Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 62 (Tuesday, May 13, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2570-H2576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE TRAGEDY OF ALCOHOL-RELATED DEATHS ON OUR NATION'S HIGHWAYS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration estimates that two in every five Americans, 40 percent,
will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their
lives. I rise today to reflect on the tragedy that drunk driving has
brought to victims and their families around the United

[[Page H2571]]

States. I was encouraged to learn that from 1990 to 1994, there was a
20-percent decline in alcohol-related deaths on our Nation's roads.
However, in 1995, alcohol-related traffic deaths increased for the
first time in a decade. These statistics deeply trouble me, especially
since our Nation has made a commitment to educate the public on the
dangers of driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be part of this special
order, because 45 percent of the fatalities on our Nation's highways
are alcohol-related. It is, as the gentleman mentioned, a tremendous
problem. One of the things that I was most shocked about was to find
that in emergency rooms across this Nation, emergency room personnel
are very often not allowed to give information when a person comes in
from a traffic accident with a high blood alcohol level, so a wonderful
woman from Oregon came to me, a nurse, and she had changed the law in
Oregon which said that emergency room personnel may make this
information available.
As the gentleman knows, last year we passed a bill here in this House
asking for a study to see about just allowing that emergency room
personnel to report high blood alcohol levels. What we found in Oregon
was absolutely shocking. Sixty-seven percent of the people who came in
through emergency rooms with high blood alcohol level, who had been
driving, were never charged with drunk driving because they were unable
to give this information out.
So, Mr. Speaker, I really recommend what the gentleman is saying,
that we need to educate people that this is a major, major problem in
our country. We have young people, I believe it is six young people a
day, who die on our highways in alcohol-related accidents. So I am
hoping this study will show that where we can have emergency room
personnel involved with the law enforcement to let people know, let law
enforcement know that there has been alcohol involved in an accident,
we may be able to reduce this tremendous carnage on our highways.
I really thank the gentleman for holding this special order, because
it is, obviously, a major health problem in our country.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her
involvement in this and in so many other issues. She has just been so
stellar on my Subcommittee on Health on all issues, particularly
preventive health care. That is basically what we are talking about
here, preventive, the education that goes along with us. I thank the
gentlewoman for joining us.
Mr. Speaker, in 1995, more than 17,000 people were killed in alcohol-
related traffic crashes, including 2,206 youths. Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, MADD, and many other important organizations, such as ``Remove
Intoxicated Drivers,'' RID, Students Against Driving Drunk, SADD, and
Campaign Against Drunk Driving, CADD, have been working to protect
people from being injured or killed in drunk driving-related crashes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my colleagues' efforts
to bring attention to the tragedy of drunk driving, and to discuss
briefly a bill I have introduced with 20 of our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to establish a national commission on alcoholism to
deal with this fatal disease in a comprehensive and cost-effective way.
Mr. Speaker, alcoholism killed over 100,000 Americans last year. That
is more than all illegal drugs combined. Half of our Nation's convicted
murderers committed their crimes under the influence of alcohol. My
colleague, the gentleman from Florida, and my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Oregon, already discussed the devastation caused by
drunk drivers. Alcoholism is truly a painful struggle with a staggering
public cost. Untreated alcoholics incur health care costs at least
double those of nonalcoholics. In indirect and direct costs together,
the public, the American taxpayer, pays at least $86 billion because of
alcoholism.
I recently spoke with a former radio talk show host and city council
member from Minneapolis. Her name is Barbara Carlson. Barbara told me
the absolutely heartrending story of a young neighbor of hers killed by
a drunk driver. It had so affected Barbara that she called her old
station and asked for special air time, just to talk about this
terrible tragedy and the scourge of drunk driving in this country.
Mr. Speaker, Barbara Carlson put it best when she said we will never
reduce the 17,000 deaths that occurred last year alone in alcohol-
related crashes unless and until we address the root cause of
alcoholism. That is why we are introducing this legislation to create a
national commission on alcoholism, to develop a practical, achievable
public policy to deal with this costly, fatal disease. Mr. Speaker, we
need a national strategy. To deal with illegal drugs, we have the
Office of Drug Control Policy. We do not have a concerted national
effort to deal with our No. 1 killer, alcoholism.
Let me just explain this bill very briefly, Mr. Speaker. This bill,
H.R. 1549, would establish the Harold Hughes-Bill Emerson Commission on
Alcoholism, named after two exceptional public servants who everyone in
this body knows and who passed away last year; Harold Hughes, a very
distinguished Democrat Governor and former U.S. Senator from Iowa, and
Bill Emerson, a colleague of ours, a Republican member from Missouri.
Both men were passionate advocates in the struggle against alcoholism,
and both men strongly advocated the creation of this commission, and
they handed this off to me to chief sponsor.

This temporary commission to deal with the problem of alcoholism will
include 12 appointed members and also the director of the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. I foresee prevention and
treatment experts on this commission, representatives of Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, academic and medical professionals,
representatives of the business community, recovering people, and
Members of Congress.
The commission will be charged with specific tasks, including ways to
streamline existing treatment and prevention programs, and develop a
national strategy to counter this deadly and costly epidemic. Within 2
years the commission will be charged with submitting its
recommendations to the Congress and the President, and then disband. I
strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1549.
Mr. Speaker, only by addressing the underlying problem of alcoholism
will we ever reduce the incidence of drunk driving in America. Again, I
thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his efforts in this important
effort to deal with drunk driving.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman for his great work on this
issue, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tom Carey, who is a resident of my district in
Florida and a co-founder of Remove Intoxicated Drivers, RID, is with us
tonight. Tom lost his wife to a drunk driver, and has been an
inspiration to those who have lost their loved ones to drunk driving.
Over the past 4 days MADD held its National Youth Summit on Underaged
Drinking right here in Washington, DC. The event included high school
students from each of the 435 congressional districts across the
country. These students joined together to develop creative approaches
to fight drunk driving. This afternoon the students who attended the
summit met with Members of Congress and their staffs to share their
suggestions. I am particularly proud to see students involved in such a
noble cause, and I am convinced that their efforts this past weekend
will go a long way towards saving lives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], for coordinating this very important
discussion on the problem of drunk driving in America.
As the House sponsor of the 1995 zero tolerance law for underage
drunk driving and the current cosponsor of two pieces of legislation
that will strengthen our Nation's drunk driving laws, I wholeheartedly
agree that Congress must focus more attention on this issue. As we
heard tonight, drunk driving fatalities are on the rise for the

[[Page H2572]]

first time in a decade. In 1995, the year for which most of the recent
statistics are available, more than 17,000 Americans were killed in
alcohol-related traffic fatalities.
The sad reality is that our drunk driving laws have failed thousands
of families across the Nation. Our criminal justice system has been too
lax for too long on drunk drivers. In fact, impaired driving is the
most frequently committed violent crime in America. That is an outrage.
A license to drive should not be a license to kill.
Back in 1995, Senator Byrd and I launched an effort with Mothers
Against Drunk Driving to close a legal loophole in 26 States that
allowed underage drivers to drive legally with alcohol in their system,
as long as their blood alcohol content did not exceed the State's legal
DWI limit. That loophole existed, despite the lethal consequences of
teenagers who mixed drinking and driving. In fact, 40 percent of
traffic fatalities, as the gentleman knows, involve underage drivers,
and they are alcohol-related.
As a result of this law, 39 States have now adopted zero tolerance
laws that send a very clear message: If you are under 21, consumption
of alcohol combined with driving will be treated under State law as
driving while intoxicated, end of story. These laws have saved hundreds
of lives across the country, and I am very hopeful that all 50 States
will make zero tolerance the law of the land.
Zero tolerance was an important victory in our war on drunk driving,
but we must do more, much more. That is why Senator Frank Lautenberg,
Senator Mike DeWine and I have joined Mothers Against Drunk Driving,
highway safety advocates, law enforcement groups, drunk driving
victims, in introducing two important pieces of legislation to
strengthen our Nation's drunk driving laws.
Using the proven sanctions methods of the 1984 national minimum
drinking age law and the 1995 zero tolerance law, these bills will
compel States to lower the legal level of driving while intoxicated to
a more reasonable level, and strengthen penalties for repeat drunk
drivers.
Mr. Speaker, more than 3,700 Americans were killed in 1995 by drivers
with blood alcohol concentration below .1. This is the legal definition
of driving while intoxicated in 36 States. In recognition of this
problem, 14 States, including Florida, California, Virginia, and
Illinois, have adopted laws lowering the DWI level to .08. The .08 laws
have also been adopted by many industrialized nations. Lowering the DWI
level to .08 is supported by the American Automobile Association, the
National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs
of Police, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and our
Nation's largest insurance companies. The American Medical Association
even recommends .05 DWI.
Why should we lower the DWI standard to .08? First, .08 is a level of
intoxication at which critical driving skills are impaired for the vast
majority of drivers.
Second, the risk of a crash increases substantially at .08 and above.
In fact, a driver with .08 BAC is 16 times more likely to be in a fatal
crash than a driver with no alcohol in his system.
Third, Americans overwhelmingly agree that you should not drive after
three or four drinks in one hour on an empty stomach, the equivalent of
.08 blood alcohol level.
Last, but certainly not least, .08 laws save lives. A study of the
first five States to enact .08 found that those States experienced a
16-percent reduction in fatal crashes involving drivers with a BAC of
.08 or higher, and an 18-percent decrease in fatal crashes involving
drivers with a BAC of .15 or higher.

{time} 1715

Overall, the study concluded that up to 600 lives would be saved each
year nationwide if every State adopted the .08 standard. Now there are
some who are trying to claim that .08 BAC is too low a level of
intoxication and that our bill will target social drinkers who drink in
moderation. This could not be further from the truth. It takes a lot of
alcohol to reach .08 BAC.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, a 170-
pound man with an average metabolism would reach .08 only after
consuming four drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach. A 137-pound woman
with an average metabolism would need three drinks in an hour to reach
that level.
We should keep in mind that if you have any food in your stomach or
you snack while you are drinking, you could drink even more if you
choose and not reach .08. That is a lot of liquor. In addition to
lowering the legal definition of DWI, we need legislation to establish
mandatory minimum penalties to convict drunk drivers and keep them off
our roads. We must stop slapping drunk drivers on the wrist and start
taking their hands off the wheel.
That is why The Deadly Driver Reduction Act will require States to
mandate a 6-month revocation for the first DWI conviction, a 1-year
revocation for two alcohol-related convictions, and a permanent license
revocation for three alcohol-related offenses.
Studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show
that about one-third of all the drivers arrested or convicted of DWI
each year are repeat offenders. Drivers with prior DWI convictions are
also more likely to be involved in fatal crashes. This second piece of
legislation will close the loopholes in State laws that too often allow
convicted drunks drivers to get right back behind the wheel.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday at the National Press Club, Redbook magazine
and Mothers Against Drunk Driving honored five mothers who are the foot
soldiers in this battle. These courageous women have vowed to make
something good come out of a tragic loss of a child to a drunk driver.
One of those mothers, Mary Aller, is a constituent from Mamaroneck,
NY, whose 15-year-old daughter, Karen, was killed by a drunk driver in
1991 who spent only a few months in jail. Mary went on to establish the
Westchester County chapter of MADD. She is truly an inspiration to us
all.
The evidence, Mr. Speaker, is compelling that adopting .08 as the
national DWI standard and establishing mandatory minimum penalties will
reduce the carnage on our Nation's roads. Our Government has an
obligation to act when lives are at stake, and we owe it to all those
mothers to adopt these bills.
I thank my colleague for having this session tonight. I appreciate
the opportunity to share some words with you.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend to all my colleagues' attention the
article ``Drunk Driving Makes a Comeback'' from the May edition of
Redbook magazine, and I submit that article for the Record.

[From Redbook, May 1997]

Drunk Driving Makes a Comeback

(By Joey Kennedy)

Anyone who knew Dana Ogletree knew he was a devoted father.
Whether the 36-year-old Brooks, Georgia, resident was fishing
with his five children, taking them to the Six Flags
amusement park, or going to car races with his only son, Dana
Jr., he was involved with his family. But today Shandra
Ogletree, 37, is raising her children (now ages 10 to 20)
alone. On December 20, 1995, as Dana was riding to work with
a coworker, the car was struck broadside by a 17-year-old boy
who had been drinking and also smoking marijuana. Dana died
the following morning, after emergency surgery. Also killed
were his coworker, David Harris, and the three young children
of David's fiancee, whom he was going to drop off at their
father's.
``It has been hard,'' Shandra Ogletree admits. ``We think
of all the things Dana won't get to see. The birthdays. The
graduations. He won't ever get to walk his daughters down the
aisle. And my son won't get to have man-to-man talks with his
dad.'' She is also bitter that the driver received a prison
term of only ten years--``though he killed five people.''
Meanwhile, Shandra notes, ``I lost my busband of 19 years, my
high school sweetheart. And my children lost a wonderful
father.''
Dana Ogletree was one of 17,274 people who died in alcohol-
related traffic crashes in 1995, the last year for which
statistics are available. Each of those deaths represents a
catastrophe for another American family.
What's shocking to many is that the figure also represents,
for the first time in almost a decade, an increase in the
number of drunk-driving fatalities compared to the preceding
year. The long national campaign against drunk driving has
stalled, it seems. While deaths from drunk driving are up,
fund-raising for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is
down, as is the amount of media coverage given to the drunk-
driving issue. Efforts to lower the legal blood alcohol
concentration from .10 to .08 percent continue to founder in
many states, thanks to vigorous lobbying by the liquor and
hospitality (restaurant and bar) industries. Nationwide, the
number of arrests for driving

[[Page H2573]]

while intoxicated went down from 1.8 million in 1990 to 1.4
million in 1995.
Despite these discouraging facts, the anti-drunk-driving
campaign--begun by MADD in 1980 and joined by legislators,
the law enforcement community, and other public safety
groups--can look back on notable successes. Public awareness
of the issue has dramatically improved. ``There was a time
when drunk driving was treated pretty much as a joke, like
some kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar,'' says
Dwight B. Heath, Ph.D., an anthropologist at Brown University
who studies behavior related to alcohol. ``Not anymore.''
Efforts by MADD and others have led to raising the minimum
drinking age to 21 and to so-called zero-tolerance laws that
punish underage drinkers who are caught driving with any
alcohol content in their blood. ``You've heard so much about
drunk driving that there is a perception that it's a problem
either fixed or almost fixed,'' says Katherine Prescott,
national president of MADD.
But the problem is not fixed, as so many families can
attest. In fact, 41 percent of all traffic fatalities involve
alcohol. While the anti-drunk-driving message has clearly
gotten through to many Americans (see Redbook's national
survey, page 93), thousands of husbands, wives, and children
are still being killed by those who party hard and get behind
the wheel. ``There's still a segment of our population that
thinks it's perfectly appropriate when you drink, to drink
all you can,'' says Susan Herbel, Ph.D., vice president of
the National Commission Against Drunk Driving. Researchers
who conducted a recent large-scale national survey of
drinking-and-driving behavior estimated that there were 123
million incidents of drunk driving in the U.S. in 1993.
Is there any way to jolt legislators and the public out of
their complacency, make drunk driving a hot issue again--and
make the roads safer for our families? Anti-drunk-driving
advocates are urging action on a number of fronts.

get through to the guys

If drunk driving is, as MADD says, a ``violent crime,''
then who is committing it? Says Dr. Herbel, ``Drunk driving
is very much a male problem.'' Men are four times more likely
than women to drive after they've been drinking, one study
found. And the segment of the population most likely to drink
and drive is made up of white males between the ages of 21
and 34, in blue-collar jobs, with a high school education or
less, according to a study by the Harvard School of Public
Health.
How to stop them? Strict law enforcement--sobriety check-
points, saturation patrols by police departments--does change
drinking-and-driving behavior in the short term. But Dr.
Herbel points out that these efforts require a huge
commitment of resources by state and local police, and their
effects taper off unless they are kept up consistently.
``There are those who feel you can rely on enforcing laws
to solve the drunk-driving problem, but I don't agree with
that,'' she says. ``Until drunk driving gets to be a behavior
that is just not socially acceptable, we're not going to stop
it.'' Dr. Herbel believes the anti-drunk-driving message
should be modeled after the antismoking campaign, with its
many community-awareness programs and education efforts
that start in grade school.
Employers could play a role as well through education
efforts and even spot-checks of the status of employees'
drivers' licenses. ``The men who are most likely to drink and
drive usually work, and their jobs are important to them,''
Dr. Herbel says. ``Employers should make it clear that
drinking and driving is not acceptable.'' Better yet,
employers could refer at-risk workers to counseling
programs--so long as local communities cooperate by making
such programs readily available.
The best way to reach at-risk men may be through their
wives or girlfriends. Focus groups have found that men aged
21 to 34 are more likely to be influenced on the drinking-
and-driving issue by the women in their lives than by public
service announcements, bartenders, or male friends, according
to Bob Shearouse, national director of public policy at MADD.
Experts are unsure how to translate this finding into a
public-awareness campaign, however. The Harvard study on at-
risk men found that some of their wives and girlfriends
``described fear of verbal or even physical retribution'' for
trying to stop drinking-and-driving behavior. ``For the
unlucky woman involved with a man who has a tendency to be
violent, especially after drinking, intervening could be
dangerous,'' note MADD's Prescott. ``You have to be careful
about advising women to do that.''

let the media send the message

While a certain segment of males may be the most likely to
drink and drive, they obviously aren't the only culprits; the
gospel about drunk driving must be preached to everybody. And
Jay Winsten, Ph.D., director of the Center for Health
Communication at the Harvard School of Public Health, says
the message is fading and deaths are up for one reason: ``The
mass media is paying far less attention to this problem than
it was several years ago.''
Since the issue of drunk driving was widely covered in the
eighties and early nineties, it stands to reason that there
would be fewer news stories on the issue now. After all, why
should journalists report on a story that already feels
familiar to much of the public? Because doing so saves lives,
Dr. Winsten says. He cites a period of high media attention
in 1983 and 1984--a time when MADD was fresh on the national
scene--that was accompanied by a drop in alcohol-related
deaths. In 1986, Dr. Winsten says, deaths went up and
remained fairly level until 1988, when the Harvard School of
Public Health recruited the entertainment industry to help
promote the notion of the designated driver (an idea imported
from Scandinavia). During the next four television seasons,
more than 160 episodes of prime-time shows, including Cheers,
L.A. Law, and The Cosby Show, featured designated drivers in
some way, and networks sponsored public-service
announcements. The result? A 26 percent decline in drunk-
driving fatalities over that four-year period.
``These days, we're getting designated-driver mentions in
about a half dozen episodes per season,'' says Dr. Winsten.
``The public has bought the concept of the designated driver,
but they have to make the decision to use it over and over
and over again. And they rely in part on cures and
reminders from the media.''
MADD's Prescott acknowledges that her organization is no
longer a ``hot topic'' with the media. ``It's as though our
having becoming credible and being successful hasn't helped
us with the media. Now, we're like all the other charities.''
Further crowding MADD's issue are major news stories that
thrust other worthy causes, such as car-airbag safety, into
the spotlight. ``That's been a major topic of conversation in
Washington. Now, the last thing I want to do is offend anyone
who has lost a child,'' emphasizes Prescott, who herself lost
a son to drunk driving. ``But we're talking about a dozen
deaths in 1995, when we know that more than 17,000 people
died in 1995 because of drunk driving.''
As advocates for a variety of causes, from breast cancer
research to recycling, have discovered, those who want
coverage for their message must find ways to make it feel
fresh. Dr. Winsten thinks that, for drunk driving, a debate
over ``social host responsibility'' might serve that purpose.
``Should you be liable for a civil lawsuit if your party
guest kills someone on the way home, as is already the case
in some states?'' he asks. ``People disagree on this issue,
but it doesn't matter as long as the issue of drunk driving
is being discussed.''
One of the ways MADD will bid for a higher profile this
year is to focus on drinking by people under age 21. ``Our
current environment makes it acceptable for underage people
to drink, to walk into a store and buy liquor even though
it's illegal,'' Prescott says. ``We think this youth
initiative will get the public's attention. Underage drinking
has to be dealt with by communities, schools, churches, and
homes.'' MADD will kick off its effort this month by hosting
a National Youth Summit on Underage Drinking in Washington,
D.C. Student delegates from each of the nation's 435
congressional districts will discuss possible solutions to
the underage-drinking problem and deliver recommendations to
members of Congress.
And in June, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration hopes to stir public debate when it
launches Partners in Progress, an ambitious program that
has brought together numerous groups to develop strategies
to curtail drunk driving. Their goal: to reduce yearly
alcohol-related fatalities to no more than 11,000 by the
year 2005.

take on the alcohol lobbyists

Anti-drunk-driving advocates have also been tangling with
the liquor and hospitality industries over the issue of
lowering the legal blood alcohol concentration limit from .10
to .08 percent, an effort that has thus far been successful
in only 14 states (see ``How to Save Hundreds of Lives This
year,'' page 92). In practical terms, .08 means that an
average 160-pound man can still have four drinks in one hour
on an empty stomach before he would reach the legal limit for
driving--a level that seems surprisingly lenient to many
people. Dr. Herbel says the liquor and hospitality industries
are fighting hard against the .08 limit because they see it
as a step toward zero tolerance--that is, making illegal any
amount of alcohol in the bloodstream of someone who is
driving--which could, obviously, have a big impact on their
businesses. ``Those industries believe that, as soon as .08
passes in all states, somebody will start a movement for .06
or .04,'' says Dr. Herbel.
While that battle is being waged, anti-drunk-driving
advocates are pursuing other legislative remedies: the Crime
Victims' Bill of Rights, sponsored by Senator Dianne
Feinstein (D-CA), which would ensure that victims of all
kinds of crime, including drunk driving, have certain basic
rights; and the Deadly Driver Reduction Act, which would
entail license revocation for drunk-driving offenders.
The boy who killed Dana Ogletree was an underage drinker.
``Where did he get that beer?'' asks Shandra Ogletree, angry
that the details haven't come out. ``Did someone sell it to
him? Or did he have an older friend buy it for him?''
Until everyone who might be responsible for a drunk-driving
accident--not only the drinker, but store clerks, friends--
recognizes his or her role, the problem won't be solved,
Shandra argues. And thousands of families will continue to
suffer the consequences.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for sharing in

[[Page H2574]]

this very important special order and for all of her work and research
and the study on this subject. We oftentimes ask ourselves, what is the
proper role of Government? Certainly, we on this level have not really
done enough on this subject, and we need to continue to look at it and
do more.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps].
Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
certainly want to commend him for holding this very important special
order to call attention to the problems of underage drinking and drunk
driving.
Mr. Speaker, few tragedies bring as much pain to families and
communities as fatal accidents caused by drunk driving, especially when
young people are involved. The community of Santa Barbara, which I am
very proud to represent, was struck by this plague over the weekend
when 3 college students were killed when their truck veered off
Gibraltar Mountain road.
Alcohol was a factor in this accident, and all 3 were under the legal
drinking age. My heart truly goes out to the grieving family and to the
friends of these young people, many of whom I know personally. Nothing
that we can say or do today will bring them back, but we must all try
to learn important lessons from this terrible loss of life.
Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes useful for us in Congress to share
personal stories from our own lives in order to advance important
policy objectives. The issue of drunk driving has had a profoundly
personal impact on my own life. On May 23, I will commemorate the 1-
year anniversary of a horrible car accident that nearly claimed my life
and the life of my beloved wife Lois.
Returning home from a campaign appearance, our car was struck by a
drunk driver. I had to be cut from the wreckage with the ``jaws of
life.'' I suffered serious injuries that required surgery and months of
rehabilitation. This coming week, next week, my family and friends will
gather together for a celebration of gratitude for all those who saved
us, helped us heal, brought us back to life.
I will always be grateful to the police, to the rescue personnel, to
the doctors, the nurses, the physical therapists, family, and others
who brought us back to life. Without them, I would never be standing
here in this great Chamber this evening.
But tragically, many families are not as fortunate as we were. And
that is why it is so important to convene events like MADD National
Youth Summit. This week, hundreds of young people, including Amy
Yglesias from Santa Maria, CA, which I am also very proud to represent,
have come to this Nation's capital for this unprecedented summit
meeting. Here, they will discuss and develop solutions to the problems
of underage drinking and drunk driving.
Back home in our district, MADD is also sponsoring important events.
This past Sunday, for example, my wife and daughter and I ran in a
MADD-DASH, a 5-mile benefit run near Highway 154, the very road on
which our accident occurred.
Congress can pass important laws on this subject. We can pass laws on
the drinking age, on alcohol accessibility, on alcohol advertising. But
only when our young people are fully engaged in the battle themselves
will we have a chance to succeed.
I commend Mothers Against Drunk Driving and all those who worked to
make this week's summit a reality and for putting together innovative
events in our districts.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on the floor this evening all join
me in pledging to work toward the day when our communities will no
longer suffer the heartbreaking pain brought on by drunk driving
accidents that claim the lives of young people and too many of our
citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the leadership he is giving to
this effort.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing his own
personal story with us. I am not sure that there are too many Members
of Congress who do not have similar stories to tell either about close
friends or family members.
Mr. Speaker, Mothers Against Drunk Driving should also be commended
for the Youth in Action Campaign, which is dedicated to educating
students about the dangers of drinking and driving. I mentioned a
statistic earlier that more than 17,000 individuals died in 1995 from
alcohol-related crashes. It is all too easy for us to forget that this
number is not just a statistic. These were 17,000 people who also had
stories. They had families and friends who cared for them and loved
them dearly.
One of those stories happened in Spring Hill, FL. On December 22,
1995, Monica Nicola and her 2 daughters Danielle, 9 years old, and
Stephanie, 8 years old, went to the mall to have their pictures taken
with Santa Claus. After having their pictures taken, Monica was driving
her daughters home when a van in front of her car suddenly swerved. By
the time Monica realized that the van was swerving, it was too late to
react. A car had crossed the centerline, missed the van and hit
Monica's car head on.
When she regained consciousness, Monica realized that she had a
broken leg. She could see Danielle, who suffered a broken arm and
bruises, but she could not see 8-year-old Stephanie. Stephanie was
pinned down, out of sight, and died immediately at the scene.
Stephanie was not the only one who tragically lost her life in a
terrible accident. A passenger who was riding with the drunk driver
also died. Monica and the man who caused the accident were airlifted to
the hospital together. The man's breath smelled so strongly of alcohol
that it was overpowering.
It turns out that the driver had a number of accidents since 1982,
several DUI's, no license, and no insurance. But none of that stopped
him from driving that night. In January of 1997, the driver was
sentenced to 40 years, 40 years in prison, but not before the Nicola
family had to endure an entire year without justice.
Today the Nicola family, John, Monica, and Danielle, reside in
Pinellas County, FL, my county. The Nicolas are not alone in their
suffering, but their story is so very important for all of us to hear.
It awakens us to the fact that there are real people behind the
statistics we hear so often.
Drunk driving knows no social or economic boundaries. Indeed, I am
sure that we all know, as I said earlier, of a relative, friend, or
celebrity who at one time or another got behind the wheel of a car
after one too many drinks.
Many Floridians may recall the story of Olympic diver Bruce Kimball
and the night he killed two teenagers in Brandon, FL. Ironically, Bruce
Kimball has experienced both sides of a drunk driving collision, first
as the victim and then as the offender.
For those of you who are not familiar with this story, let me take a
few minutes to review this tragic story. Bruce Kimball won a silver
medal in diving at the 1984 Summer Olympics. Just prior to the 1988
Olympics, he had a few drinks and got in his car to drive. The Houston
Chronicle wrote an article on Bruce in October of 1994 which recounts
his story. To paraphrase the Chronicle, his father Dick was, and still
is, the diving coach at Michigan, and so Bruce Kimball gravitated
naturally to that sport. Bruce blossomed quickly, eventually winning 14
Junior Olympic national titles, and at 17 stamped himself as one of
this country's top prospects with a fifth-place finish at the 1980
Olympic trials. The following October, as he was driving friends home,
his van was hit head on by a drunk driver and suddenly Bruce was
fighting not only for his future, but for his life as well. His skull
was cracked. Every bone in his face was broken. His spleen was
ruptured. His liver was lacerated. His left leg was broken. His
bleeding was torrential, and 14 hours of reconstructive surgery was
needed to put him back together.
Yet, a mere 9 months later, he returned to diving. He was often
referred to as ``the Comeback Kid.'' And when he won a silver medal in
platform diving at the 1984 Games of Los Angeles, he stood as a true
profile in courage.
As he trained in Florida for the 1988 Olympic trials, he was still
considered the second best diver in the world. Those trials were less
than 3 weeks away on the night of August 1, when Bruce Kimball roared
down a dark and narrow street in Brandon behind the wheel of a speeding
sports car.
About 30 teenagers were gathered at the end of that dead-end street
in a place they called the spot, and in an instant Kimball plowed into
them, killing 2 of them and injuring 4 others. His

[[Page H2575]]

blood alcohol level, a prosecutor later claimed, was .2, which was
twice the legal limit under Florida law. His speed at impact was
estimated at 75 miles per hour.
Kimball was sentenced to 17 years in prison, but in November 1993,
after undergoing extensive drug and alcohol rehabilitation at four
different Florida institutions, he was released after serving 5 years.
After being released, Bruce started a part-time job in a Chicago high
school coaching diving. Two times Bruce Kimball has had the opportunity
to rebuild his life. Unfortunately, the victims of this tragedy will
never have that chance.
Mr. Speaker, the stories about Stephanie Nicola and Bruce Kimball
remind us that drunk driving can affect anyone's life. Yet, what is
most unfortunate is that these terrible events did not have to occur.
They could have been avoided had the drivers taken responsibility for
themselves and not driven their cars while impaired.
These drunk drivers are not evil people, Mr. Speaker. They are just
irresponsible. They go out on the town to have fun. They have a few too
many drinks and, believing that they are okay to drive, turn the
ignition on and zoom off.

{time} 1930

If they are lucky, they make it home. But all too often something
terrible happens, someone gets hurt or, even worse, someone gets
killed.
Last week a North Carolina jury held a drunk driver Thomas Jones to
the highest level of accountability for killing two Wake Forest
University students. The jury sentenced Mr. Jones to life in prison for
his actions.
I believe that this verdict, Mr. Speaker, is evidence that Americans
are no longer willing to tolerate this type of irresponsible behavior.
Much of this change in attitude is in large part due to the
grassroots organizations throughout the United States which have taken
the lead in educating students and parents about the dangers of
drinking and driving. Groups like MADD, CADD, SADD, and RID have made
tremendous progress in promoting responsibility and raising awareness
about the dangers of drunk driving. These grassroots organizations have
pushed for legislative changes regarding drunk driving.
In my home State of Florida, they played an integral role in lowering
the legal blood alcohol content from .10 to .08. According to the
Centers for Disease Control, States that have lowered the legal blood
alcohol content to .08 have experienced a significant decline in the
proportion of fatal crashes relative to other States which have not
adopted these laws.
Other examples of success by grassroots campaigns in Florida during
the past 10 years include raising the legal drinking limit to 21 years
of age and instituting mandatory license revocation for anyone caught
drinking and driving.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the most significant
accomplishment by drunk driving opponents has been, as mentioned
earlier, the nationwide awareness and acceptance that drinking and
driving is a serious problem. I want to commend all of those who have
given their time and energy to make this cause very worthwhile.
Mr. Speaker, we must continue our fight to end this terrible problem
which affects so very many of us. We in Congress have a moral
obligation to join together with grassroots organizations in raising
the awareness about the dangers of drunk driving. I thank my colleagues
for joining me in this special order to strengthen our commitment and
resolve to keep our Nation's roads safe from drunk drivers.
I have a number of facts here. I call it the Fact Sheet on Alcohol-
Impaired Driving. This is from the Centers for Disease Control, dated
May 13, 1997. I am going to submit that as a part of the Record in the
interest of time here this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Strickland].
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me. I am happy to join the gentleman tonight. I want to thank him for
taking the time and the effort to bring this critical problem to our
awareness.
Young people unfortunately oftentimes do not plan ahead as they
should. They sometimes act impulsively when they should not. As I have
visited many high schools in my district, recently have been encouraged
to see banners decorating the hallways and the lobby areas reminding
young people that, as prom season approaches, this is a very critical
time. It is a time when they need to be sensitized to the dangers of
drinking and driving.
I would like to say that I am encouraged as I have seen high schools
especially making special efforts to see that prom night is a time of
safety as well as entertainment and enjoyment for our young people. And
they have done that by not only trying to educate the young people
regarding the dangers of drinking and driving but also making after-
prom activities available which in some cases last all night in a safe
and secure and well-supervised setting.
I think the gentleman is right. The greatest effort that we can make
in terms of keeping our young people safe during this prom season is to
educate them to the dangers and then to take those steps necessary to
make sure that their activities are well supervised. Nearly every year
in my State of Ohio, we read some tragic story about young people who
have gone to the prom and then had a tragic accident. I am hopeful that
this year in my State and in my district as well as across the country
that the efforts that the gentleman and others are making to raise this
issue in terms of public awareness will prevent such a tragedy from
happening. I am happy to join the gentleman and to thank him for his
efforts.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio, who is a
very busy and active member of my Committee on Commerce. And I also
thank the gentleman for reminding us that this is prom season. We have
talked about MADD and SADD and RID and CADD, et cetera. There are other
organizations out there that have helped. But one of the things that
has really pleased me is for instance Busch Gardens down in Tampa, FL,
and so many other private entities, if you will, have gotten really
involved and have invited the young people into their facilities during
this period of time so that they can have a good time and not have to
travel long distances and go from one location to another for their
proms. All of that is helping. Of course what we do here is going to be
of great help, too. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on
this issue. In addition to commenting on this, there is another related
matter I want to raise tonight. I appreciate the gentleman yielding
some time.
I met earlier today with Michael Larrance from Hamilton High School
in my district who is out here for the conference. He has formed a
group at his high school of students who are committed not only to
trying to combat alcohol abuse but also drug abuse, teen pregnancy and
other issues and the need to stress abstinence in these areas.
I worked recently to put together a play that he has taken to other
schools, too, to try to address this. I think it is very important that
we encourage efforts among the students themselves to combat this.
Having a son 17 who is a junior in high school and a daughter who is
19, I am very concerned when they have hit prom season and a lot of the
spring seasons and the various trips that they go on, about what they
and their friends, and you always worry about who they are riding with,
not only their behavior.
I also know that my friend, Senator Tom Wyss, in Indiana has been
battling hard with open container laws and various things in Indiana
that have been huge fights because there is a lot of money that goes
into trying to keep us from putting difficult standards on. But the
zero tolerance type of policies a lot of schools are putting in,
efforts of police forces to crack down on this, is not only good for
our kids but for the rest of us. It is frightening to think of somebody
who is alcohol drenched or drug crazed driving down the highway, and
you are minding your own business and all of a sudden your life is
taken out of your hands because of someone else's behavior.
One of the things I visited over 20 years in the last 6 months,
talking

[[Page H2576]]

about particularly narcotics abuse but including alcohol and tobacco
abuse, and one of the things that I have become concerned with is
a bill that we are dealing with later this week regarding narcotics. I
am afraid and I am sorry to announce this, but apparently our war
against drugs is over. That is the good news. Unfortunately, if this
bill we are working on later this week on international issues survives
the legislative process, the drug producers and the drug shippers will
have won instead of our Nation, because we are now going to give up the
current drug certification process.

Many Americans will wonder what I am talking about. Section 490 of
H.R. 1486 ends, repeat, kills off provisions in current law which
require the President to certify to Congress if a country produces
illegal drugs or ships them to kill U.S. children. In place of the
current law, the bill the House is considering replaces drug
certification with a pile of loopholes and exceptions that are
virtually certain to mean no country, including Mexico, will ever been
decertified for U.S. foreign aid.
Here is what section 490 does. It allows the President to, and I
quote, ``to the extent considered necessary by the President,'' end
quote, to hold back foreign aid or instruct the U.S. representative at
the World Bank to vote against loans to countries if a series of
conditions suggested in the legislation are violated.
Just to be sure that the law is absolutely weak, the legislation
allows the President to ignore even the new and timid standards if
acting against a pro-drug country, including Mexico, will, and I quote
again, ``affect other United States national interests.''
When I read this provision in the bill, I thought to myself, what a
nice gift this will be for President Clinton's weak-on-drugs choice to
be U.S. Ambassador to Mexico to take with him. We are looking at
appointing an ambassador to Mexico who believes in so-called medicinal
use of marijuana. There is no medicinal use of marijuana.
There is a medicinal use of THC, which is found in other drugs. It is
a back-door effort to legalize drugs. If the policy of the Congress is
not to stand up when we send an ambassador to Mexico who is supporting
back-door legalization and we take out the drug certification process,
what message is this to the kids? We are telling them on one hand, do
not drink, do not do drugs. On the other hand, what we are saying is,
if trade is more important and all of us, and I know in Florida it is
important, in Indiana it is increasingly important. Nobody is saying
that trade is not important, nobody is saying we do not have huge
immigration questions to deal with. At the same time, we cannot be so
concerned about risking some trade or irritation as we work through
this that we back off our focus on the drug war.
So I hope to have more to say on this later this week. But I wanted
to take this opportunity to come down and say that sometimes we only
talk about marijuana and cocaine, and we forget that alcohol is the No.
1 problem among teens. But we also need to understand as a Nation that
these things are closely interrelated, and abusers of one are abusers
of another. We need to send a clear, concise, consistent message across
the board that we stand against this abuse. It is critical for our
country, for the future of our young people. It is important in our
international policy. We cannot send our children the message that
money is more important to us than our lives and safety and their own
character development which gets impaired when you use any kind of
narcotics, whether it is alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin.
I know in Florida we have had an outburst of the heroin problem, too.
We need to look at all these things. I commend the gentleman again
tonight for his efforts on drunk driving and all those teens and
parents who have been involved in SADD and MADD and those who have been
particularly affected by this. Nothing is more tragic than to talk with
somebody, as we have had in all of our districts and all over the
country, somebody who has lost a life--lost a mother, a father, or lost
one of their cherished children because somebody could not handle the
alcohol and somebody was not responsible and because of that, somebody
else is dead.

I thank the gentleman for his efforts and thank him for yielding me
time tonight.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for reminding us
that these drugs, if you will, and alcohol are certainly very
interrelated. And our wars, in terms of trying to protect our young
people, must include both drugs as well as alcohol and other ills that
are really out there, so many of them.
I thank the gentleman for his great work on this subject.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, several of my
colleagues and I came to the floor to discuss the increasingly growing
problem of juvenile crime in our Nation. All too many of the stories
and statistics that I heard my colleagues discuss stemmed from alcohol
abuse.
Alcohol abuse among our Nation's youth has indeed become a very
serious problem. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News survey
of teens and parents, alcohol abuse was identified as the biggest drug
problem facing young people today. I have also seen several studies and
reports that reveal that possibly more than half of the country's
population that is over the age of 12 is currently using alcohol.
Let me just repeat that: more than 50 percent of the Nation's
teenagers use alcohol. We are talking about 8th, 9th, and 10th graders.
Among other things, this is the same age when many young people are
first learning to drive. Simply stated, the two do not mix. We cannot
begin to tackle the problems of drunk driving without at the same time
addressing underage drinking.
For the past few years, I have stood on the steps of the Somerset
County Courthouse in a candlelight vigil as the names of victims of
drunk driving are read. I pray that next year fewer names are read off.
We are all probably aware of the tremendous peer pressure that so
many young people face today. But this week, students from across the
country gathered in Washington for the National Youth Summit To Prevent
Underage Drinking. These students discussed ideas and made
recommendations to curb this problem.
The idea of students and elected officials working together to tackle
this problem has been very successful in Somerset County, NJ. While
serving as a Somerset County freeholder, I helped form the Somerset
County Youth Council in which I asked local school principals to
recommend young people to come together and form a council to advise
the local elected officials about the pressures facing our youth and
strategies for addressing those needs.
This youth council became involved in a wide variety of youth related
efforts such as substance abuse prevention ideas, self-esteem building
projects, peer leadership programs, and community service and civic
projects.
I am also proud to say that I have been involved for a number of
years in the 4-H program, and have always felt that this program goes a
long way in directing our Nation's youth in positive directions.
I applaud the efforts of the students that came to Washington this
week. I wish them well as they return home to share their efforts and
recommendations with their classmates and friends. I also want to call
upon the Nation's elected officials, leaders, teachers, and parents to
encourage these efforts and provide a positive model for these
youngsters.
Maybe, if we all put our shoulders to the same wheel, we can work to
create a brighter future for America.

____________________