[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 20 (Wednesday, March 4, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1341-S1343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1706. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to encourage 
States to enact laws that ban the sale of alcohol through a drive-up or 
drive-through sales window; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


           the drunk driving casualty prevention act of 1998

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise briefly to discuss a very 
important matter relating to the safety of our Nation's streets and 
highways, DWI-related injuries and fatalities. This is a problem that 
in spite of many prevention efforts, remains a serious concern.
  The statistics are compelling. For example, on Thanksgiving, 
Christmas, New Years Eve, and New Years Day

[[Page S1342]]

1996, there were 576 DWI-related fatalities on our Nation's highways. 
In that same year, nearly 1.1 million people were injured in alcohol-
related crashes. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death 
for 15- to 20-year-olds. About 3 in 10 Americans will be involved in an 
alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives. Alcohol-related 
crashes cost society $45 billion annually. To make matters worse, the 
loss of quality of life and pain and suffering costs total over $134 
billion annually.
  My home state of New Mexico is not exempt. In fact, the National 
Traffic Safety Administration reports that New Mexico leads the country 
in DWI-related deaths per capita, a rate of 11.79 deaths per 100,000 
people. This rate is 19 percent higher than the No. 2 state, 
Mississippi, and is more than twice the national rate of 5.05 deaths 
per 100,000.
  Indeed, these statistics paint a very grim picture. What makes this 
picture even more tragic, Mr. President, is that DWI-related injuries 
and fatalities are preventable. It clearly is within our national 
interest to do everything we can to reverse this course. One obvious 
way to prevent further deaths on our highways is to ensure the sobriety 
of drivers. That is why I proudly am co-sponsoring Senator Lautenberg's 
and Senator DeWine's bill to establish a national blood-alcohol content 
standard of .08. Additionally, I am cosponsoring Senator Dorgan's bill 
to prohibit open containers of alcohol in automobiles. I urge my Senate 
colleagues to help pass these bills this year.
  Another contributing factor to the problem that I believe would make 
a significant difference if eliminated is the practice of selling 
alcohol beverages through drive-up sales windows. This practice only 
makes it more easy for a drunk driver to purchase alcohol, and it 
contributes heavily to the DWI-fatality rate in New Mexico. Eliminating 
these drive-up liquor windows is essential to reducing these injuries 
and fatalities.
  When I was in New Mexico 2 weeks ago, I held a series of seminars 
with high school students from throughout the state, and I listened to 
their concerns about the problems in the state and in the country. One 
young man, Simon Goldfine, who is a student at Del Norte High School in 
Albuquerque, agreed that the DWI rate in New Mexico is much too high, 
and one reason he explained is these drive-in liquor windows. Simon 
explained that if a drunk person has to walk into a liquor store, it 
will be easier to determine if he is drunk than if he simply sat in his 
vehicle. And Simon asked if something could be done to eliminate the 
windows. Today I would like to tell Simon that we will do something 
about it.
  Today, at Simon's urging, I am introducing legislation, the Drunk 
Driving Casualty Prevention Act of 1998 to prohibit the sale of alcohol 
through drive-up sales windows.
  Mr. President, I believe no one in America will disagree with Simon 
that this ban will make a difference. According to one study, there are 
26 states that do not permit drive-up windows. In 1996, these states 
had a 15 percent lower average drunk driving fatality rate than the 24 
states that permit these windows. In the states with the ban, the 
average rate was 4.6 per 100,000 people, as opposed to 5.46 in all 
other states. On a percentage basis, states with a ban had a 14.5 
percent lower drunk driving fatality rate than states that permit sales 
windows.

  In 1996, comparing 19 western states in particular, the nine states 
with a ban had a 31 percent lower average drunk driving fatality rate 
than the ten states that permit the windows.
  In 1995, there were 231 drunk driving fatalities in New Mexico. Based 
on the 14-percent lower drunk driving fatality rate, it is estimated 
that closing drive-up liquor windows could save between 32 and 35 lives 
annually in New Mexico. Nowhere is it more true that if we can save one 
life by closing these windows, we should do it.
  The differences can be explained because there are three main 
benefits to closing drive-up liquor windows: first, it is easier and 
more accurate to check IDs over the sales counter. Minors have 
testified that it is very easy to illegally purchase alcohol at a 
drive-up window where it is difficult to determine their age. Second, 
it is easier to visually observe a customer for clues that they are 
impaired by alcohol or other substance if they have to walk into a 
well-lit establishment to make their purchase. Moreover, in one 
municipal court in New Mexico, 33 percent of DWI offenders reported 
having purchased their liquor at drive up windows. Some members of 
Alcoholics Anonymous say they now realize they could have known each 
other years earlier if they had only looked in their rear view mirror 
while in line at a drive-up window. And third, it sends a clear message 
to the population that drinking and driving will not be tolerated.
  The Behavior Health Research Center of the Southwest conducted a 
study, the purpose of which was to determine the characteristics and 
arrest circumstances of DWI offenders who bought alcohol at a drive-up 
liquor window compared to those who obtained alcohol elsewhere. Nearly 
70 percent of offenders studied reported having purchased the alcohol 
they drank prior to arrest. Of those offenders, 42 percent bought 
package liquor, and of those offenders, the drive-up window was the 
preferred place of purchase. Additionally, the study showed that drive-
up window users were 68 percent more likely to have a serious alcohol 
problem than other offenders. Drive-up window users also are 67 percent 
more likely to be drinking in their vehicle prior to arrest than other 
offenders. This study showed that drive-up windows facilitate alcohol 
misuse in vulnerable populations. The persons most affected are the 
high-risk problem drinkers, and when liquor availability is restricted, 
it is among those offenders that use, and consequently alcohol-related 
offenses, declines the most.
  There are some that may contend that closing these windows is going 
to hurt small businesses. To the contrary. Closing these drive-up 
liquor windows will actually help increase profits, and it is very easy 
to explain. When a customer has to walk into an establishment, he or 
she is very likely to purchase more than the original item. The 
customer is likely to pick up, for example, potato chips, sodas, and 
magazines. This is not as likely to happen at the drive-up window 
simply because the customers cannot see the items from their vehicle. 
In McKinley County, New Mexico, which is the only county in New Mexico 
to ban these windows, businesses actually saw a jump in profits. Most 
importantly, because of its DWI prevention strategy, McKinley County's 
alcohol-related injury and fatality rate dropped from 272 per 100,000 
in 1989 to 183 per 100,000 in 1997.
  Mr. President, I believe we have a great opportunity here to reduce 
DWI injuries and fatalities. Therefore, I plan to offer this bill as an 
amendment to the ISTEA legislation, and I urge my Senate colleagues to 
join me. I ask unanimous consent that the rest 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. 1706

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

     SECTION 1. BAN ON SALE OF ALCOHOL THROUGH DRIVE-UP OR DRIVE-
                   THROUGH SALES WINDOWS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 153 the following:

     ``Sec. 154. Ban on sale of alcohol through drive-up or drive-
       through sales windows

       ``(a) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2000.--The Secretary shall withhold 5 
     percent of the amount required to be apportioned to any State 
     under each of paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(C), and (3) of section 
     104(b) on October 1, 1999, if the State does not meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(2) Subsequent fiscal years.--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)(A), (1)(C), and (3) of 
     section 104(b) on October 1, 2000, 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 State meets the requirements of this 
     paragraph if the State has enacted and is enforcing a law 
     (including a regulation) that bans the sale of alcohol 
     through a drive-up or drive-through sales window.
       ``(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

[[Page S1343]]

     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)(A), 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.--
       ``(A) In general.--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.
       ``(B) Treatment of certain funds.--Sums not obligated at 
     the end of the period referred to in subparagraph (A) shall 
     lapse.
       ``(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.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 153 the following:

``154. Ban on sale of alcohol through drive-up or drive-through sales 
              windows.''.
                                 ______