The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“DRUNK DRIVING PER SE STANDARD” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S6568-S6570 on July 12, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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- 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.
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.
____________________
