[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1409-S1410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Corker, Mr. Brown of 
        Ohio, Mr. Begich, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Franken, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 510. A bill to prevent drunk driving injuries and fatalities, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ROADS 
SAFE Act of 2011. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this 
legislation by my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker and 
7 other colleagues.
  This legislation will encourage the development of new tools to fight 
drunk driving. It has the potential to save 8,000 lives every year by 
ensuring that no one celebrating Fat Tuesday or St. Patrick's Day--or 
at any other time of the year--drives home drunk.
  Tragic drunk driving crashes often prompt communities to more to 
prevent drunk driving. This was the case in my home State of New Mexico 
back in December of 1992. That is when a drunk driver killed a mother 
and her three girls on Christmas Eve. He was speeding down the highway 
90 miles an hour, going the wrong way down an interstate highway.
  This crash helped change attitudes in my State. I was the state 
Attorney General back then and I went after drunk drivers. I worked to 
impose stronger penalties for repeat drunk driver offenders, a lower 
legal limit for intoxication, and shut down drive-through liquor 
windows. I was successful in these efforts, in part, due to the new 
focus, throughout the state on eliminating drunk driving.
  We made progress in New Mexico on drunk driving, but we have a long 
way to go and it should not take yet another tragedy for us to do even 
more to prevent drunk driving.
  In 2009, drunk driving killed nearly 11,000 Americans, including 114 
people in New Mexico. That is an average of 30 people killed every day 
by drunk driving. This death toll is unacceptable. And it is all the 
more shocking when you consider that each one of those deaths was 
preventable.
  The United States has made significant progress in reducing drunk 
driving over the years. Compared to 20 years ago, our roads are much 
safer today. Yet even as the overall number of people killed on our 
highways has declined, drunk driving still accounts for about one-third 
of all traffic fatalities.
  It is even more worrisome that a drunk driver has just a 2 percent 
chance of being caught. In fact, one study found that a first-time 
drunk driving offender has, on average, driven drunk 87 times before 
being arrested. Imagine, 87 times. Something must be done to prevent 
these drivers from getting on the road in the first place.
  The good news is there are potential technologies out there that 
could do just that, which is why Senator Corker and I are introducing 
the ROADS SAFE Act today. New safety technology has already transformed 
the automobile and saved countless lives. For example, airbags and 
antilock brakes are now standard features in many vehicles. These 
safety devices are built into the car and are unobtrusive to the 
driver. Such technologies are an important reason we have fewer traffic 
fatalities today.
  Imagine a future where vehicles could detect whether a driver is 
drunk when he gets behind the wheel--before he even starts his vehicle. 
That would mean no drunk driving crashes if it were impossible for 
drunk drivers to drive. If such technology were widely deployed in 
cars, approximately 8,000 lives could be saved every year.
  I realize many may think this is a farfetched idea. But consider 
this: vehicles today can already give driving directions, thanks to GPS 
satellite navigation devices. Some cars can even parallel park 
themselves. New Mexico and other states require convicted drunk drivers 
to use an ignition interlock, a breathalyzer device they blow into 
before their vehicle's engine will start. The success of ignition 
interlocks for preventing repeat drunk driving offenses suggests a 
better technology could be used to prevent all drunk driving.
  In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration partnered 
with leading automakers to explore the feasibility of in-vehicle 
technologies to prevent drunk driving. The Driver Alcohol Detection 
System for Safety Program--or DADSS--is a great example of how we can 
leverage federal funds with private investment to improve the safety of 
our transportation system. The goal of DADSS is to explore the 
feasibility, potential benefits, and public policy challenges 
associated with using in-vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving. 
The recent progress of this cooperative effort fuels optimism that such 
technology could be deployed within 5 to 10 years.
  Clearly, such advanced technologies must win widespread public 
acceptance in order to be effective. They must be moderately priced, 
absolutely reliable, and unobtrusive to sober drivers.
  Some of the industry groups will claim that this initiative is meant 
to stop all social alcohol consumption. They claim that you will no 
longer be able to enjoy a glass of wine with dinner. They are wrong. 
The aim is to stop drunk driving, not discourage responsible social 
drinking. If deployed the technology will be set to detect drunk 
drivers, those with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.
  Development of this technology is also widely supported by the 
public, many of whom have a glass of wine with dinner. A recent 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety poll found that 64 percent of 
Americans believe advanced alcohol detection technology is a good idea 
and that it is reliable.

[[Page S1410]]

  So, what would the ROADS SAFE Act do? This legislation would 
authorize $12 million annually for the DADSS program. This is not new 
spending. Funding for this program would come from the existing, and 
often unspent, Seat Belt Incentive grants program.
  This is a smart investment in public safety. In addition to the human 
costs, drunk driving also has direct and indirect economic costs. Those 
include damaged property, medical bills, and lost productivity. In 
economic terms, drunk driving costs $129 billion dollars per year. Of 
course, such monetary costs cannot be compared to the value of saving 
8,000 lives every year.
  Several organizations dedicated to fighting drunk driving already 
support this bipartisan proposal. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the 
Century Council, and the Distilled Spirits Council all have signed on 
in support of the ROADS SAFE Act.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to join me, Senator Corker, and these 
important organizations in the fight against drunk driving. We urge you 
to support the ROADS SAFE Act. We have made much progress in our 
efforts to prevent drunk driving, but there is so much more to be done.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 510

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Research of Alcohol 
     Detection Systems for Stopping Alcohol-related Fatalities 
     Everywhere Act of 2011'' or the ``ROADS SAFE Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities represent 
     approximately \1/3\ of all highway fatalities in the United 
     States in a given year.
       (2) In 2009, there were 10,839 alcohol-impaired driving 
     fatalities.
       (3) An estimated 9,000 road traffic deaths could be 
     prevented every year if alcohol detection technologies were 
     more widely used to prevent alcohol-impaired drivers from 
     operating their vehicles.
       (4) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has 
     partnered with automobile manufacturers to develop alcohol 
     detection technologies that could be installed in vehicles to 
     prevent drunk driving.
       (5) Alcohol detection technologies will not be widely 
     accepted by the public unless they are moderately priced, 
     absolutely reliable, and set at a level that would not 
     prevent a driver whose blood alcohol content is less than the 
     legal limit from operating a vehicle.

     SEC. 3. DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY RESEARCH.

       Section 410 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections 
     (i) and (j), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) Driver Alcohol Detection System.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator of the National 
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration shall carry out a 
     collaborative research effort under chapter 301 of title 49 
     to continue to explore the feasibility and the potential 
     benefits of, and the public policy challenges associated 
     with, more widespread deployment of in-vehicle technology to 
     prevent alcohol-impaired driving.
       ``(2) Report.--The Administrator shall annually submit a 
     report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives that--
       ``(A) describes progress in carrying out the collaborative 
     research effort; and
       ``(B) includes an accounting of the use of Federal funds 
     obligated or expended in carrying out that effort.
       ``(3) Application with other laws.--Nothing in this 
     subsection may be construed to modify or otherwise affect any 
     Federal, State, or local government law (civil or criminal), 
     with respect to the operation of a motor vehicle.
       ``(4) Funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, $12,000,000 of any amounts made available to the 
     Secretary under section 406 for each of the fiscal years 2012 
     through 2016 shall be made available to carry out this 
     subsection in place of any other amounts that are otherwise 
     available to carry out this section.
       ``(B) Limitation.--No amount of funding shall be made 
     available under this paragraph for any fiscal year in which 
     no funds are made available to carry out any program 
     authorized under section 406.''; and
       (3) in subsection (j), as redesignated--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (7);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (4), respectively;
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Alcohol-impaired driving.--The term `alcohol-impaired 
     driving' means operation of a motor vehicle (as defined in 
     section 30102(a)(6) of title 49) by an individual whose blood 
     alcohol content is at or above the legal limit.''; and
       (E) by inserting after paragraph (5), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(6) Legal limit.--The term `legal limit' means a blood 
     alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or greater (as 
     specified by chapter 163 of this title) or such other 
     percentage limitation as may be established by applicable 
     Federal, State, or local law.''.
                                 ______