[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 89 (Wednesday, July 12, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6568-S6570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DRUNK DRIVING PER SE STANDARD

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, now that we have passed the Transportation 
Appropriations bill and it heads to the conference committee, I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support in conference a provision in the 
bill that would encourage states to adopt a .08 Blood-Alcohol 
Concentration (BAC) level as the per se standard for drunk driving.
  This issue is not new to the Senate. In 1998, as the Senate 
considered the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA 
21, 62 Senators agreed to an almost identical provision--an amendment 
that Senator Lautenberg and I offered to make .08 the law of the land. 
Sixty-two Senators, Mr. President, agreed that we needed this law 
because it would save lives.
  We made it clear during the debate in 1998 that .08, by itself, would 
not solve the problem of drunk driving. However, .08, along with a 
number of other steps taken over the years to combat drunk driving, 
would save between 500 and 600 lives annually. Let me repeat that, Mr. 
President--if we add .08 to all the other things we are doing to combat 
drunk driving--we would save between 500 and 600 more lives every year.
  On March 4, 1998--when the Senate voted 62 to 32 in favor of a .08 
law--the United States Senate spoke loud and clear. This body said that 
.08 should be the uniform standard on all highways in this country. The 
United States Senate said that we believe .08 will save lives. The 
United States Senate said that it makes sense to have uniform laws, so 
that when a family drives from one state to another, the same 
standards--the same tough laws--will apply.
  But sadly, Mr. President, despite the overwhelming vote in the 
Senate--despite the United States Senate's very strong belief that .08 
laws will save lives--this provision was dropped in conference. The 
conferees replaced it with an enhanced incentive grant program that has 
proven to be ineffective. Since this grant program has been in place, 
only one state--Texas--has taken advantage of the incentives and put a 
.08 law into effect.
  So, here we are again--back at square one, making the same arguments 
we made two years ago--the same arguments that compelled 62 United 
States Senators to vote in favor of .08 legislation. Let's not make the 
same mistake this time, Mr. President. The Senate kept the .08 
provision in the Transportation Appropriations bill we passed last 
week--this time, we need to do the right thing and keep the provision 
in the conference report and make it law once and for all.
  The case for a .08 law in every state is as compelling today as it 
was two years ago when we voted on this. The fact is that a person with 
a .08 Blood-

[[Page S6569]]

Alcohol Concentration level is seriously impaired. When a person 
reaches .08, his/her vision, balance, reaction time, hearing, 
judgement, and self-control are severely impaired. Moreover, critical 
driving tasks, such as concentrated attention, speed control, braking, 
steering, gear-changing and lane-tracking, are negatively impacted at 
.08.
  But, beyond these facts, there are other scientifically sound reasons 
to enact a national .08 standard. First, the risk of being in a crash 
increases gradually with each blood-alcohol level, but then rises 
rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 compared to drivers with 
no alcohol in their systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) reports that in single vehicle crashes, the 
relative fatality risk for drivers with BAC's between .05 and .09 is 
over eleven times greater than for drivers with BAC's of zero.
  Second, .08 BAC laws have proven results in reducing crashes and 
fatalities. Back in 1998, when Senator Lautenberg and I, argued in 
support of a national .08 law, we cited a study that compared states 
with .08 BAC laws and neighboring states with .10 BAC laws. That study 
found that .08 laws reduced the overall incidence of alcohol fatalities 
by 16% and also reduced fatalities at higher BAC levels. During our 
debate two years ago, the accuracy of this report was called into 
question by opponents of our amendment. Since then, a number of 
different studies have verified the findings of the original Boston 
University study. I will talk about these new studies shortly.
  Third and finally, according to NHTSA, crash statistics show that 
even heavy drinkers, who account for a large percentage of drunk 
driving arrests, are less likely to drink and drive because of the 
general deterrent effect of .08.

  Right now, Mr. President, we have a patchwork pattern of state drunk 
driving laws. Forty-eight states have a per se BAC law in effect. 
Thirty-one of these states have a .10 per se standard. Seventeen have 
enacted a .08 level. With all due respect, Mr. President, this doesn't 
make sense. The opponents of the .08 level cannot convince me that 
simply crossing a state border will make a drunk sober. For instance, 
just crossing the Wilson Bridge from Virginia into Maryland would not 
make a drunk driver sober.
  This states' rights debate reminds me of what Ronald Reagan said when 
he signed the minimum drinking age bill: ``The problem is bigger than 
the individual states . . . . It's a grave national problem, and it 
touches all our lives. With the problem so clear-cut and the proven 
solution at hand, we have no misgiving about this judicious use of 
federal power.''
  The Administration has set a very laudable goal of reducing alcohol-
related motor vehicle fatalities to no more than 11,000 by the year 
2005. Mr. President, this goal is going to be very difficult to 
achieve. But, I believe that recent history provides a road map for how 
to achieve this goal. Beginning in the late 1970's, a national movement 
began to change our country's attitudes toward drinking and driving. 
This movement has helped spur state legislatures to enact stronger 
drunk driving laws; it led to tougher enforcement; and it caused people 
to think twice before drinking and driving. In fact, it was this 
national movement that helped me get a tough DUI law passed in my home 
state of Ohio back in 1982. In short, these efforts have helped reverse 
attitudes in this country about drinking and driving--it is now no 
longer ``cool'' to drink and drive.
  The reduction in alcohol-related fatalities since that time is not 
attributable to one single thing. Rather, it was the result of a whole 
series of actions taken by state and federal government and the 
tireless efforts of many organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk 
Driving, Students Against Drunk Driving, Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety, and many others.
  Despite all of our past efforts, alcohol involvement is still the 
single greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths and injuries. We must 
continue to take small, but effective and proven steps forward in the 
battle against drunk driving. Passage of a national .08 blood alcohol 
standard is one of these small, effective steps.
  Mr. President, how do we know that .08 is an effective measure in 
combating drunk driving? Earlier I cited a Boston University study 
which showed that, if all 50 states set .08 as a standard, between 500 
and 600 lives would be saved annually. A number of my colleagues 
questioned that study during the Senate debate back in 1998. But, we 
don't need to rely on that one single study.
  Since we last debated .08, at least three studies have been published 
on this issue. The most comprehensive of these, conducted by the 
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, concluded the following: 
``With regard to .08 BAC laws, the results suggested that these laws 
were associated with 8% reductions in the involvement of both high BAC 
and lower BAC drivers in fatal crashes. Combining the results for the 
high and low BAC drivers, it is estimated that 275 lives were saved by 
.08 BAC laws in 1997. If all 50 states (rather than 15 states) had such 
laws in place in 1997, an additional 590 lives could have been saved.'' 
Let me repeat that. ``If all 50 states . . . had such laws in place in 
1997, an additional 590 lives could have been saved.''
  A second study, Mr. President, conducted by NHTSA, looked at eleven 
states with ``sufficient experience with .08 BAC laws to conduct a 
meaningful analysis.'' This study found that ``. . . the rate of 
alcohol involvement in fatal crashes declined in eight of the states 
studied after the effective date of a .08 BAC law. Further, .08 BAC 
laws were associated with significant reductions in alcohol-related 
fatalities, alone or in conjunction with administrative license 
revocation laws, in seven of eleven states. In five of these seven 
states, implementation of the .08 BAC law, itself, was followed by 
significantly lower rates of alcohol involvement among fatalities.''
  Finally, the third most recent study, conducted by the Highway Safety 
Research Center at the University of North Carolina, evaluated the 
effects of North Carolina's .08 BAC law. Opponents of this amendment 
use this study as supposed proof that .08 does not work. But, here is 
what the study concluded: ``It appears that lowering the BAC limit to 
.08% in North Carolina did not have any clear effect on alcohol-related 
crashes. The existing downward trend in alcohol-involvement among all 
crashes and among more serious crashes continued . . .'' In other 
words, .08 when enacted by a state that is progressive and aggressive 
in its efforts to deal with drinking drivers helps to continue existing 
downward trends in alcohol involvement in fatal crashes.

  Mr. President, some skeptics still might not be convinced of the 
positive effects of a national .08 BAC standard. The General Accounting 
Office (GAO) conducted a critical review of these studies. GAO 
concluded that there are ``strong indications that .08 BAC laws, in 
combination with other drunk driving laws (particularly license 
revocation laws), sustained public education and information efforts, 
and vigorous and consistent enforcement can save lives.'' The U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT), in its response to the GAO report, 
concluded that ``significant reductions have been found in most 
states;'' that ``consistent evidence exists that .08 BAC laws, at a 
minimum, add to the effectiveness of laws and activities already in 
place;'' and that ``a persuasive body of evidence is now available to 
support the Department's position on .08 BAC laws.'' The GAO responded 
to DOT, stating: ``Overall, we believe that DOT's assessment of the 
effectiveness of .08 BAC laws is fairly consistent with our own.''
  The fact is that since we last debated this issue, all of these 
published studies have reached the same conclusion: .08 laws will save 
lives. I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the opponents' rhetoric 
during conference negotiations and keep the provision in tact. The 
opponents attempt to demean .08 laws by saying they will not ``solve 
the problem of drunk driving.'' These opponents--in the way they use 
the word ``solve''--are correct: .08 is not a silver bullet. By itself, 
it will not end drunk driving. However, it is exactly what proponents 
have always said it was--another proven effective step that we can take 
to reduce drunk driving injuries and fatalities. Make no mistake--.08 
BAC laws will save lives.

[[Page S6570]]

  I want to conclude by thanking my friend from New Jersey, Senator 
Lautenberg, for his continued dedication to this issue. His hard work 
and perseverance have helped bring us to the point today where the 
Senate once again has passed legislation to strongly encourage states 
to enact this life-saving measure. I would also like to thank Senator 
Richard Shelby, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, for his support of 
the .08 measure as the Transportation Appropriations bill was being 
crafting; and Senator John Warner for his continued dedication to 
reducing drunk driving.
  Mr. President, .08 is definitely a legislative effort worth fighting 
for, and I hope we will succeed this time in retaining the provision in 
the conference report. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________