanctions, the states reported on these
strategies less frequently. In the area of educational
initiatives, each State provided some form of educational
program on alcohol abuse at elementary schools, secondary
schools, and colleges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\According to NHTSA, medical strategies include medical
screening, which consists of a primary or emergency room physician
conducting short interviews with patients to screen for alcohol
problems and to discuss the adverse effects of alcohol abuse and
possible treatments. One State reported that it was actively exploring
the implementation of medical screening in emergency rooms. Additional
medical strategies advocated by NHTSA included offender treatment and
rehabilitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The medium through which schools implemented the strategy
varied not only by state, but also by schools in a particular
state. For example, states provided education material in
public forums and in schools; used police officers to make
presentations to elementary and secondary school students; held
mock alcohol-impaired driving trials at schools or had students
witness actual court proceedings; had convicted offenders,
victims of alcohol crashes, or surviving family members of
crash victims address students; and conducted information
sessions on college campuses.
Finally, our audit noted that officials in all states
reviewed reported that the resources provided under TEA-21 had
benefited their efforts. States used this money on activities
such as providing overtime pay for police to carry out
enforcement efforts.
EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTING KEY STRATEGIES WITH
BETTER PERFORMANCE MEASURES
In 2006, the overall rate of highway fatalities per 100
million vehicle miles traveled declined slightly to 1.42, while
the fatality rate for alcohol-related crashes with the highest
blood alcohol concentration (.08 or above) remained flat. The
Department's goal is to reach an overall highway fatality rate
of 1.0 by 2011. As shown in figure 2, the Department needs to
move quickly and effectively if it is to reach its goal by
2011. No appreciable improvement in reaching the Department's
goal of reducing overall fatalities can occur unless alcohol-
related fatalities also drop.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Better performance measures addressing the key strategies
identified would help target resources to the areas most likely
to lead to future reductions in alcohol-related traffic
fatalities. States are required\6\ to include performance
measures in their annual reports and evaluations on traffic
safety initiatives funded through Federal resources.
Accordingly, it is the states' responsibility to develop the
specific measures. Our work has found that the states' plans
and reports do not include measures showing the degree to which
they carry out key strategies for countering alcohol-impaired
driving. NHTSA should prompt the states to include in their
annual plans and reports more meaningful performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the Highway Safety Plans and Annual Evaluation
Reports for the 10 states we reviewed did not include a measure
addressing the degree to which the states had carried out
sustained enforcement. NHTSA defined this strategy as a
sobriety checkpoint or a saturation patrol, conducted weekly in
areas of the State where 60 percent or more of fatalities
occur. It will be particularly important for NHTSA to verify
states' performance regarding sustained enforcement because
SAFETEA-LU requires states to provide assurances that they will
support sustained enforcement of impaired driving laws as a
condition for receiving certain highway traffic safety grants.
Regarding effective prosecution, neither NHTSA nor 9 of the
10 states we reviewed had established a specific gauge to
measure the states' success. The one state, South Carolina, did
include a performance-related measurement in the form of a
conviction rate under grants designed to increase the number of
successful convictions.
Table 3 illustrates the potential benefits of improved
performance measures addressing the key strategies identified
by State and Federal officials and includes elements of the
sustained enforcement definition NHTSA has set forth.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Our ongoing work on NHTSA's oversight of State highway
safety programs has also identified areas for improvement in
performance measures, such as a mismatch between performance
measures used in the State plans and those in the annual
reports. For example, one state's performance plan measured the
number of alcohol-related fatal crashes but its annual
performance report measured the alcohol-impaired driving rate.
This makes it difficult to determine whether the State had made
progress in reaching its goal.
The need for improving performance measures in other
traffic safety programs was also found. For example, one
state's performance plan did not include a measure for reducing
the number of motorcycle fatalities. The state's annual report
identified a general measure for reducing motorcycle fatalities
but the measure did not identify a specific target. This is an
important area given that the number of motorcycle deaths
increased nationwide by 5.1 percent in 2006.
While we recognize the autonomy granted to states to
formulate performance measures and plans tailored to their
specific needs, NHTSA's leadership in promoting the
establishment and consistent use of improved performance
measures would allow the states and NHTSA to better determine
the effectiveness of key strategies. This in turn would give
both the impetus to adjust programs and the application of
resources as necessary.
SPECIFIC ACTIONS FOR NHTSA TO TAKE, IN CONCERT WITH THE STATES, TO
IMPROVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
In responding to our March 2007 audit, NHTSA agreed to take
a number of steps that would provide better tools for assessing
the degree to which states are carrying out key strategies to
combat alcohol-impaired driving. We would encourage the timely
completion of these actions in advance of NHTSA's proposed 3-
year time period.
NHTSA noted that carrying out our recommendations would
allow it and the states to better determine the effectiveness
of key strategies and adjust the states' Highway Safety Plans
as necessary. NHTSA officials also noted challenges posed, such
as states experiencing difficulties with consistently
collecting the needed data. Despite these challenges, NHTSA
agreed to take the lead in working with states and other key
stake holders, such as the Governors Highway Safety
Association, to improve performance measures for alcohol-
impaired driving. Specifically, it agreed to:
Work in coordination with the states to develop
performance measures to use in carrying out the key strategies
identified for countering alcohol-impaired driving. NHTSA
committed to initiating this work in 2007 and completing it by
2009.
Provide the recommended measures to the states by March
2010.
Modify the checklists its regional staff used when
reviewing State safety plans and reports, to include checks on
the use of and reporting on the performance measures. All this
would be accomplished after NHTSA develops the recommended
measures.
NHTSA must act with a greater sense of urgency. While we
support the actions planned by NHTSA, given the importance of
the issue, NHTSA should work with its State partners more
aggressively to accomplish these actions in advance of the 3-
year time period scheduled. Prompt action will provide more
timely information on the degree to which states are using
limited Federal resources to carry out the key strategies
identified. Moreover, these steps would benefit State programs
by providing data the states can use to promote best practices,
and identify and correct the challenges states face in
implementing laws designed to reduce alcohol-impaired driving.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to address any questions that you or other Members of
the Subcommittee might have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Vitter, would you like to make an opening
statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will make a brief
one.
Certainly, I applaud us having this hearing. It is a very,
very important topic. We made significant strides at reducing
drunk driving and drunk driving fatalities with changes the
legal drinking age, but we have sort of hit a plateau, largely,
since then.
As with a lot of problems, the work gets tougher the
further along the curve you go. And so I think we need to re-
group, which we are doing here, and your work is doing, to
figure out those somewhat more subtle or complicated ways to
bust through that plateau and go even lower in terms of
reductions.
It is still a problem in my State, where 475 people lost
their lives last year to drunk driving. I think we are doing
some things right in my State, and I am encouraged by that,
like the fact that we recently passed ignition interlock
legislation for the first time, but we have other work we have
to do. Certainly, get rid of the open container law which
allows for open containers.
So I am very interested to hear all of your thoughts about
how we do this in a partnership with States and others, and
what specifically the best, most productive Federal role is.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
I just want to hone in on the Inspector General's points. I
just want to compliment you, sir, because you are very direct
and sometimes we don't get that, so I really appreciate it.
And so I guess I need to talk with the NHTSA representative
and ask you this. You, from the tone of your voice, I know care
about this a lot. The Inspector General is saying we need to
really move. It seems to me, as we lay out the facts, let's
just say, leave the emotion aside for a minute, and just look
at what this is costing us and the fact that some States appear
to be doing better than others. Is that right, Mr. Rosenker? Is
it true?
Mr. Rosenker. We have an 11 point program that we actually
assess.
Senator Boxer. It is the model program.
Mr. Rosenker. At this point, again California is one of
those States that has completed a significant number of
elements. There are only five States. Senator Vitter is getting
close to it. Eight out of 11 gets close. Right now, the
Senator's State in Louisiana has seven of those elements.
But a significant amount of work needs to be done at the
State level if we are going to get the results we are looking
for.
Senator Boxer. Well, knowing the bipartisan support we have
here for the adoption of that type of program, I am just going
to recommend something and you can think about it. It seems to
me that, and maybe you have already done this, but we ought to
have a summit here that NHTSA could call, where Members of
Congress such as Senator Lautenberg, who has taken such a lead
on this, and others across party lines would come and present.
It seems to me this is such an obvious plus if all the States
were to enact this model program.
So I wonder if you would consider working with us on such a
summit, where we really highlight this. Because the problem is,
if it wasn't for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, people would
just turn away. It is such a horrible thing to look at, what
happens to families. And it is such a statement of the failure
of our society. We all feel like we failed.
Look what we have done here. We have changed our laws. We
have made our funds contingent upon States doing certain
things. And even with that, as you point out, we have stalled
out since the 1980's. And it is costing us over $100 billion a
year. We can't afford that, not to mention the tragedies that
befall families.
So I wonder if you have thought about doing some kind of a
high profile, ask the President to come, the First Lady to
come. We would have just all of us working together because
there are a lot of issues we don't work together on. This is
one we could.
Mr. Rosenker. Madam Chair, we would be delighted to be a
partner in such a program.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, let's talk afterwards. Let's work
together. That would be great.
Any questions, Senator?
Senator Vitter. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I take it from everything I have read that two key
problems, not the only ones, but two problems near the top of
the list are underage drinking still, and very, very drunk
drivers. You know, folks who are just not near the limit, but
way over the limit.
Is it correct that those are two key problems? And what
specifically should we doing to focus on those in partnership
with States?
Mr. Barrett. Senator, I would be glad to address it from
the Department of Transportation. I would agree with you. Those
are two significant problems. To address the Chairman's point
there, too, Nicole Nason, the NHTSA Administrator recently did
convene a summit which was more focused than the one you are
speaking of here on ignition interlocks. The emphasis of that
meeting was, trying to get the criminal justice prosecutors,
law enforcement in the States to focus on more effective use of
that technology, which we believe is a deterrent and also a
means of preventing recidivism. When installed on an offender's
vehicle, ignition interlocks have been proven to reduce
recidivism by as much as two thirds.
Recently, Louisiana, New Mexico, Illinois and Arizona have
acted to make more aggressive use of interlock devices by
enacting legislation requiring there use by first time DWI
offenders. Also, we have joined with MADD on a campaign to
eliminate drunk driving, which has among its areas of focus
expanding the use of that technology.
We think that gets at the higher BAC offender, and Senator,
you are absolutely right. If you look at drunk driving arrests
and convictions, the median, this is the median, half above,
half below, of the BAC where you have a .08 as the standard in
all the States, is .15. So it is way up at the high end where
we are seeing this problem. We have to get at what the NTSB
Chair calls hardcore drunk driving.
We would frankly like to see more aggressive use of the
interlock technology in States. They are trying to bring that
forward to first offenders. We think it is effective. We think
it has a deterrent effect and we certainly would encourage its
use. We also support retaining the 21 minimum drinking age to
prohibit underage drinking.
Senator Vitter. Any other reactions to those two problems
in particular?
Mr. Rosenker. Clearly, there is an issue now that we are
very concerned about, and that is the issue to try to, believe
it or not, bring the age from 21 down to 18. There is a lot of
publicity about it. We believe it would bring back carnage on
the highway like we saw back in the 1970's. When the 26th
Amendment passed and States began to actually change their
laws, what we saw was a 10 percent increase over those few
years when in fact as many as 43 States changed their laws.
There were only seven that kept the 21 law age limit. And we
saw significant increases in the carnage and fatalities because
of the lower age limit.
When they brought that age limit back to 21, we saw the
reduction by 16 percent. We know that in fact these laws work.
Despite the fact we have 21 age limit laws, a significant
number of the fatalities that we see on our highways are
teenage drivers that in fact have some form of alcohol in their
bloodstream. And recognize that 6 percent of the driving public
is between 15 and 20. They represent as drivers a little more
than 12 percent of the fatalities, and as an age group, 20
percent of the fatalities.
Mix that with alcohol and we are going to increase those
numbers significantly.
Mr. Scovel. Senator, if I may? To comment on the renewed
movement to lower the drinking age. My office has not performed
studies of that specific proposal so we don't have data of our
own on which to rely. However, we have reviewed reports from
NHTSA and also from the Centers for Disease Control that have
pointed out significant benefits, as the other witnesses today
have mentioned, to the fact that when the drinking age was
raised, highway traffic deaths among that section of the
population were significantly lowered.
We think the burden of proof is heavily on those who would
advocate a change to the status quo to make clear why it is now
necessary. In our view, we haven't seen compelling evidence to
make that case.
One other point, sir. Our March 2007 project focused on
NHTSA's ability to oversee and to implement the key strategies
that both Federal officials and State officials have identified
as the best ones for implementing Federal drunk driving
programs. That is, sustained enforcement of existing laws and
effective prosecution and maximum use of available sanctions.
We know that NHTSA currently doesn't have statutory
authority to mandate performance measures on the States, and
that raises complex policy questions, we realize, that are
properly the purview of the Administration and of the Congress.
But we do believe that NHTSA has the ability to take a
leadership role and on a collaborative basis to work with the
States and its key stakeholders, like the Governors Highway
Safety Association to establish those performance measures that
will allow both NHTSA and the States to measure the
effectiveness of programs to carry out the strategies and to
target Federal resources on those that have been proven most
successful.
NHTSA has promised a 3-year timetable to move forward on a
couple of key initiatives. Today in our statement, we have
urged them to advance that timetable, and in view of the high
stakes involved here, we think that would be most prudent.
Senator Vitter. Just to follow up on the drinking age
issue, to sort of summarize, isn't it fair to say, if you look
at the whole history of the drunk driving issue and all sorts
of changes and legislation that has happened in one direction
or another, the single biggest game by far, or loss when it
happened in the other direction, in terms of the problem, has
been associated with that drinking age. Isn't that fair to say,
really without a close second in terms of identifiable factors?
Mr. Barrett. Senator, I don't know if it is the greatest,
but clearly it had a substantial impact in the years following
its passage across the Country. The involvement dropped from
approximately 60 percent of all fatal crashes down to the 40
percent range we are talking about. So it is enormously
significant.
I also will offer, everybody has personal observations on
this. Madam Chairman, if you give me leave, I would like to
offer one on this particular issue.
I hear this bandied about that, if you are old enough to
fight for your Country, you are old enough to have a beer kind
of deal. I have a son who I am very proud of who served in
combat recently who was under 21 when he served in combat. And
yet at the same time, as a parent, and I won't speak for my
son, I was very pleased that the drinking age when he returned
was still 21. I don't think it is the same type of maturity we
are talking about, to be able to handle essentially what is a
drug ingested into your system, with the maturity associated
with other high stress activities.
So I just think I want to offer that as a parent. I think
the 21 age is essential. That is certainly the Department's
position and we would not like to see any back pedaling on
that.
Mr. Rosenker. Right. If I could follow up with Admiral
Barrett's comments, the statistics are there over the history
of this issue. If we take a look at Virginia, for example, when
they changed their law in 1974, there were 1,900 alcohol-
related accidents. When they changed their law and dropped it
to the age of 18 in 1979, 4,900 accidents occurred with
teenagers with alcohol in their systems.
The facts are clear. They encourage the additional activity
that enables them to have these kinds of accidents when you
have this kind of drug in their bloodstream. It is that simple.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much to our first panel.
I would just say in closing out this part, we want to be
helpful. We need to be a team on this. There are lots of issues
out there where we don't see eye to eye. We see eye to eye on
this one and there is no reason that we cannot move strongly.
When the Inspector General says we need a greater sense of
urgency, and I know we all have so much on our plate and there
are so many issues. I would take those words very seriously. I
think a lot of these things are trends. We can step up to the
plate and keep reiterating how we feel about this.
Admiral, I think your personal story that you shared with
us is very meaningful. I just want to thank you for your
service, for your son's service, and to say that you make a
very important point because even when you think about the
message we are sending our kids, that if they are in harm's way
in combat and to ease the fear and ease the pain, they can turn
to a drug like alcohol, it is going to hurt them. It is going
to hurt the military. It is going to hurt everything. So I
think you make a very important point.
This is an area where you almost want to shake America by
the shoulders and say, wake up. Think of the torture we could
save. That is not a good word. Think of the grieving we could
prevent if we just understood this situation.
Now, I think that Senator Vitter is right to harp on the
young driver, because the younger you are, the less likely you
are to think anything can happen to you, you are infallible. We
all know that. We remember back when we were young. People
talked about death and we didn't really get it until we were a
lot older. And this becomes a particular challenge, but on the
bright side, we know how to reach young people with messages.
We know how to reach them. We know the stations that they
listen to on the radio, what they watch on TV. We know when
they are a captive audience. We even know what websites they go
on.
So I think this chance of developing a message that is
aimed at the young people, and I know you do some of that, I
think maybe we really do need to sit around in a summit that is
a very broad one, and have breakout sessions and have people
from the best advertising companies sit with us for free and
give us their advice on how do we grasp the attention. Not
everything has to have a dollar associated with it.
So again, I get back to that point. Mr. Rosenker, I really
look forward to working with you, and with you, Admiral, and
the Inspector General and with Senator Vitter, and let's move
forward on this.
I thank you very much for your testimony.
Our second panel is Hon. Michael Fields, Judge, Harris
County Criminal Court of Law, Number 14, State of Texas; Mr.
John Wheeler, Governor's Crime Advisor, Department of Public
Safety, State of New Mexico; and Mr. Glynn Birch, National
President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
We welcome you all here.
We will begin with Hon. Michael Fields, Judge, Harris
County Criminal Court of Law.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. FIELDS, JUDGE, HARRIS COUNTY
CRIMINAL COURT OF LAW, NUMBER 14, STATE OF TEXAS
Judge Fields. Good morning, Senator Boxer. Thank you. In
light of what devastation is going on in your State, I
particularly appreciate your being here today.
Ranking Member Vitter and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for having us here today, and thank you
for inviting me to appear before you today.
It is an honor to be here, and I am especially pleased that
as a member of the judiciary I have been allowed the
opportunity to participate in this very important issue.
Senator Boxer, you are correct. We do see eye to eye on
this issue. No member of the community and no member of the
judiciary wants to see anyone's loved one lost to the tragedies
of drunk driving.
I want to commend the U.S. Congress for its leadership in
the fight to eliminate the threat of drunk driving. In
particular, the resources that you have provided to the States
has helped communities across this Country. As you well know,
each year in this country 13,000 people, some say more than
17,000, are killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes where the
driver's blood alcohol content is .08 or greater.
The crash data reveals some very interesting points. The
first being that over the last 10 years, the decline in these
tragedies has flat-lined. The question becomes, why is that?
The second is that drunk drivers, particularly hardcore drunk
drivers, are those who drive with high BACs, .15 or greater,
and repeat offenders who are resistant to changing their
illegal behavior, require special adjudication strategies if
further declines are to occur.
The judiciary, in my opinion, plays a pivotal role in that
effort to reduce and ultimately eliminate drunk driving. In
order for all of the laws and strategies that we have heard
about here this morning to work, judges must be a part of the
process on how to effectively implement those laws. They must
be consulted on how it is that the laws as they are written,
although well intentioned, can often result in conflicting
results.
These cases, especially dealing with hardcore drunk
drivers, are often very complex and as such judges need to be
able to exercise discretion in sentencing so that the sentences
can be tailored to individual offenders. To accomplish that, we
have to realize that one goal, one cookie cutter size, does not
fit all.
My experience tells me that there are certain strategies
that have been proven to work. In Harris County, we use a
combination of efficient docketing strategies of cases, using
effective sanction strategies, and a combination of time
management, technology in position, and treatment to eliminate
the threat of hardcore drunk driving.
Evidence suggests that the sooner a person who meets the
criteria of a hardcore drunk driver is identified, the sooner
and more likely that they can begin the process of
rehabilitation and reduce the likelihood of re-offending.
A combination of effective adjudication, pretrial service
strategies, in concert with judicial leadership holds the
greatest potential for reducing drunk driving and the tragedies
that occur as a result. That is why for the last 4 years, I
have been involved in an exciting educational project, along
with the National Association of State Judicial Educators, the
Century Council and other judges from around the Country, that
has so far touched nearly 4,000 judges in more than two thirds
of the United States.
We educate judges on leadership principles and how those
principles can guide sentencing strategies in making a
difference. Some of those are: recognizing high BAC as a sign
of a hardcore drunk driver; pretrial supervision strategies;
drug and alcohol evaluations and assessments; intensive
monitoring and supervision during probation; staggered
sentencing, as Senator Klobuchar said happen in her State; the
use of vehicle sanctions, including interlocks; home
confinement; dedicated detention facilities; and other
measures.
Senator Klobuchar said, and I agree, that our mothers,
fathers, sisters and brothers are being killed. But they are
also the ones who are doing the killing. We have to do more to
help those people out of their addictive behavior and out of
those killing situations.
Thank you for having me.
[The prepared statement of Judge Fields follows:]
Statement of Hon. Michael R. Fields, Presiding Judge Harris County
Criminal Court of Law, Number 14, State of Texas
Good morning Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter and
other members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
testify before you today on the issue of drunk driving
prevention. It is an honor to be here.
I want to thank the U.S. Senate for including State
incentives for judicial education efforts and DWI courts in the
2005 SAFETEA-LU bill. I also want to commend your commitment to
fully fund U.S. Department of Justice efforts to expand DWI
courts across the Nation. Your congressional leadership will
foster the development and adoption of programs that show great
promise in addressing this complex issue.
Each year more than 13,000 people in this country are
killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes involving a driver or
motorcycle operator with an illegal blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) of .08 or higher. The majority of these deaths are caused
by hardcore drunk drivers, those who drive at high BAC levels
(.15 and above) and repeat offenders. Over the last 10 years,
progress in reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities has
generally remained unchanged and the percentage of fatalities
involving hardcore drunk drivers has not decreased.
The judiciary plays a pivotal role in the effort to reduce
drunk driving. Of all types of criminal cases, drunk driving
cases are among the most complicated in terms of legal and
evidentiary issues, and hardcore drunk driving cases are often
especially challenging. Judges need judicial discretion in
order to effectively deal with these offenders who vary greatly
in their response to specific deterrent efforts. In order to
adequately address the individual needs of drunk driving
suspects and convicted offenders, judges require greater
flexibility in sentencing options. This is especially true as
it concerns the hardcore offenders. Research has shown that
alternative sentencing methods, tailored to each offender, such
as staggered sentencing, the imposition of ignition interlock
devices as well as other forms of technology geared at stopping
the addictive behavior commonly associated with hard core drunk
drivers can have a profound effect on an offender's ability to
avoid re-offending. In contrast, drunk driving sentences that
do not take past criminal history and habits into consideration
may actually contribute to recidivism. The judicial system can
produce a significant social impact with a thoughtful,
individualized combination of sanctions that force a hardcore
drunk driver to change his or her behavior or face additional
consequences. As important as judicial discretion and
sentencing alternatives are, they alone will not change the
landscape in the field of hardcore drunk driving. Judges must
``take the reigns'' so to speak, and adopt a greater leadership
role in the effort to combat hardcore drunk driving.
For the last 4 years I have been working with organizations
such as the National Association of State Judicial Educators,
The Century Council as well as judges and judicial educators
from across the Nation on an exciting judicial education
project. To date, more than 4,000 judges in nearly two-thirds
of the United States have received this invaluable leadership
training and the companion Hardcore Drunk Driver Judicial
Resource Guide. However, there's still more to do. Educating
judges on the issues surrounding hardcore drunk driving as well
as teaching strategies to effectively reduce all drunk driving,
is critical to stemming the tide of drunk driving deaths. The
Hardcore Drunk Driver Judicial Guide's goal is to educate
judges on the need for comprehensive sentencing that not only
punishes the criminal behavior of driving while intoxicated but
also changes the addictive behavior associated with drunk
driving by rehabilitating offenders, thus reducing recidivism
rates.
From the moment a person who research suggests may be a
hardcore drunk driver first appears before a Judge or
Magistrate to the time of final conviction and sentencing, the
criminal justice system must immediately begin to assess and
address the reason(s) for the offender's behavior and work to
reduce future occurrences. Unfortunately, at times inadequate
funding and resources, a lack of judicial leadership or other
breakdowns in the system thwart that opportunity. That is why,
in Harris County, we strive to avoid such system failures by
utilizing efficient docketing of cases, coupled with the
logical use of both technology and treatment in an effort to
stop drunk driving. Evidence, both anecdotal and real, suggests
that the sooner a person identified as a hardcore drunk driver
begins the process of rehabilitation, the greater the
likelihood that they will not re-offend in the future.
As a result of my judicial training experience coupled with
my own personal experiences, I believe the following strategies
are effective as it relates to changing an offender's behavior
and reducing recidivism:
Increased resources for judicial training and for
developing effective judicial strategies such as DWI Courts,
DWI tracking systems, supervised probation and treatment
programs that increase sentence compliance;
Legislative recognition that high BAC levels of .15 percent
and above are an indicator of a hardcore drunk driver. (The
fatality risk posed by drivers at .15 BAC levels is more than
300 times that of a sober driver. Currently, these drivers are
involved in 58 percent of all alcohol-related traffic
fatalities);
Greater compliance monitoring and increased penalty options
for non-compliant offenders (Studies show that hardcore drunk
drivers often fail to comply with their sentences because they
know it is unlikely they will be caught, making the conviction
meaningless and increasing recidivism);
Utilization of pre-trial supervision programs for repeat
offenders and first offenders who identify as potential
hardcore drunk drivers so they can obtain counseling, treatment
and monitoring as soon as possible following a DWI arrest. (A
long-term analysis of Wisconsin's pretrial intervention program
shows participants were less likely to be re-arrested for drunk
driving);
Employment of pre-sentence investigations or interviews
with drunk driving offenders in order to track and review the
offender's record, any previous sanctions imposed, and
compliance history (This will further enable judges to choose
sanctions that will help protect the public while punishing and
rehabilitating the offender);
Mandate an alcohol assessment for all hardcore offenders so
that alcohol addiction can be identified and appropriate
treatment and aftercare can be administered. (While sanctions
that merely punish drunk-driving offenders can serve as
necessary and useful tools, they are meaningless unless
accompanied by rehabilitation efforts that deal with long-term
lifestyle changes. Otherwise, recidivism will always be a
looming issue);
Utilize intensive monitoring, supervision and probation
during the drunk driving offender's rehabilitation program to
increase the chances of sentence completion (This is another
promising strategy shown to reduce drunk driving);
Consider staggered sentencing with intensive probation.
(This concept is being implemented in Minnesota and staggers
the repeat offender's jail sentence into three periods with
probation between each period. Offenders serve the first period
of incarceration but the remaining periods can be suspended if
the offender succeeds in meeting rehabilitation criteria. A
2003 preliminary analysis by the Minnesota House of
Representatives found a 50 percent reduction in DWI recidivism
through this program);
Judicial intervention in the plea bargaining process so as
to insure effective sentencing of drunk driving offenders;
Restrict diversion programs in order to prevent repeat
offenders from being mistakenly identified as first offenders.
Increase measures to reduce failures to appear at hearings.
(Criminal defendants should not be allowed to flee the
jurisdiction of the Courts without appropriate repercussions.)
Preventing convicted drunk drivers from re-offending
through the use of vehicle sanctions such as impoundment,
immobilization and ignition interlocks while they are serving
probation. Vehicle sanctions should be applied in tandem with
alcohol assessment and treatment as required. Otherwise, the
offender will likely resume his or her drunk driving behavior
once the vehicle sanction is removed. Ideally, the judge should
determine the amount of time a vehicle sanction remains in
place based on the offender's progress in alcohol education or
treatment.
Use of home confinement with electronic monitoring in
tandem with other interventions such as treatment as an
alternative to jail. (Numerous studies have found home
confinement to be effective in reducing DWI recidivism);
Utilize dedicated DWI detention facilities that combine
confinement with supervised alcohol treatment services. (In
Suffolk County, New York repeat DWI offenders are allowed to
choose between 2-3 years in the State penitentiary or 6 months
in the County DWI jail followed by a 5-year intensive probation
program. If they violate the terms of their sentence or
probation, they must return to the State penitentiary to serve
their full sentence);
In conclusion, drunk driving--particularly hardcore drunk
driving--is a very complex problem that requires comprehensive
solutions. A series of mutually reinforcing interventions
tailored to individual offenders will undoubtedly lead to
behavioral change and reduce drunk driving recidivism. Focusing
on the complexities and challenges that exist in the judicial
system with regard to drunk driving should be a top priority.
Many times, these challenges cannot solely be met through the
passage of State legislation. It is essential that Federal and
State laws aimed at reducing drunk driving carefully avoid
prescriptive sanctions that limit judges from considering
individual offender's needs.
Understanding the judicial system, increasing its resources
and focusing on improvements in each State and locality are
important steps in reducing drunk driving. In addition,
understanding each DWI offender and building a set of
individualized sanctions will rehabilitate offenders and reduce
recidivism. In order to significantly impact the hardcore drunk
driving problem, these actions are essential. In recent years,
millions of Federal dollars have been allocated to highly
visible enforcement efforts to identify suspected drunk drivers
on our roads and several thousand laws have been passed to
sanction convicted offenders, yet the drunk driving problem has
remained largely unchanged.
By expanding our focus to incorporate effective sentencing
strategies, increased Judicial education efforts along with
appropriate judicial leadership and discretion drunk driving
and its related fatalities will be dramatically reduced. Thank
you.
Responses by Hon. Michael R. Fields to Additional Questions
from Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. Recognizing that each drunk driving case is
complex, requiring a combination of solutions tailored to the
individual. Do you believe that Federal sentencing mandates,
like the 1-year hard suspension, handicap your ability to
adequately and effectively deal with drunk driving offenders?
Response. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
supplement my earlier testimony. In response to your first
question, while certain Federal sentencing mandates may not
directly handicap a Judge's ability to adequately and
effectively deal with drunk driving offenders, the unintended
consequences of those mandates often do. One such example is
the Federal mandate that requires a 1-year ``hard'' suspension
for Second offenders. The hard suspension requirement negates
the ability of Judges to issue an occupational driver's license
during the suspension period to those offenders who wish to
take probation. Consequently, defendants are unable to get to
and from work in order to pay probation associated fines and
fees. As a result, these offenders do not receive the treatment
needed to end their alcohol or drug addiction. The unintended
consequence is higher recidivism rates. Judges must be allowed
to issue limited occupational licenses (with interlock
requirements) to defendants who accept probation so they can
continue to work, receive treatment and attend probation
meetings.
In my experience, most first or second drunk driving
offenders who refuse probation end up doing minimal jail time
with no treatment component attached. They then drive without a
license (or insurance) during the post conviction suspension
period to get to work. This often leads to additional charges
being filed against the defendant for unlicensed driving,
thereby creating a ``revolving door'' effect.
Question 2. When we reauthorize SAFETEA what
recommendations would you have to incorporate effective
strategies to deal with repeat offenders?
Response. One recommendation I would make is to require
Judges to place interlock devices on defendant's vehicles who
are identified as potential hardcore drunk drivers (HCDD's).
Creating incentives for counties to build treatment facilities
in addition to jails or at least requiring that a certain
percentage of beds in jails be designated for alcohol and drug
treatment purposes would also be helpful. Finally, providing
Judicial education about the use of technology such as trans-
dermal alcohol monitoring, Ignition Interlocks, electronic
monitors and other DWI prevention strategies will assist in
properly equipping Judges to effectively deal with these
complex cases. Finally, Judges need the ability to implement
post conviction treatment requirements for those defendants who
choose to forgo probation.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Judge.
And now we hear from John Wheeler, who is the Governor's
Crime Advisor, Department of Public Safety in the State of New
Mexico. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WHEELER, GOVERNOR'S CRIME ADVISOR, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Vitter. On behalf of the State of New Mexico, Governor
Richardson and our DWI Czar Rachel O'Connor, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony today.
New Mexico has both a chronic problem with drunk driving
and a long history of using innovative solutions to alleviate
that problem. From 1979 through 1996, New Mexico led the Nation
in drunk driving fatalities. In the early 1990's, New Mexico
had nearly 400 alcohol-involved fatalities per year. In 2006,
New Mexico had 191 fatalities and preliminary statistics for
2007 indicate a third record low year.
The Richardson Administration has instituted a number of
progressive programmatic and policy changes, and I would like
to talk about the programs that we feel work.
In 2003, the Governor convened State agency representatives
and advocates to develop a stateside DWI plan. Based on the
recommendations in 2004, the Governor hired a DWI Czar, a
cabinet level position, to plan and lead our efforts in DWI. IN
2005, based on NHTSA funding, we developed a leadership team to
act as a single point of focus to address issues of policy and
program change.
New Mexico uses DWI checkpoints to reduce drunk driving and
raise awareness of enforcement initiatives. In 2004, the State
increased its number of super-blitzes, 2 week periods of very
focused enforcement. The State uses Federal Section 164 and
Section 410 enforcement dollars to fund approximately 700 DWI
checkpoints a year through the super-blitz and checkpoint
program.
New Mexico also receives funds from NHTSA's 403 and Section
164 programs to fund a pilot program with full-time DWI law
enforcement officers in those counties in New Mexico where DWI
is the deadliest. Enforcement efforts are accompanied by an
extensive multimedia campaign entitled You drink, You drive,
You lose, and outreach coordinators who help us get the message
out.
In 2006, the Department of Public Safety started the
Drunkbuster hotline, a toll-free, 1-800 and three digit cell
phone number to report drunk driving. In 2007 so far,
Drunkbusters has received 11,000 calls. We believe it has
resulted in 400 law enforcement contacts that may not otherwise
have occurred.
The State has also increased both the enforcement efforts
and the penalties for bars and restaurants that chronically
serve minors or individuals who are intoxicated. Both of these
are funded by Section 164 dollars.
In 2004, Governor Richardson spearheaded a task force to
study and make recommendations regarding the use of ignition
interlock as a tool to reduce recidivism and deter drunk
driving in New Mexico. In 2005, the Governor signed the
Ignition Interlock Act and New Mexico became the first State to
mandate ignition interlock for all convicted DWI offenders,
including first time offenders.
Both nationally and in New Mexico, Native Americans die
from alcohol-involved crashes at a rate up to five times that
of non-Native Americans. In 2007, the Governor, by executive
order, appointed a State-Tribal DWI Task Force to make
recommendations to reduce alcohol-involved fatalities on tribal
and pueblo lands. The State has been proactive on this issue,
developing the first television public service announcement
that addresses drunk driving by Native Americans, and hiring a
DWI coordinator to liaison between State, Federal and tribal
individuals.
I want to conclude by emphasizing several points. Using
preliminary figures for 2007, we expect to experience an over
20 percent drop in alcohol-involved fatalities from 2005 to
2007, and an equal drop in alcohol-involved crashes and injury
crashes.
Second, we are grateful for the nearly $10 million in
Federal funding we have received through NHTSA programs to help
us in this effort.
Finally, we believe it is not just one effort, but a
combination of these programs and the programs that have been
talked about here this morning that have led to the current
trend, and New Mexico is committed to increasing the reduction
in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity and I would appreciate any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:]
Statement of John Wheeler, Governor's Crime Advisor, Department of
Public Safety, State of New Mexico
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is John
Wheeler, Crime Advisor to Bill Richardson, Governor of the
State of New Mexico. I am here to present information regarding
our DWI programs on behalf of Governor Richardson and the
State's DWI Czar, Rachel O'Connor. It is a pleasure to be here
today.
New Mexico has both a chronic problem with drunk driving
and a long history of utilizing creative and innovative
solutions to solve it. From 1979 through 1996 New Mexico led
the Nation in drunken driving fatalities. In the early 1990's
New Mexico had nearly 400 alcohol involved fatalities per year.
In 2006, New Mexico had 191 fatalities and preliminary
statistics for 2007 indicate a third consecutive year of record
low numbers.
The Richardson Administration has instituted a number of
progressive programmatic and policy changes that have reduced
alcohol involved fatalities in New Mexico. I would like to
discuss programs that we believe have been effective:
Leadership: In 2003 the Governor convened State agency
representatives and advocates to develop a statewide strategic
plan to reduce alcohol involved fatalities. Based on the
recommendations of the planning team the Governor in 2004 hired
a ``DWI Czar'' a Cabinet level position charged with
implementing the State Plan and leading our efforts on DWI. In
2005 as part of a National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) funded law enforcement effort the State
also developed a ``Leadership Team'' on DWI which includes
representation from all State agencies, courts, and the
advocacy community. The Leadership Team provides a single point
of focus to discuss mutual issues and make recommendations
regarding DWI program and policy issues.
Enforcement and Public Awareness: New Mexico uses DWI
checkpoints to reduce drunk driving and raise awareness of
enforcement initiatives. In 2004 the State increased its number
of ``Superblitzes'' which are 2 week periods that include a
high concentration of checkpoints. The State uses Federal
Section 164 and Section 410 enforcement dollars to fund
approximately 700 DWI checkpoints a year through its Superblitz
and checkpoint program.
The State of New Mexico also receives funds from NHTSA's
Section 403 and Section 164 programs to fund a pilot program
with full time DWI law enforcement officers in those counties
where DWI is the deadliest. Enforcement efforts are accompanied
by an extensive multi-media campaign (funded by Section 164 and
Section 410) entitled ``You Drink, You Drive, You Lose'' and
outreach coordinators who increase the visibility of law
enforcement through non traditional media efforts.
In 2006 the Department of Public Safety started the
Drunkbuster Hotline, a toll free hotline to report drunk
driving. In 2007 Drunkbusters has received over 11,000 calls
resulting in over 400 contacts with police that may not
otherwise have occurred. The State has also increased both the
enforcement efforts and the penalties for bars and restaurants
that chronically serve minors or person who are intoxicated.
Both of these projects are funded primarily by State dollars
and are supplemented by Section164 dollars.
Ignition Interlock: In 2004 Governor Bill Richardson
spearheaded a Task Force to study and make recommendation
regarding the use of Ignition Interlock as a tool to reduce
recidivism and deter drunk driving in New Mexico. In 2005 the
Governor signed the Ignition Interlock act, becoming the first
State to mandate Ignition Interlocks for all convicted DWI
offenders, including first time offenders.
Native American: Both nationally and in New Mexico, Native
Americans die from alcohol involved crashes at a rate of up to
five times that of non-natives. In 2007 the Governor by
Executive Order appointed the State Tribal DWI Task Force to
make recommendations to reduce alcohol involved fatalities on
tribal lands. The State has been proactive in this issue,
developing the first television public service announcement
that addresses drunk driving among Native American tribes, and
hiring a DWI Tribal Coordinator to liaison between the State
and New Mexico tribes on issue related to enforcement, public
policy, public awareness and data sharing. Both the Coordinator
and the PSA were funded by Section 164 dollars.
I want to conclude by emphasizing several points. Using
preliminary figures for 2007 we expect to experience an over 20
percent reduction in alcohol involved fatalities from 2005-
2007; and an equal drop in alcohol involved crashes and injury
crashes. Second, the State utilizes and is grateful for the
nearly $10 million dollars per year in funding that we received
from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
to implement many of these programs in our State. Finally, we
believe it is not just one effort but a combination of the
above described efforts that have led to our reduction.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir, very much.
And now, Mr. Glynn R. Birch, National President, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving. We welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF GLYNN R. BIRCH, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, MOTHERS
AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING
Mr. Birch. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member
Vitter.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee on Effectiveness of the Federal Drunk Driving
Programs. Madam Chairman, from your comments already, I want to
thank you for your keen sense of understanding the problem and
your leadership.
I became involved with MADD after my son Courtney was
killed by a drunk driver on May 3d, 1988. Courtney was playing
with his two older cousins when he heard an ice cream truck in
his grandmother's neighborhood. Hearing the sound of the ice
cream truck, Courtney followed his cousins outside. That is
when the offender's car came barreling down the street, hit
Courtney going over 70 miles per hour, dragged his body over
150 feet before the car finally stopped. My son was killed
instantly by a three time repeat offender who had a BAC of .26.
Madam Chairman, we need to be honest with ourselves. Most
of the progress of drunk driving occurred in the mid-1990's.
While our efforts, along with those of MADD and other groups
that have brought the drunk driving situation to be socially
unacceptable, it is still tolerated. Data tells us that up to
75 percent of drunk drivers continue to drive, and even with
their license being revoked. Statistics from May 2000 of the
Columbus Dispatch article, it should alarm us all. It states,
according to the story, that Ohio citizens share the road with
33,000 DUI offenders with five or more convictions. It is also
startling that the on the road there are 147,000 people with
three or more convictions.
Faced with this dilemma, MADD has looked carefully at the
numbers. Now, MADD keeps in mind that if we continue to do the
same things, we shouldn't expect a different outcome. Following
only those solutions proven to work, last November MADD
announced a campaign to eliminate drunk driving. Now, the four
elements of the campaign are high visible law enforcement,
mandate that interlocks be on all convicted drunk drivers, and
voluntary development of advanced technology, and the last of
the elements is the grassroots mobilization which MADD proudly
does. I have also submitted testimony on record on this.
But MADD believes that anyone who violates the public trust
and drives drunk, 27 years after everyone knows the effects of
drunk driving, has earned the right for an alcohol ignition
lock device be placed on their device or his or her vehicle.
The offender has to blow into the device before the car will
start. They can do anything else that the rest of us can do,
they just can't drive drunk.
Had an alcohol ignition interlock law been in place in my
home State of Florida in 1988, my son Courtney would be here
today alive, I believe. Last year, Senator Vitter, or just this
year, three States joined New Mexico in passing legislation to
require ignition interlocks on all first time DUI offenders, so
I applaud your State for their efforts. These States mandated
interlocks for those convicted at .08 BAC or higher. This is
our highest legislative priority as far as MADD goes.
MADD supports substantial Federal incentive grants for
States that pass legislation requiring interlocks on all first
time offenders with a BAC of at least .08. MADD also supports
the consideration of soft sanctions for States that do not have
interlock laws on drunk driving convictions of .15 and above
and all repeat offenders. Again, we do not support hard
sanctions for States on this measure because major progress is
being made without that happening.
We continue to support hard sanctions for States on laws
where the scientific data is overwhelming, such as the 21
minimum drinking age, the national .08 BAC standard, and zero
tolerance laws for underage drinkers.
We also would request increased Federal funding to help
with the cooperative research initiative between the automotive
industry and the Federal Government to support technologies
that may eventually prevent vehicles from being started by
drunk drivers.
So Madam Chairman, in closing, there are some who advocate
lowering the drinking age to 18. I would like to submit for the
record statements from the American Medical Association, the
National Transportation Safety Board, and the Insurance
Institute of Highway Safety with regard to the science behind
the law. There is no controversy in the science. The science
supports the law.
The bipartisan work that has taken place in the Senate and
elsewhere have saved lives. Thanks to their efforts, 25,000
parents somewhere will know that the tragedy of their son or
daughter, getting that call at 2 o'clock in the morning, won't
happen. I know this first hand and would like to make sure that
it doesn't happen to any other parent.
MADD believes that the way to save lives and to move
forward on drunk driving is through the support of the 21 laws,
ignition interlock legislation for all convicted drunk drivers,
and eventually new technology that will 1 day not allow the car
to start for drunk drivers.
Since 1980, together we have made great progress, but it is
still tolerated. Drunk driving is still tolerated. With
interlocks, drunk driving is no longer tolerated. With advanced
technology, it will be impossible. That is the march of MADD,
and we invite the support of the Congress, the Administration
and the American people.
So I would like to end by saying I will be open for
questions, but before I do that, Madam Boxer, I would like to
acknowledge a MADD mom from your State of California. Mary
Clarksburg is right behind me sitting.
Senator Boxer. Welcome.
Mr. Birch. Thank you for your time, and I welcome any
questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Birch follows:]
Statement of Glynn R. Birch National President,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter, and members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before your subcommittee on the effectiveness of Federal drunk
driving programs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to publicly thank you for your efforts
to stop drunk driving. You have played a singular role in this
fight and MADD sincerely appreciates your steadfast leadership.
Extraordinary progress has been made to reduce drunk driving,
with a 44 percent reduction in alcohol-related fatalities since
1980--the year MADD was founded. We would also like to thank
law enforcement, prosecutors, NHTSA, State highway safety
offices, and others for their leadership. Most especially we
want to thank the American people, who demanded that progress
be made. This has truly been a team effort.
For more than 15 years, I have worked as a volunteer to try
and advance MADD's lifesaving mission at the local, state, and
national levels.
I became involved with MADD after my son, Courtney, was
killed by a drunk driver on May 3, 1988. Courtney was playing
with his two older cousins at his grandmother's house. Hearing
the music of an ice cream truck, Courtney followed his cousins
outside. That's when the offender's car came barreling down the
street and hit Courtney at 70-miles per hour, dragging his
small body over 150 feet before the car stopped. My son was
killed instantly by a three time repeat offender with a BAC of
.26.
Mr. Chairman, as you know this must not be tolerated. In
the fight against drunk driving, however, we also have to be
honest with ourselves. Most of the progress on drunk driving
occurred by the mid 1990's thanks to the 21 minimum drinking
age, zero tolerance laws, the national .08 standard,
administrative license revocation, and especially, tireless
leadership by law enforcement.
For the past 10 years, we have been able to maintain this
progress, but have made no further gains. In 2006, there were
nearly 13,500 fatalities involving a driver or motorcycle
operator with at least a .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC)
and nearly half a million injuries due to alcohol-related
traffic crashes. While your efforts along with those of MADD
and other groups have made drunk driving socially unacceptable,
it is still tolerated.
For too long in America, we have been practicing a ``catch
and release'' program. Law enforcement does their very best to
catch drunk drivers and we as a society through our
legislatures and courts, let them go. The science tells us that
up to 75 percent of drunk drivers continue to drink and drive
even when their licenses have been revoked. Statistics from a
May 7, 2007 Columbus-Dispatch article should alarm us all.
According to this story, Ohio's citizens share the road with
33,000 DUI offenders with five or more convictions! They are
also sharing the road with 147,000 people with three or more
convictions! We are certain that Ohio is not the only State
with this problem as we hear media report, after media report
and victim story after victim story telling us repeat drunk
driving offenders put our families at risk every day.
Faced with this dilemma, MADD has looked carefully at the
numbers--each representing a precious life--to try and decide
what can be done to again reduce drunk driving fatalities and
injuries. MADD keeps in mind that if we continue doing the same
things, we shouldn't expect a different outcome.
Following only those solutions proven to work, MADD
announced the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving on November
20, 2006.
The Campaign's 1-year anniversary is just a month away, and
here are its four parts:
Intensive high-visibility law enforcement, including
twice-yearly crackdowns and frequent enforcement efforts that
include sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols in all 50
states.
Full implementation of current alcohol ignition interlock
technologies, including efforts to require interlock devices
for all convicted drunk drivers. A key part of this effort will
be working with judges, prosecutors and State driver's license
officials to stop the revolving door of repeat offenders.
Voluntary exploration of advanced vehicle technologies
through the establishment of a Blue Ribbon panel of
international safety experts to assess the feasibility of a
range of technologies that would prevent drunk driving. These
technologies must be moderately priced, absolutely reliable,
unobtrusive to the sober driver, and set at the illegal limit
of .08.
Mobilization of grassroots support, led by MADD and its
more than 400 affiliates, and our partners to make the
elimination of drunk driving a reality. MADD is uniting drunk
driving victims, families, community leaders, and policymakers
in the fight to eliminate drunk driving.
MADD believes that anyone who violates the public trust and
drives drunk 27 years after everyone knows the effects of drunk
driving has earned the right for an alcohol interlock device to
be installed on his or her vehicle. The offender has to blow
into the device before the car will start. The offender can
still go to work, pick up his or her kids from school, or do
anything the rest of us can do. They just can't drive after
drinking, in violation of their probation.
Had an interlock law been in place in Florida in 1988, my
son Courtney would be alive today. Our family would have
celebrated Courtney's 21st birthday this August. It is still
difficult for my family and me to comprehend that he never made
it to this passage in his life.
Multiple studies on interlocks for both first-time and
repeat offenders show decreases in repeat offenses (i.e.
recidivism) of up to 90 percent while the interlock is on the
vehicle.\1\ For example, New Mexico, even before its new, more
extensive first offender interlock program, found a decrease in
recidivism by over a half among first offenders who installed
interlock devices.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\i Willis, C., Lybrand, S., & Bellamy, N. ``Alcohol Ignition
Interlock Programs for Reducing Drunk Driving Recidivism.'' Cochran
Data base of Systematic Reviews (2005).
\2\Voas, Robert, Paul Marques, and Richard Roth. ``Evidence that
Interlocks Are Effective with First Offenders.: 6th Annual Ignition
Interlock Symposium, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, Arizona, Illinois, and Louisiana joined New
Mexico in passing legislation to require ignition interlocks on
all first time DUI offender's vehicles. These states mandate
interlocks for those convicted at .08 BAC and higher. New
Mexico, who has had the law the longest, is seeing substantial
reductions in drunk driving crashes and fatalities. MADD
applauds the efforts of these states and will continue to work
in State legislatures across the country to pass similar bills.
This is our highest legislative priority.
MADD supports substantial incentive grants for states that
pass legislation requiring interlocks on all first time
offenders with a BAC of at least .08. We feel this is the best
way to persuade more states to require ignition interlocks to
keep convicted drunk drivers from continuing to endanger the
public. We do not support hard or soft sanctions on states for
first offense interlocks at .08 for two reasons. Many states
are actively considering this important measure already, and to
be effectively implemented, the State must be sincerely
committed to substantial changes in its judicial and driver
licensing systems. These changes will initially have a
significant price tag. The good news for tax payers is that the
drunk driver must pay for the interlock.
MADD also supports the consideration of soft sanctions for
states that do not have interlock laws for drivers convicted
with a BAC of .15 and above and all repeat offenders. We do not
support hard sanctions for states on this measure because major
progress is being made.
MADD will continue to support hard sanctions for states on
laws where the scientific value is overwhelming, the public
support is strong, and the need for national uniformity is
demonstrated. The 21 drinking age, the national .08 BAC
standard, and zero tolerance laws for underage drinkers are
excellent examples.
MADD also respectfully asks Congress to consider supporting
increased funding for the Governors Highway Safety Program and
law enforcement in the next highway reauthorization bill in
order to ensure sufficient resources for high-visibility
enforcement including enforcement of underage drinking laws.
We also would request increased Federal funding to help
with the cooperative research initiative between the automotive
industry and the Federal Government to support new technologies
that may eventually prevent vehicles from being started by
drunk drivers. MADD does not support any mandate of this new
technology, and we believe it is best pursued on a voluntary,
data-driven basis over the next decade.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, there are some who advocate
lowering the drinking age back to 18. We know the earlier youth
drink, the more likely they are to become alcohol dependent
later in life and to drive drunk. In order to prevent this, the
21 drinking age law is pivotal to protecting youth.
There has been some debate about the 21 minimum drinking
age in the media. I would like to submit for the record
statements from the American Medical Association, the National
Transportation Safety Board, and the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety with regard to the science behind this law.
There is no controversy in the science. The science is
overwhelming and supports the fact that when the drinking age
was lowered deaths and injuries on the roads increased and when
it was raised, deaths and injuries decreased. NHTSA estimates
the 21 law has saved 25,000 lives since implementation by the
states. To repeal it would be disastrous and we hope that you,
Mr. Chairman, and all your Senate colleagues will make known
your support for current law.
The bipartisan work that has taken place in the Senate and
elsewhere has saved lives. Thanks in part to your efforts,
25,000 parents somewhere will never know the tragedy of the
call that comes at 2 o'clock AM in the morning and says their
child isn't coming home. I know this tragedy first hand, and
will make sure that MADD continues to fight so that other
parents do not.
MADD believes the way to save lives and to move forward on
drunk driving, is through the support of the 21 law, interlock
legislation for all convicted drunk drivers, and eventually new
technology that will prevent drunk drivers from driving.
Since 1980, together we have made drunk driving socially
unacceptable, but still tolerated. With interlocks, drunk
driving is no longer tolerated. With advanced technology, it
will be impossible. That is the march MADD leads, and we invite
the support of the American people.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before your
subcommittee.
Responses by Glynn R. Birch, to Additional Questions
from Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. Could you please elaborate on MADD's definition
of ``hard'' versus ``soft'' sanctions? Could you also explain
more fully MADD's position on imposing new mandates on States
that could result in loss of Federal highway dollars?
Response. For the purposes of this discussion, MADD views a
hard sanction as one where a State fails to comply with a
Federal mandate and therefore a portion of the states highway
dollars are eventually returned to the general highway trust
fund. Therefore, the State would lose this funding. Soft
sanctions occur when a State fails to comply with a Federal
mandate and a portion of the states construction dollars are
required to be spent on some form of safety improvement rather
than general transportation construction. In this case, a State
does not lose the funding, but the funding is diverted.
At this time, MADD does not support any new hard sanctions.
MADD does support soft sanctions for states without laws
requiring convicted drunk drivers with a blood alcohol content
of .15 and above or repeat offenders to have an alcohol
ignition interlock device installed on his/her vehicle. MADD
believes that ignition interlock devices are the most effective
way to prevent convicted offenders from driving drunk. The
offender can still use his/her vehicle; they just cannot drive
after drinking.
Question 2. Do you believe it is more effective to work
with States with incentives, allowing them to determine what
works best rather than dictating one size fits all Federal
mandates?
Response. In general, MADD believes it is best to work with
states rather than creating Federal mandates. In fact, our
current Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving is focused on
passing legislation in each State which would require an
ignition interlock device be installed on the vehicle of all
convicted drunk drivers. There currently is no plan to pursue
similar legislation in Congress.
MADD also supports substantial Federal incentive grants for
states that pass legislation requiring all first time DUI
offenders to have an interlock device installed on his/her
vehicle.
However, in some cases MADD does support Federal mandates.
In the past, excessive influence on policymakers by the alcohol
industry, defense attorneys, and other interest groups
prevented forward progress on drunk driving legislation. Two
cases come to mind where Federal mandates were necessary and
have been proven successful. The fiscal year transportation
appropriations bill effectively created a national .08 blood
alcohol standard. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984
created a 21 minimum drinking age. Both of these Federal
mandates have saved lives and without these laws, it is
doubtful that all 50 states would have acted to pass State
legislation on these issues.
Question 3. In your statement you State that MADD Supports
voluntary exploration of advanced vehicle technologies through
the establishment of a Blue Ribbon panel of international
safety experts to assess the feasibility of a range of
technologies that would prevent drunk driving.
Does this mean that once the technology has been developed,
MADD would support putting interlock devices on all cars as
they roll off the production line?
Response. As you may know, the automotive industry working
through the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the insurance industry,
and MADD have formed a Blue Ribbon Panel to support the
voluntary development of advanced technology that would
prohibit a driver with a blood alcohol content of .08 and above
from starting his/her vehicle. Such technology must be six-
sigma accurate (meaning a virtual no fail rate), be completely
passive to the driver, and not hassle those who are unimpaired.
It must also be desired by the public.
There is a major difference between current interlock
technology and the advanced technology being sought by the Blue
Ribbon Panel in that current technology is not passive. Today,
a DUI offender sentenced to an interlock device must blow into
the device before starting his/her vehicle. In contrast, the
advanced technology would automatically detect whether the
driver is over the illegal alcohol limit through no additional
action by the driver.
MADD does support having such advanced technology in every
car in the United States, but it does not support a Federal
mandate to have such technology installed. Again, this
technology must be a safety feature, much like an airbag,
electronic stability control, or anti-lock brakes, which the
public wants.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir.
I want to thank this panel very much, very direct and I
think very thoughtful points.
Judge Fields, do you have any idea how many drunk driving
convictions in your county are avoided due to plea agreements
and reduced charges?
Judge Fields. With respect to reduced charges, I can't give
you a specific number. However, the policy in Harris County is
to avoid reducing charges to anything that is not alcohol-
related. Obviously, as you know, Senator Boxer, in most
courts----
Senator Boxer. Well, what if it is alcohol-related? You
said to anything that is not alcohol-related.
Judge Fields. We don't have right now a lesser not-alcohol-
related reducible option.
Senator Boxer. What about plea agreements? Do you know how
many drunk driving convictions in your country are avoided due
to plea agreements?
Judge Fields. I can't give you a specific number. I can say
that studies show that the majority of cases in criminal courts
are resolved by the plea bargaining process, which is why
judges must be educated as to what the effects of a plea
bargain will be.
Senator Boxer. Because I am not a lawyer, I am married to a
lawyer. My father was a lawyer and my son is a lawyer. So I
have a little bit by osmosis, but explain to me if there is a
plea agreement and there is no trial and there is no
conviction, would we see that drunk driver, would that
situation show up in the public record anywhere if it is a plea
agreement?
Judge Fields. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. OK. So you can still know that somebody
reached an agreement on a drunk driver arrest?
Judge Fields. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. OK. Now, you talk about the importance of
educating judges. I think you said that you don't think one
size fits all because each case is different, and in order to
impact the individual the judge has to really get into what the
circumstances are. Do you think we could do a little more here?
I mean, what do you do in the State? Do you have training on
dealing with drunk drivers in your State? Is there a training
program that judges go through?
Judge Fields. There is more of an emphasis on training now
that this has become such a national issue. That is a great
thing. In fact, the program that I work with with the Century
Council and the National Association of State Judicial
Educators has gone out to a number of States, and as a result
in Senator Vitter's State of Louisiana, something called a no
refusal year was implemented in I believe the Ninth District
after we talked about a program that I participated in in
Harris County where I stayed up all night and reviewed warrants
all night for everyone who the Houston Police Department and
other departments that took them to central processing arrested
for drunk driving if the probable cause existed and they
refused to take a breath test, well, we took the blood.
That program has started in Louisiana as a result of the
education on that effort. There are laws on the books that can
adequately deal with the issue. The question is, and the
concern is sometimes just educating judges on how to best use
them.
Senator Boxer. Yes. Well, I just feel in your testimony, I
am troubled by it just a little. You know, to me it is clear.
Judge Fields. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. You want to drink, you want to kill
yourself, I am really sorry for you. Don't get in a vehicle.
And so I think when you sort of say, well, we have to see the
person and the situation, I just think there can be no
deviation from that point. You get in a vehicle. You are drunk.
You have to go to jail. You have to pay a price. I think it has
to be clear.
So I just want to make sure that you are not, when you say
we have to get--because not all these folks are addicted to
alcohol. A lot of the young ones are at a party. They don't get
it. So I think if we are sort of a little bit soft, if you
will, on the notion that, well, maybe there is a reason and we
have to understand it. There are certain things I find, you
know, raising a family and whatever, that there is right and
there is wrong. You shouldn't drink because I love you and its
hurts you and you can't handle it, and all that is important.
But dare you get in a vehicle, you are going to pay a price
forever.
I just wonder if I am misunderstanding what you are saying,
let me know please.
Judge Fields. If I come off as soft, please ask any of the
defendants in my court and they will tell you otherwise.
Senator Boxer. OK. Good.
Judge Fields. What I am saying is, what we want to prevent
is that second DWI and that third DWI and that fourth DWI. You
are absolutely right, Senator Boxer. We can throw those folks
in jail and we can throw away the key for a very short period
of time.
But ultimately, what we really want to do is change the
thinking, change the behavior that gets them behind the wheel
of that car intoxicated in the first place. The way that we do
that is imposing a system, a menu of sanctions that allows a
judge to stop the drinking behavior for those who just cannot
drink, and certainly alters the decision to drink and then
drive for those who may be able to handle consuming alcohol,
but just made a poor decision. But you have to have an arsenal
at your disposal in order to do that effectively.
Senator Boxer. Well, I think that is good advice for us.
Did you want to add to that, Mr. Birch?
Mr. Birch. Yes. New Mexico had an example that others
States are following. Senator Vitter mentioned earlier about
where the problem lies with the underage and also that hardcore
drinker. He is absolutely right, but there is also that third
party, because when you take a look at the hardcore driver, it
is about one third of the problem. Two thirds are first time
offenders.
This is why it is so important to have that device to help,
to make sure that we don't get to that second or third offense.
The alcohol ignition interlock on the first time offender,
because if you look at that snapshot of the first time, it is
very close in drinking habits to that two time offender. So
let's catch it while we can early, so we don't have that repeat
offender like the one that killed my son with three previous
convictions.
Senator Boxer. Right. What I am going to do is extend my
time when I am done, 10 minutes in all. And I will give Senator
Vitter 10 minutes because that would finish my questions.
I want to talk about that device because that is a
tremendous help. I want to understand what we can do in the
highway bill to encourage that device going into these
automobiles of the first offenders. Frankly, and maybe I am way
out here on this, if a device was in every car, what harm does
it do? But I don't know enough about the technology. Is it hard
to use it? Is it expensive to put it in? What burden would it
put on an ordinary driver? I am just curious about it.
Do you have someone there who understands it? Do you
understand it, Mr. Wheeler? Mr. Wheeler seems to know, but if
you don't think he answers it right, let me know. So talk to me
about that.
Mr. Wheeler. Madam Chair, in New Mexico we convened a group
to look at a lot of things. We brought people from Japan. We
brought people from Saab in Sweden to show us third and fourth
generation technology, a steering wheel wrap that uses galvanic
skin responses like a lie detector to be able to measure that.
The device is simple. One of the members of the first panel
had it up here on the chair. You blow into it. It measures the
alcohol in your breath. It is connected to the motor vehicle.
There is a cost associated with it. In New Mexico, we have an
ignition interlock fund for people.
Senator Boxer. How much is it per car?
Mr. Wheeler. About $1,000 or so to install. We also have a
program in New Mexico where people can voluntarily do it, and
we have had parents doing that for teen drivers and for other
people. We have had people step forward and say, I want to do
it; I have a problem and I want to do that before I get caught
or before I kill someone.
Senator Boxer. I guess that price will go down with time.
Mr. Wheeler. It already is.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Birch and then your cohort there. I
don't know your name. What is your name, sir?
Mr. Hurley. I am Chuck Hurley. I am honored to be the CEO
of MADD.
Senator Boxer. Wonderful. Please join us at the table. Yes,
if Senator Vitter has no objection. Is that all right?
Senator Vitter. Sure.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Birch. I also want to mention the cost is down,
anywhere from $100 to $150 that we found.
Senator Boxer. Really?
Mr. Birch. Yes. Again, if you take a look at last year, we
had about 1.5 million arrests and only about 100,000 interlocks
placed in vehicles. We can get that cost down, first of all,
when we get the device on the vehicle, it is 90 percent
effective when it is on the vehicle, so it does work. Once we
get them on there, the costs generally will go down as well.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Sir?
Mr. Hurley. Madam Chair, Chuck Hurley, CEO of MADD.
There are three opportunities in the highway bill that we
would like you to consider. The first is to have a major
incentive grant that would get other States to follow the lead
of New Mexico. There are now four States, and Louisiana,
Senator Vitter, is one of those four States that has just done
that. The science is overwhelming, up to 90 percent effective
in reducing recidivism. And yet it does require States to
revamp their licensing and judicial systems so an incentive
program will work.
Senator Boxer. This would say if you have a program that on
the first conviction there has to be this device installed on
the car.
Mr. Hurley. Exactly. As Glynn said, 27 years after
everybody knows what drunk driving does, to drive drunk over
.08 we believe that person needs an interlock. It should stay
on until they prove they have gotten the help they need.
Senator Boxer. And how many States have done this?
Mr. Hurley. New Mexico was the first. Three States enacted
last year, Louisiana, Arizona and Illinois.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Hurley. And we are very hopeful about your State.
Senator Boxer. Well, they had better shape up.
Mr. Hurley. We have a bill with bipartisan sponsorship in
the California Highway Patrol who are terrific.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Mr. Hurley. The second opportunity really is to increase
the funding for enforcement with the Governors Highway Safety
Association, in the 402 program, perhaps a substantial vertical
grant for enforcement because the 402 program is suffering from
that Washington disease of hardening of the categories. They
need to have the ability to plan and enforcement should be the
first priority.
The third and perhaps most important point, Madam Chair and
Ranking Member Vitter, is the opportunity for technology 10
years out. The automobile industry, working with the U.S.
Department of Transportation and MADD and the insurance
industry and others, believe they can make new cars in about 10
years that won't be operable by drunk drivers at .08 and above.
Some of it is transdermal, some of it is near-infrared, some of
it is ocular, some of it is algorithms. Cars can park
themselves these days.
The technology can be there, but MADD's most important job
will be to build the public support to allow that to happen. We
don't seek a mandate for that. We think it has to be done in a
voluntary data-driven way, and the opportunity in the highway
bill, the U.S. Department of Transportation has a cooperative
research agreement with the automobile industry, and we want to
make sure that is adequately funded.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Judge Fields. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Judge Fields. May I add something? Interlock devices are an
invaluable tool for judges. It goes back to what I was saying
earlier about the right hand knowing what the left is doing.
Say, for instance, I put an interlock device on a person's car.
Once their case is disposed of, a final conviction takes place,
I am obligated to remove that device from their car.
So what that essentially does, while it is a great thing to
have that interlock device on their car, it forces people into
those quick plea bargains that you are talking about, so that
they can get the device removed.
Now, maybe their license is suspended, but they will
continue to drive with a suspended license and no interlock
device. That is why it is important that we educate judges who
it is that we are seeing. Does this person in front of us look
like a hardcore drunk driver, a potential repeat offender,
someone that we need to take extra steps in making sure that
they don't repeat or recidivate.
Senator Boxer. So your State law says you have to remove
that interlock device once a certain period of time goes by?
Judge Fields. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. OK. So wouldn't that be fixed if the State
law was changed?
Mr. Hurley. In fact, Illinois, Madam Chair and Canada, and
perhaps also in Louisiana, have what is called compliance-based
removal; that the interlock should go on a first offense and if
they violate or tamper with the device, the clock resets. In
other words, it should only come off when they have a
substantial period of compliance, which would mean they have
gotten the help they need.
Senator Boxer. Senator.
Senator Vitter. I have the same question as the Chair.
Presumably, that problem with the interlock device that you are
describing in Texas can be easily fixed with State legislation.
Mr. Hurley. It can be easily fixed if the State legislature
in Texas would like to, and thus far Texas has one of the worst
drunk driving records in the United States.
Senator Vitter. If Texas passes a State law similar to what
we are talking about, that limitation of use of interlock
device goes away. Correct?
Judge Fields. Possibly.
Senator Vitter. Well, not possibly, certainly. There is
nothing in natural law of the U.S. Constitution that says you
can't use these interlock devices for a protracted period of
time, as was described by the other witness, right? It is a
function of State law.
Judge Fields. I think that State law can help, but unless
you treat the offender and stop the drunk driving behavior,
there are many occasions where I order interlocks and the
interlock restriction is on the license and the interlock
restriction is placed on a car, and they drive another car.
What we have to do is get these folks into programs that stop
the behavior that leads to needing to blow into the device in
the first place.
Absolutely use the devices. Absolutely.
Senator Vitter. I understand that if they can use another
car, that is a problem. I mean, that is a problem in any State
no matter what the State law is. But you agree this issue that
you identified of having to take it off upon final
adjudication, that specific issue which you identified just
goes away if you have the right State law.
Judge Fields. It can go away, but what you would then not
have if you just imposed a law that said you have to keep the
interlock device on forever----
Senator Vitter. Not forever, for some significant period of
time until a person's behavior over that significant period of
time is proven out to be responsible.
Judge Fields. Until they modify their behavior, and that is
why you would have to give judges the ability, post-conviction,
to move them into treatment somehow, because that is how you
modify the behavior.
Senator Vitter. Well, yes. I think that ability exists in
every State now. It is a question of funding and other
opportunities.
Judge Fields. Precisely.
Mr. Hurley. Senator, one of the tougher problems you have
just identified, Texas law mandates that interlocks shall be
imposed upon second conviction, and yet as the Judge I think
agrees, only about 14 percent or 25 percent of the judges in
Texas comply with that law. Even when the States pass good
laws, there is an issue of judges ignoring that without
penalty.
We agree, judicial education is a very key component, but
we need to really work on when a law is passed that judges
should respect that law.
Judge Fields. The judges in Harris County follow that law,
and while I won't agree with you, I won't disagree with you
because I don't have the stats and I am under oath. So what I
will say is that greater education efforts will increase the
likelihood that judges will comply with whatever laws there
are.
Senator Vitter. Judge, do you disagree with State law that
would mandate this as it now does in my State for first time
offenders?
Judge Fields. The imposition of interlock devices on all
first time offenders?
Senator Vitter. Correct.
Judge Fields. I have never looked at the issue so I can't
say that I agree or disagree with it. I would have to see how
your State implements it.
Senator Vitter. It implements it like I just said.
[Laughter.]
Senator Vitter. I have to be honest. I share some of the
uncomfortableness with your testimony. Some of this stuff is
not that complicated, in my mind, and I think it is pretty darn
justified to have that device for any first time offender. I
guess I am asking if you agree or disagree with that.
Judge Fields. I think that interlock devices are very
helpful. I don't know, without looking at the practical effects
of how it would work out, I can't say that I can say yes
absolutely this will work, without knowing more about how the
law would be drafted. And that is part of why it is so
important to involve judges in the process because when you are
sitting in that chair, yes, I see how the law is written, but I
am going to be dealing with a very crafty lawyer who is going
to do everything he can to work around it. So without seeing
the law, I don't want to speak on it out of ignorance.
Senator Vitter. Well, Mr. Wheeler, maybe you can give us
insight into practical impact. You all have had a, or you
project a 20 percent overall reduction. How significant in that
reduction has been interlock devices? Can you tell yet?
Mr. Wheeler. Madam Chair, Senator, I am not sure we can
tell yet. We think it has had an impact. We think a number of
these programs have. There are problems with ignition
interlock. One of the problems we have seen is in several of
our counties we have a high percentage of people who say, and
we have checked, and they don't have a motor vehicle registered
to them. We know they drive.
So it increases our need for enforcement, which was of
course one of the MADD priorities and one of the priorities we
would ask for in the transportation bill, Madam Chair, is an
increased enforcement effort because the Judge is perfectly
correct.
OK, I sentence you to ignition interlock, but if there
isn't follow up and if there isn't an absolute continuous
monitoring--by the way, the cost that I mentioned is for the
year-long first time offender to have that device monitored and
you have to go in and you have to have it checked. The
installing is pretty cheap, but dealing with the repercussions
of it and actually following through takes a lot of judicial
resources and it takes a lot of law enforcement resources.
So one of the problems we have seen is people say, I don't
have a car. We check. They don't have a car. We know they
drive. They live in rural New Mexico. You can't get anywhere
without driving and there is no public transportation.
So it increases our need for follow up services. It
increases our need--in New Mexico law, there is treatment
mandated. But some of those treatment opportunities are not
available in rural New Mexico. I suggest they are probably not
available in rural Louisiana or rural California either.
So those are issues that confront us. Ignition interlock is
certainly not a panacea, but it is something that we have seen
that has been an effective tool in the arsenal, as the Judge
mentioned, and it is something that we are continuing.
We were very excited to see some of the third and fourth
generation technology regarding interlock, the steering wheel
wraps and some of the other things. They pose some really
tremendous opportunities for the future.
Mr. Birch. Senator Vitter, again I applaud your efforts.
What we had to do is, as I mentioned before, we are going to
have to do something different if we expect to lower the
plateau of deaths that have been there for a number of years.
The success in New Mexico has paved the way and your State is
one of the States that brought on the change.
Yes, that language needed to be massaged. Instead of it
coming off at a given time, let's allow that offender--it is
win-win situation for the offender and the public. Let him earn
the right to get that device off. And if he re-offends, it
stays on. But we have to do something because we are literally
talking about lives, and this is the leadership that we need
from the Committee. So again, I applaud what your State has
done. We can do it in every State.
Senator Vitter. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I wanted to ask about the cost. That total package cost you
said was about $1,000 now?
Mr. Wheeler. Madam Chair, Senator, that is what I recall.
Senator Vitter. I am just curious. Of that, what is the
cost of the device and installing the device?
Mr. Hurley. If I could, the installation fee is about $150
perhaps, and it somewhere between $60 and $70 a month to
maintain it. The good news is that is all paid for by the
offender, not the taxpayer. It is less than the cost of a drink
a day, $2 to $3 a day. We think that it is an excellent system.
Some of the research that has been done in New Mexico
points out that interlocks are the key difference in the 20
percent decline, the work done by Dick Roth and others. So we
are very focused on what Louisiana is doing. We hope California
will follow, and certainly what Illinois and Arizona are doing
as well.
Senator Vitter. Is there any sense of how that price will
come down with greater use of it, No. 1? And also, this 10 year
project, building into autos, is there any guesstimate on the
cost of that per vehicle?
Mr. Hurley. There are really two different technologies.
The current technology is the fuel cell breathalyzer
technology. Again, the costs are fairly stable. It may come
down some, but $125 to install and $60 to $70 a month we think
are reasonable prices to protect the public. Our lead volunteer
in South Dakota lives down the road from what we believe to be
the national record, a guy that has been arrested for the 34th
time. At some point, enough is enough. We have to protect the
public, and interlocks do that.
The advanced technology is really extraordinary in that it
offers the opportunity if it pans out both in technology and in
public acceptance, of literally not allowing cars to start .08
and above. It won't stop drinking, never MADD's goal. It won't
stop impaired driving that begins before .08. But .08 and above
can be eliminated through that technology. It would make drunk
driving the public health equivalent of polio.
Senator Vitter. Is there any preliminary guesstimate about
that cost per vehicle?
Mr. Hurley. Early estimates are more of what it would have
to meet, and it would have to be about $200 or less, probably.
Sensor technology breakthroughs may allow that. It obviously
cannot hassle sober drivers; 40 percent of the public doesn't
drink, and the other 40 percent is responsible. It is really
only 20 percent that needs to be affected. It has to be
absolutely six sigma reliable and effective.
There is a blue ribbon panel on advanced alcohol detection
technology that MADD is proud to serve on, with the U.S.
Department of Transportation, with the Alliance for Automobile
Insurers, who really need to be thanked for this. Drunk driving
isn't their problem. They don't sell alcohol at dealerships.
They are stepping up and really all over the world, in Japan,
in Europe and in North America, all the auto companies are
looking at this advanced technology, and we thank them for
that.
Senator Vitter. Well, great. Thank you all.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just as a closing comment, it sort of goes back to one of
my earlier comments, a lot of these things are complicated. A
lot of them have a lot of factors, but for God's sake, let's
not allow that to just lull us into paralysis, like there is
nothing we can do, or like the fact that this interlock device
can have a major impact. No one is pretending that it is the
panacea, but anything that can have a major impact is worth
doing.
Senator Boxer. I want to thank the panel very, very much.
I want to thank Senator Vitter as well.
I am going to speak with my Governor, write to my Governor
about moving forward on this. It just makes so much sense, and
I want to congratulate New Mexico, Louisiana, and the other
States that are really taking the lead.
You know, it is very important, it seems to me, to have a
vision of a better future for our children and our
grandchildren. That is what propels me to stay in this work,
and I am sure others as well. There was once a bumper sticker
during the Vietnam War that just said, Imagine Peace, because
it gets to a point where you can't even imagine what an absence
of war is after so many years.
And so, you know, you want to imagine what it would be like
if we could solve this problem and if you could kind of flash
back to your story, Mr. Birch, and what it would have meant to
you.
So I applaud Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the other
organizations, but particularly Mothers Against Drunk Driving
for what you do because, as Senator Vitter says, you can get
into a mind set of, gee, we have done all we can, we have made
the progress, but we are kind of stumped.
But I think the key here for the long range is this future
where when everyone gets in a car, there is a simple way that
it simply won't start if your blood alcohol is over a certain
level. So therefore when we do our bill, Senator, I hope we
will do a little bit of a Manhattan Project for this. I mean,
my goodness, the things that we can do in this great Country.
We should be able to figure that out and get it to a point
where it is not a prohibitive cost so that it goes into the
automobile just as we now couldn't imagine automobiles without
airbags and seatbelts.
Because I think, Judge Fields, I compliment you on your
work. You are obviously committed, but you harp about treating
the addiction, treating the addiction, and that is important
and we have been trying to treat the addictions for years and
years and years. I make a difference, I mean, no one could be
stronger on stopping addiction and being fair to people and
giving them a chance and giving them treatment, than I am. You
go back to everything I believe in, I believe in that.
But I see a difference between that and someone with an
addiction, with a problem, or just because they don't get it,
or are too stupid to understand what it means to get drunk at a
party, getting behind a wheel. It is a different thing from the
addiction.
I would venture to say a lot of these people who get behind
the wheel don't have an addiction. They just, on the weekend
they go to a party. They could take it or leave it, but they
are going to get in a car.
So I think we need to, because we have always tried to stop
the addiction, and we should never stop trying ever, because we
are going to make a difference in some lives, and it is
important. But to me, I am looking at the innocents, the kids
running into the truck to buy an ice cream. I think to get to
that, we just need a whole other mind set.
We will work on the addiction over here, but we will stop
any human being who can't drive from getting in that
automobile.
So as we write the highway bill, and it is going to be
really an exciting time when we get to that, I will take it to
heart what you have said, and I hope we can work across party
lines here and get this done for you.
Again, I want to thank Senator Vitter for coming and being
so positive in this hearing. And I want to thank the panelists.
Thank you very much.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Thank you Mr. Chairman. As a member of both Environment and
Public Works and Commerce Committees, the Chair is well aware
of the jurisdictional distinction between the two Committees
when it comes to safety issues. EPW does the ``hard side'' or
bricks and mortar and Commerce does the ``soft side'' or
behavioral side. Thus, the issue of reducing drunk driving
falls largely in the Commerce Committee's purview as they have
sole jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and drunk driving incentive grant
program. Nonetheless, I welcome a discussion of the
effectiveness of the nation's drunk driving programs in
preparation for reauthorization of SAFETEA.
More often than not, when discussing transportation issues
we focus on problems with funding, congestion and the physical
State of our infrastructure; but equally important is safety
while driving on our nation's roads. As Chairman of this
Committee during the development of SAFETEA, I made safety a
priority. A hallmark of SAFETEA is a comprehensive and
unprecedented new core program focusing solely on addressing
safety problem areas.
States must develop comprehensive safety plans that address
their biggest safety hot spots. The Highway Safety Improvement
Program, or H-Sip, targets funding to the greatest problem
areas. As we get closer to reauthorization, I hope that as the
Subcommittee Chair on safety issues, you will be scheduling
oversight hearings on H-Sip so we can see how well the new
safety core program is working. In fact, I have GAO examining
that program as we speak.
While I applaud and support efforts to get drunk drivers
off the roads, I have opposed and will continue to oppose
efforts to achieve this through Federal mandates or sanctions.
As a former Mayor and State Legislator, I know that Washington
does not have all the answers and certainly does not always
have the right ones. States know best what is appropriate for
them. The closer government is to the people the better the
results.
SAFETEA provided $500 million in grants to encourage States
to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce drunk
driving. States are actively taking advantage of the incentives
Congress has put in place. I am sure my colleagues would agree
that it is far more effective to work with states and allow
them to determine what works best in their case rather than
dictating a one size fits all legislative prescription.
TEA-21 directed States to implement a 1 year hard
suspension for repeat offenders, using the threat of reduced
Federal highway funds if they failed to comply. This one size
fits all Federal prescription had the effect of derailing
efforts to develop interlock technologies, and handicapped
State's ability to put in place their own effective drunk
driving laws. This well intentioned Federal mandate set States
up for failure, and denied judges the flexibility needed to
most effectively sentence repeat offenders on a case by case
basis.
Prior to TEA-21, many States were implementing their own
repeat offender sentencing guidelines, using interlock
technologies and other initiatives tailored to their needs,
including my own State of Oklahoma. But all efforts stopped
after the TEA21 mandate because States did not want to risk
losing out on Federal dollars for not following the new Federal
drunk driving mandate.
A SAFETEA technical corrections bill that would allow
states more flexibility with their drunk driving laws by
amending the existing repeat offender provision was approved
twice by both this Committee and the full House. While the
final bill awaits further Senate action, I think the message is
clear, both Chambers recognize that leaving this decision to
States is optimal. It is also important to note that this
provision changes a previous mandate that we now recognize as
being ineffective. I see this as proof of my point that
Washington does not know best and should not impose its will on
states.
The loss of life, especially due to a drunk driver, is not
only tragic but unacceptable. However, to continue the practice
of holding State transportation funds hostage while we force
them to adopt federally imposed, one-size fits all solutions to
combat drunk driving, should not be the answer. Each State has
the right, and frankly the responsibility, to implement
appropriate laws that meet the needs if its citizens. Mr.
Chairman, while you and I differ on how to achieve the desired
result, we both agree combating drunk driving must be a
national priority. I look forward to working with you on this
and other issues as we begin to think about reauthorization of
SAFETEA.
I look forward to the testimony and of The Honorable
Michael R. Fields, a criminal court judge who deals with DUI
cases every day and can provide a unique insight on this issue
from a local level.
I want to welcome all our witnesses today and thank them
for taking time out of their schedules to share with us their
ideas on how to most effectively address drunk driving at the
Federal level.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]