[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 47 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3582-S3583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE NATIONAL DUI STANDARD

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will turn to another issue I have spoken 
about on the floor a number of times. It is a question, in my opinion, 
of life or death. It is legislation that was approved by this body with 
an overwhelming--virtually a 2-to-1--vote. It is a matter presently 
subject to the conference committee between the Senate and the House. 
That issue, of course, is the issue of the .08 national DUI standard.
  Members of the conference committee are working on this, or preparing 
to work on this matter, so I think my comments are timely and I think 
it is important to emphasize what this whole question is all about. I 
believe that one of the most important provisions of the Senate version 
of this service transportation bill was a provision that we approved by 
an overwhelming majority of 62 in favor and 32 opposed. That division, 
if this Senate approved it, would move our country forward to a 
national .08 blood alcohol standard.

  As my colleagues know, the House Rules Committee voted, I think very 
unfortunately, to stop the House from even considering this matter on 
the House floor.
  Mr. President, the facts are that if this does not become law, there 
will be lives that will be lost that would have been saved if we would 
have enacted this very reasonable national standard. The need for this 
legislation will not go away, it will only increase.
  How did such a clearly valuable measure, a life-saving measure, end 
up being blocked in the House and remain in such legislative peril 
today? I think one major reason is an effort outside this Congress, a 
well financed campaign of what I believe are half-truths.
  There was a full-page ad that appeared in the Washington Times before 
the Rules Committee voted. It said that reducing the blood alcohol 
limit to .08 would transform the average American into a lawbreaker. 
Here is what it said. I quote.

       Reducing the limit to .08 would increase the number of law 
     violators by about 60 percent.

  Mr. President, that is simply not true. That is wrong. It is not 
true. That is not what our bill does. Our amendment's purpose is not to 
get more people arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol 
but, rather, to get more people to change their behavior so that fewer 
of them drive under the influence. One might be asked: How do we know 
that would happen if our legislation passed? How do we know the results 
will be fewer people actually arrested? The answer comes from our 
largest State, the State of California.
  In 1989, the last year California had a .10 blood alcohol content 
limit, the highway patrol in California made 138,000 DUI arrests. In 
the first year after the law was changed, the first year of the new .08 
limit, that number did jump almost 14 percent, to 158,000--138,000, 
158,000. But every year since then, Mr. President, that number has 
declined, all the way down to the last available figures, which were 
1997, and that figure was 91,014. Every year, it went down. That is the 
lowest level of DUI arrests in California since 1971. The efforts from 
our largest State could not be more clear.
  A .08 standard does not turn Americans into lawbreakers. It does not 
turn the average American into lawbreakers. That is simply not true. It 
takes impaired drivers off our streets.
  Because precious lives depend on keeping impaired drivers off the 
road, I promise that we will fight to keep this legislation in the 
final transportation bill. We will work to pass the legislation, 
because the facts are on our side. The facts tell a very disturbing 
story.
  During the recent break, when Members of the House and the Senate had 
a chance to be in their home States, on April 13 the Washington Post 
had an important, I think, revealing article laying out the facts.
  Fact: According to a Boston University study, passing this 
legislation would save, at a minimum, 500 lives a

[[Page S3583]]

year. In fact, the majority says it is no more than between 500 and 
1,000. But even to take a minimum of this Boston University study, it 
would be 500 families that would not be destroyed--500 families that 
would not have to bury a son, or a daughter, or a loved one. That is 
the fact. The only debate on this fact is, Is 500 lives a lot or a 
little? Is it worth doing something ``just to save'' 500 lives? I 
happen to think it is. This is an easy question, I think, to answer. If 
by making a minor adjustment in the law--this is a minor adjustment--we 
can save at least 500 lives across this country, I think it is very, 
very important and very significant, and I think we ought to do it. 
This legislation clearly would save at least 500 lives.
  The second fact, again, as contained in this what I think is a very 
well balanced argument: The blood streams of .08 drivers ``carry enough 
alcohol to measurably impair the symphony of neurological responses 
necessary to drive a car well.'' This is the conclusion of the 
Washington Post article based on the current state of research and 
based on their interviews with numerous experts, scientific experts, 
and medical experts in the field.
  The third fact, again from this article: ``There is no question that 
nearly everything you can think of in terms of driving impairment is 
evident by a .08.'' That is a quote from UCLA Professor Herbert 
Moskowitz, the president of the Southern California Research Institute.
  Science tells us that at .08, drivers have a lot of trouble dividing 
their attention between different visual stimuli. They also have 
trouble processing new information as fast as driving requires. Mr. 
President, these are absolutely critical driving skills, crucial 
skills, when you are driving a car. At .08, a person's ability to do 
both of these things is seriously impaired. That is a fact.
  I had a chance to talk to an old friend of mine, ``KO'' Martin, who 
used to be a highway patrolman. In fact, ``KO'' and I prosecuted a 
number of cases together. He brought a number of cases to me while I 
was a county prosecutor. He was a highway state trooper for many, many 
years. He told this story. Once he pulled over a motorist who was so 
impaired that ``KO'' had to literally carry him to the patrol car. He 
literally couldn't get him there, he was so impaired. That particular 
motorist tested at .05 blood alcohol level. Apparently, this man had 
received a promotion at work. They had just thrown a party for him. He 
wasn't used to drinking. He was clearly unable to drive a car after the 
drinks he had. He tested .05. Clearly, he should not have been behind 
the wheel. Someone who is so under the influence that he can't even 
walk is not going to be able to react fast enough to drive a car 
safely. That is the simple fact.
  My fourth fact: According to a study published in the Journal of 
Studies on Alcohol, ``Drivers with readings between .08 and .05 had 1.4 
times the risk of dying compared to people who had no alcohol in their 
blood. For people between .05 and .09, that risk was 11 times higher.''
  Again, Mr. President, that is a fact, a tragic fact that costs human 
lives.
  Another fact: There is evidence that a .08 standard will have a 
deterrent effect on the whole range of impaired drivers. Allen F. 
Williams of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says, ``There 
seems to be a deterrent effect all across the whole range of blood 
alcohol concentrations, including the very high levels,'' the very high 
ones all the way across on all drivers.
  Mr. President, let me mention in this regard that this last fact 
doesn't surprise me at all.
  In fact, in 1982, as a member of the Ohio State Senate, I wrote a law 
toughening Ohio's standard on impaired driving. That law went into 
effect March 17 of 1983. In the first year after our bill became law, 
we saw an across-the-board change in public attitude towards driving 
under the influence. The biggest impact our bill had was not who was 
being arrested but, rather, in the public perception of drunken 
driving, the public perception of driving under the influence. It 
happened all across Ohio. We saw auto fatalities from drinking and 
driving going down. We sent a very strong message. That message could 
be sent across this country in all 50 States by this Congress by 
approving what the Senate approved by a 2 to 1 margin, and that is to 
go to a very reasonable standard of a .08 national blood alcohol 
standard.
  No matter where someone was driving, whether they were driving in 
your great State of Kansas or my great State of Ohio, or Indiana or 
Kentucky or Maine or California, they would have some assurance that 
the law would be uniform; that when they put their child in a car, got 
behind the wheel, that whatever State they were in, the standard would 
be at .08.
  America needs this legislation, and I will make sure we keep 
returning to this issue until we get the job done. I urge the 
transportation bill conferees to consider these basic facts and to 
include what the Senate did, and that is the .08 legislation in the 
final transportation bill.
  (The remarks of Mr. DeWINE pertaining to the introduction of S. 1987 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________