[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 61 (Thursday, May 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4847-S4849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
10TH ANNIVERSARY OF DUI CRASH IN KENTUCKY
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today marks the 10th anniversary of the
most tragic drunk driving case in our Nation's history. Ten years ago
today, on Saturday, May 14, 1988, a school bus filled with children
heading home to Radcliff, KY, after having spent a day at King's Island
Amusement Park in Ohio--that school bus was hit head-on by a drunk
driver heading the wrong way on Interstate 71 near Carrollton, KY, 10
years ago today. The collision caused the front gas tank of the bus to
explode in flames. The crash caused the death of 24 children and three
adults, and left many of the 36 survivors burned and disfigured.
This crash did not just affect the 63 innocent victims who were on
the bus that day. It had significant impact and changed forever many of
the victims' families, friends and their community. This horrible
tragedy helped fuel a nationwide movement which has helped to change
our Nation's attitudes towards drinking and driving. This horrible
tragedy helped spur State legislatures to enact more stronger drunk
driving laws. It led to tougher enforcement and has caused people to
think twice before drinking and driving. In short, it is no longer
``cool'' or ``neat'' in our society to drink and drive. And this
horrible, horrible tragedy did impact people and has helped to
galvanize public opinion in regard to drunken driving.
The effects of this attitude change are well documented. In 1986,
24,050 people lost their lives in alcohol-related traffic crashes. A
decade later that number had dropped by 28 percent; 17,274 people lost
their lives in 1995 in
[[Page S4848]]
alcohol-related accidents, a drop of 28 percent. This reduction is not
attributable to one single event. It is not attributable just to this
horrible accident, this horrible tragedy we are commemorating and
thinking about today. It was a whole series of actions taken by people
across this country--Mothers Against Drunk Driving, SADD chapters,
grassroots efforts of survivors, grassroots efforts of victims and
members of victims' families.
We have begun, over that decade, to significantly change public
attitudes. Unfortunately, after 10 years of improvement, after 10 years
of fewer people dying every year due to drunken driving, these trends
have now been reversed. I think our Nation has lost its focus. We no
longer focus on this as a national issue. From 1994 to 1995, fatalities
in alcohol-related crashes rose--did not decline--rose, and they rose
by 4 percent. That was the first increase in over a decade. In 1995, 41
percent of the 41,798 motor vehicle crash deaths were attributable to
alcohol use. Alcohol involvement is the single greatest factor in
traffic-related deaths and injuries. In short, the trend is now moving
in the wrong direction. We have not done enough. We must move to
reverse this trend.
I think what we have to do is to refocus and to put the emphasis
back, again, and public debate, on this horrible, horrible problem.
This year, Congress has the opportunity to help renew our Nation's
focus on the evils of drinking and driving. During the Senate's
consideration of ISTEA, we took the lead in helping our Nation refocus
on the consequences of drinking and driving.
Mr. President, there is no one single thing in the Senate's version
of ISTEA reauthorization which will change attitudes by itself. Rather,
the Senate did a number of things which, when taken together, will help
renew our Nation's focus on this effort.
First, the Senate voted to adopt an amendment which would encourage
States to enact a statute that would make it illegal, in and of itself,
to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or
higher. This amendment was adopted by a 2-to-1 margin in this Senate
Chamber. This was one of the few times I stated on the floor that day
that Members of the Senate could come to the Senate floor and cast
their vote and know that a ``yes'' vote would, in fact, clearly save
lives. The individuals we will never know, but it is clear this
legislation, if enacted into law, will save hundreds and ultimately
thousands of lives over the next few years. Sixty-one of our colleagues
chose to take advantage of that opportunity.
Further, in the same bill, the Senate voted to adopt an amendment
which would make it illegal to drive with one hand on the steering
wheel and the other wrapped around a bottle of whiskey or beer. That is
still legal in many places in this country. Under this legislation, it
no longer would be tolerated.
Finally, we included a provision which would establish mandatory
minimum penalties for repeat drunk drivers--the worst of the worst of
the worst.
I can think of no better way to honor the memories of the victims of
the deadliest alcohol-related traffic crash in our Nation's history, as
well as the memories of all victims of drunk drivers, than to include
these reasonable provisions aimed at renewing our Nation's focus on the
tragedy resulting from drinking and driving in the final bill to
reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
This matter is in conference committee right now. The conferees are
dealing with a number of very contentious and very difficult funding
issues. We all have our own opinions about those issues. They are very
contentious. But there is one issue where the overwhelming majority of
the American people have spoken in public opinion poll after public
opinion poll, and that has to do with the .08. There is one issue where
the members of the conference committee can know that their vote to
include the .08 provision will, in fact, save lives.
Let me repeat, this Senate has spoken. Sixty-one of the Members of
this Senate voted ``yes'' for a nationwide .08 standard. The House of
Representatives did not have the opportunity to vote; they were blocked
from voting on this measure. But I think anyone who has looked at this
clearly understands that the House of Representatives also, if they had
been permitted to vote on this, would have approved the .08.
What we are asking the conference committee to do is very simple:
Include this provision, which passed so overwhelmingly in the U.S.
Senate, in the final version of ISTEA. If the members of the conference
committee will do that, they will save lives. It has been estimated
that between 500 to 1,000 lives in this country will be saved every
year by going to a .08 standard.
Mr. President, the statistics and facts are clear. The evidence is
overwhelming. No one who tests .08 has any business being behind the
wheel of a car. Think about it. If you were at a party at a neighbor's
house or your own house, and you saw someone, an adult male weighing
160 to 165 pounds, and you watched him drink over an hour period of
time--you timed it--four beers or four shots of liquor or four big
glasses of wine on an empty stomach, then that person looked at you and
said, ``I want to take your little girl Anna to get an ice cream
cone,'' would you let your daughter get in the car with that person? We
all know the answer. The answer is absolutely not--``Don't get near
her; she can't go with you.''
That is all we are saying. Mr. President, it takes that much alcohol
consumption to reach .08. What we are saying is, we set a nationwide
standard so that, no matter where we go in this country, we have some
level of assurance that the laws of whatever State we are in--in my
case, whether I drive out of Ohio into Kentucky or Indiana or Michigan
or West Virginia, wherever I go, when I put my family in a car, I will
have an assurance there is a national .08 standard, a bare minimum
standard to protect our families.
That is what we are asking for in the conference committee. I again
urge the members of the conference committee to do what is right:
Follow what the Senate has said, follow the vote in the Senate, and
include this very reasonable measure.
For my friends, my conservative friends, such as myself--we consider
ourselves conservatives--I simply point out, this is the same type
legislation that Ronald Reagan approved and supported and pushed
through the U.S. Congress, when he was President of the United States,
to go to a nationwide standard of 21 as being the age for drinking. It
is the same mechanism, the same procedure, and the same basic
principle.
What Ronald Reagan said then, and I will paraphrase, is very simple:
That in some areas of national importance, national concern, we can
make small intrusions into States rights, small changes that will have
monumental effects to save lives across the country, and in some areas
we do need a national minimum standard. I urge the conferees to include
this in the legislation.
I see my friend, Senator Lautenberg, who has been a tremendous
advocate over the years for highway safety, who sponsored the bill I
just referenced that Ronald Reagan pushed through and Senator
Lautenberg pushed through. Senator Lautenberg was the author of that
bill in the 1980s. He and I were at the White House yesterday with the
Vice President. We have been there with the President to support this.
This is a bipartisan effort to save lives in this country.
I yield to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
Jersey is recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Ohio,
Senator DeWine.
Senator DeWine has experience as a prosecutor. He has seen what
happens when alcohol and driving try to mix. The result is terrible
tragedy so often. His work here, together with mine, has enabled us to
assemble a bipartisan group to support our effort to reduce the blood
alcohol content to .08 at which point someone can be declared driving
while impaired.
Today marks the 10th anniversary of the Nation's most deadly drunk
driving crash. On the night of May 14, 1988, a bus packed with sleeping
children was driving south on Interstate 71 to the First Assembly of
God Church in Radcliff, KY. Thirty-five girls, twenty-eight boys, and
four adults were returning from a day at the King's Island amusement
park near Cincinnati.
[[Page S4849]]
According to newspaper accounts, the group said a short prayer before
they began their return trip. I quote him. He said, ``Please grant us a
safe trip. May God have his hand on this bus.'' That is what he prayed.
But prayers were not enough that day. At 10:55 p.m., as the bus
neared the northern Kentucky town of Carrollton, the driver of the bus
spotted a pickup truck barreling north in his southbound lane. Moments
later a collision and the bus burst into flames.
Twenty-four children and 3 adults were killed in that devastating
schoolbus crash, and 30 more were injured. The lives of so many
families and friends were destroyed.
The current president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Karolyn
Nunnallee, lost her daughter Patty in that terrible crash. She was on
television this morning trying to explain the impact of losing that
child. This day across the Nation thousands of mothers, fathers,
brothers, and sisters will join in a moment of silence to honor those
thousands of victims who die on our highways each year at the hands of
drunk drivers.
We will honor Patty and the others who died that night and those who
were injured during this moment of silence.
Sadly, the death toll visited upon us by drunk driving mounts up each
year with an appalling clock-like efficiency. Every 30 minutes a family
loses a loved one to a drunk driver. That means in the decade since the
Carrollton crash 175,000 people have died. That is almost twice the
population of the capital of my home State of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ.
These deaths need not have happened.
If we also take into consideration that each of these victims had
family and friends, we are talking about more than--more than--a
million people grief stricken, which is more people than who live in
Washington, DC. And this grieving should never have occurred.
Drunk driving also takes an enormous economic toll, as well, on our
Nation. Alcohol-related crashes cost society over $45 billion each
year. One alcohol-related fatality is estimated to cost society about
$950,000; and an injury averages about $20,000 in emergency and acute
health care costs, long-term care and rehabilitation, police and court
services, insurance, lost productivity, and social services.
Just look at this toll of needless death, needless grief, and
needless spending. These facts should move us to rage. And our rage
should move us to action.
Mr. President, we can act. Right now, the House-Senate conference
committee is meeting to resolve the competing ISTEA reauthorization
bills. I sit on that conference committee. As part of this process, the
Congress is going to make one decision--will we get tougher on drunk
driving and enact laws that will save lives or will we fall prey to the
liquor and restaurant lobbyists?
Mr. President, this body has spoken about this issue. Two months ago,
the Senate passed an amendment to prohibit open containers of alcohol
in motor vehicles. It adopted a tough program to combat repeat
offenders of drinking and driving. And by a 2 to 1 margin, the Senate
voted to set a strict national drunk driving standard at .08 blood
alcohol content. The Senate voted 62 to 32 for this life-saving
measure. The House was not even able to vote on this issue. They were
prevented from it.
We can ask the question, Why? But we must carry the will of the
Senate--of the people--through to completion. We want ``.08 in '98.''
We are now at the crossroads, and it is time to decide. The question
comes up, Why? Why aren't the House Members permitted to vote on this
issue? Well, it stops at a committee over there. The process is
different than it is over here, and they do not even have to let a
piece of legislation come up on the floor.
And why? Why would they say no to a vote on this issue when parents
lose children and children lose parents across this country in numbers
that compare to our worst year in Vietnam? In full combat we lost about
17,000 of our soldiers. In our country every year we lose more than
17,000 people to drunk driving, and it does not have the same impact on
our society. So we have to say, Why is it that it does not?
If after coming so close we fail to enact .08 this year, the American
people should charge this Congress with something I will call ``VUI,''
voting under the influence of the liquor lobby. That is where it stops.
They say, ``You're going to kill our business,'' that ``You're going to
arrest social drinkers.'' No, no, no. We are not saying anybody can't
drink. They can drink as much as they want. They can fall off the bar
stools, as long as they don't fall on me or my kids.
The issue is whether, after having had a blood alcohol content level
of .08, they ought to get behind a wheel. And we say no. I think the
Senator from Ohio made it very clear. He said if he watched someone at
a party or someone at a dinner, or something like that, have four
drinks in an hour--a man my size would have five--on an empty stomach,
to have your child get in the back seat of a car with that driver, I
would say never, never. That is what we want to say across this
country. Because every family is entitled to that kind of safety and
security.
In 1984, President Reagan signed a bill that I wrote over here to
make the national drinking age 21 and eliminate blood borders. Those
are the borders between States with different drinking ages. Since
then, more than 10,000 lives have been saved, enough to fill a small
town. That is 10,000 families that did not have to mourn or grieve the
loss of a child or a parent or a brother or a sister--10,000 people.
That is a lot of people.
Now we have a different kind of blood border--the blood alcohol
border. Right now a driver legally drunk in one of 16 .08 States merely
has to drive over the border and--poof--he is legally sober again. We
know that is wrong. And we know once you are over .08 you are too drunk
to drive in any State.
Consider this: Someone, again, of my height having had four glasses
of wine in an hour--five glasses of wine; again, I am a little heavier
than the average; five glasses of wine in an hour --on an empty
stomach. That is too much. We are not saying, again, that people cannot
drink. We are saying they cannot drink and drive.
Think about the 6,000 families who will be spared the devastating
loss of a loved one to a drunk driver over the course of a decade if we
pass .08. Think of what it means. Thousands of parents now destined to
lose a child will be able to read their little ones to sleep instead of
looking at an empty bed; children now destined to lose a parent will
wake up in a full and loving home.
One year ago, Randy Frazier called the Congress to action. Randy's
daughter, Ashley--people from Maryland--was killed by a .08 drunk
driver. Randy said, ``It is time for the leadership and action here in
Congress to draw a safer, saner, and more sensible line against
impaired driving at .08. If we truly believe in family values, then .08
ought to become the law of the land. Four beers in an hour''--four
glasses of wine in an hour, on an empty stomach--``and getting behind
the wheel of a car, in our estimation, is one definition of family
violence.''
Mr. President, it is decision time. The question is whether we are
going to vote with our conscience. Are we going to vote under ``VUI,''
voting under the influence of the alcohol lobby? They poured people
into this town. The Restaurant Association had 130 as reported by a
newspaper, 130 lobbyists come in. They swarmed all over the House, and
they got people to change their minds. Then they got people, as I said
earlier, to be able to hold that bill from getting consideration. That
is not the way law ought to be decided when it comes to American
families. And we hope we are going to stand up to our responsibility as
we pause to honor the victims of drunk driving.
Let us be moved to action. We must enact tough drunk driving laws
this year. It has to be ``.08 in '98.''
I yield the floor.
Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
____________________