[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 57 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4009-S4010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:

  S. 708. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for 
a national minimum penalty for an individual who operates a motor 
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; to the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources.


    THE DEADLY DRIVER REDUCTION AND MATTHEW P. HAMMELL MEMORIAL ACT

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Deadly 
Driver and Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act, which would establish 
national minimum penalties for alcohol-related motor vehicle 
violations. It is a companion to S. 412, the Safe and Sober Streets 
Act, which I introduced last month along with Senator Mike DeWine of 
Ohio, a bill intended to make .08 blood alcohol content the national 
standard for impaired driving. I am proud to sponsor this legislation 
and when it is adopted, many lives will be saved.
  However, Mr. President, we can also reduce fatalities and serious 
injury caused by drunk driving by having tougher penalties. Driving 
while intoxicated, or DWI, is one of the most prevalent crimes in this 
country. In 1992, more people were arrested for DWI--1.6 million--than 
for any other reported criminal activity including larceny or theft, or 
for drug abuse violations. By even reasonable standards this could be 
considered a kind of epidemic. And we need to start treating this 
epidemic.
  A shocking number of DWI convictions are repeat offenders. When the 
National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration studied this issue, 
it found that about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of 
DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. One study in California 
demonstrated the extent of this problem over the long term. It found 
that 44 percent of all drivers convicted of DWI in California in 1980 
were convicted again of DWI within the next 10 years.
  In my State of New Jersey, the problem is exacerbated by the fact 
that DWI offenses are treated as traffic violations as opposed to 
crimes. Unfortunately, Mr. President, too many people share this view 
of drinking and driving, with the result being that those who are 
charged with DWI often drink and drive again. While in New Jersey new 
laws and programs have been implemented to address the drunk-driving 
problem, and DWI arrests and convictions have declined, the problem of 
repeat offenders persists. Between 1994 and 1995 the number of two-time 
offenders actually increased from 4,495 in 1994 to 4,731 in 1995.

  The danger of these repeat offenders is illustrated by the fact that 
drivers with prior DWI convictions are overrepresented in fatal 
crashes. These drivers have a 4.1 times greater risk of being in a 
fatal crash, as do intoxicated drivers without a prior DWI, and the 
risk of a particular driver being involved in a fatal crash increases 
with each DWI arrest.
  Mr. President, it is time that we take this problem of repeat 
offenders seriously. The first time a driver is convicted of DWI, he or 
she must understand the severity of the crime which has been committed. 
If a person continues to ignore the law, and continues to drink and 
drive, the courts need to treat that person with the full force of the 
law, both to punish that person, and to protect the public at large.
  That is why I am introducing the Deadly Driver Reduction and Matthew 
P. Hammell Memorial Act. This bill requires States to adopt mandatory 
minimum sentences for DWI offenders within 3 years or otherwise lose a 
portion of their Federal highway funding. The sentencing requirements 
are as follows: For a first-time conviction of a person operating a 
motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, their license is 
revoked for 6 months. A second conviction requires a 1-year suspension, 
and a third conviction for the crime of driving while impaired by 
alcohol results in the permanent revocation of that person's license.
  If a State fails to adopt these minimum sentences by October 1, 2000, 
5 percent of that State's Federal highway funds will be withheld. If a 
State fails to adopt these minimum sentences after another year, that 
State would then lose 10 percent of its allocated Federal highway 
funds.
  Mr. President, sanctions work. In too many States, and in too many 
courts in this country, drunk driving is not taken seriously enough. We 
want to make sure that those who disobey the law by drinking and 
driving both understand the severity of their offense and are prevented 
from driving if they continue to break the law. These mandatory minimum 
penalties will meet these challenges.

  When we talk about drunk driving, too often we talk about it in 
statistical terms. But there are real people attached to those 
statistics. In the spring of 1995, a young man, from Tuckerton, NJ, 
full of goodness and potential, was struck down by a drunk driver while 
he and his friend were in-line skating. Matthew Hammell was 
exceptional. All those who knew him talk about being touched by his 
kindness and caring. Like so many American boys, at one point he 
dreamed of being a baseball player, but as he matured he knew he wanted 
to be a missionary. His dream became living a life of helping others. 
But this dream, this young man, was taken away from all of us much too 
early when Robert Hyer, drunk and driving, struck Matthew with his car 
while passing another vehicle. Robert Hyer should not have been on the 
road. Not only was he drunk, but he had a history of driving drunk. 
Before this fateful incident, Hyer had been charged with DWI six times, 
though he was convicted only twice. Hyer lost his license in New Jersey 
in 1984, but somehow he obtained a North Carolina license just 2 years 
later. He was a habitual offender who kept bucking the system. A system 
which kept letting him go. A system which, in the end, was too late in 
responding.
  Mr. President, it may be too late for Matthew Hammell, and all of the 
other Matthew Hammells whose spirits are taken from us too early, but 
it is now that we must become serious about drinking and driving. So, 
in his honor, and in the memory of all of our loved ones who do not get 
to achieve their potential due to the actions of drunk drivers, we have 
named this bill the Deadly Driver Reduction and Matthew P. Hammell 
Memorial Act. While I will be the first to admit that this bill is not 
enough, at least it is a start. Let us

[[Page S4010]]

work together now so that such memorial acts are unnecessary in the 
future.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 708

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Deadly Driver Reduction and 
     Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM PENALTY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO OPERATES A 
                   MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF 
                   ALCOHOL.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 162. National minimum penalty for an individual who 
       operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of 
       alcohol

       ``(a) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2001.--The Secretary shall withhold 5 
     percent of the amount required to be apportioned to any State 
     under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (5)(B) of section 
     104(b) on October 1, 2000, if the State does not meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(2) Thereafter.--The Secretary shall withhold 10 percent 
     (including any amounts withheld under paragraph (1)) of the 
     amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of 
     paragraphs (1), (3), and (5)(B) of section 104(b) on October 
     1, 2001, and on October 1 of each fiscal year thereafter, if 
     the State does not meet the requirements of paragraph (3) on 
     that date.
       ``(3) Requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State meets the requirements of this 
     paragraph if the State has enacted and is enforcing a law 
     that provides for a minimum penalty consistent with the 
     following:
       ``(i) In the case of the first offense of an individual of 
     operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of 
     alcohol, revocation of the individual's driver's license for 
     at least 180 days.
       ``(ii) In the case of the second offense of an individual 
     of any alcohol-related offense while operating a motor 
     vehicle (including operating a motor vehicle while under the 
     influence of alcohol), revocation of the individual's 
     driver's license for at least 1 year.
       ``(iii) In the case of the third or subsequent offense of 
     an individual of any alcohol-related offense while operating 
     a motor vehicle (including operating a motor vehicle while 
     under the influence of alcohol), permanent revocation of the 
     individual's driver's license.
       ``(B) Terms of revocation.--A revocation under subparagraph 
     (A) shall not be subject to any exception or condition, 
     including an exception or condition to avoid hardship to any 
     individual.
       ``(b) Period of Availability; Effect of Compliance and 
     Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Period of availability of withheld funds.--
       ``(A) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2002.--Any 
     funds withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment to any 
     State on or before September 30, 2002, shall remain available 
     until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year for which the funds are authorized to be appropriated.
       ``(B) Funds withheld after september 30, 2002.--No funds 
     withheld under this section from apportionment to any State 
     after September 30, 2002, shall be available for 
     apportionment to the State.
       ``(2) Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.--
     If, before the last day of the period for which funds 
     withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment are to 
     remain available for apportionment to a State under paragraph 
     (1), the State meets the requirements of subsection (a)(3), 
     the Secretary shall, on the first day on which the State 
     meets the requirements, apportion to the State the funds 
     withheld under subsection (a) that remain available for 
     apportionment to the State.
       ``(3) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned 
     funds.--Any funds apportioned under paragraph (2) shall 
     remain available for expenditure until the end of the third 
     fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the funds are 
     so apportioned. Sums not obligated at the end of that period 
     shall lapse or, in the case of funds apportioned under 
     section 104(b)(5)(B), shall lapse and be made available by 
     the Secretary for projects in accordance with section 118.
       ``(4) Effect of noncompliance.--If, at the end of the 
     period for which funds withheld under subsection (a) from 
     apportionment are available for apportionment to a State 
     under paragraph (1), the State does not meet the requirements 
     of subsection (a)(3), the funds shall lapse or, in the case 
     of funds withheld from apportionment under section 
     104(b)(5)(B), shall lapse and be made available by the 
     Secretary for projects in accordance with section 118.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``162. National minimum penalty for an individual who operates a motor 
              vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.''.
                                 ______