U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–580 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 110–1230 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EFFECTIVENESS OF 

FEDERAL DRUNK DRIVING PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, 

INFRUSTRUCTURE SECURITY, AND WATER QUALITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 25, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY, AND

WATER QUALITY

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Chairman 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex officio) 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

OCTOBER 25, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from The State of New Jersey .......... 1 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from The State of Minnesota ..................... 3 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from The State of California ....................... 5 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from The State of Louisiana ........................... 24 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 49 

WITNESSES 

Barrett, Hon. Thomas J., Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Rosenker, Hon. Mark V., Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board .... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Scovel, Hon. Calvin L., III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Fields, Hon. Michael R., Judge, Harris County Criminal Court of Law, Number 14, State of Texas .......................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Lautenberg ....................... 32 

Wheeler, John, Governor’s Crime Advisor, Department of Public Safety, State 

of New Mexico ...................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Birch, Glynn R., National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. ............. 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Lautenberg ....................... 39 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements: 

Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) ............................................ 51 

American Mediacal Association (AMA) ........................................................... 57 

International Association of Chiefs of Police .................................................. 61 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, Impaired Driving Subcommittee; Impaired Driving Guidebook: Three Keys to Renewed Focus 

and Success ................................................................................................... 63 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ......................................................... 93 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EFFECTIVENESS OF 

FEDERAL DRUNK DRIVING PROGRAMS 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY, AND WATER QUALITY, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank Lautenberg 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, Vitter, Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. This Subcommittee will come to order and 

the hearing will start. 

I want to just add a quick note, though, and that is that I am 

compelled to be on the floor of the Senate to manage a bill, so we 

may have to take a short recess until the Chairperson of the Committee gets here, Senator Boxer. We will try to move expeditiously, 

but we don’t want to leave out things that are important. 

Thank you all for being here and helping us review what kind 

of progress we have made in getting drunk drivers off the road, and 

how to save even more people from dying a preventable death. 

Since 1984, the Federal Government has taken tough action to 

prevent senseless drunk driving deaths on our highways. Two of 

the most successful examples are the national minimum drinking 

age of 21; and the national .08 blood alcohol content standard for 

drunk driving. These tough laws have saved tens of thousands of 

lives. 

Though my children were a little annoyed with me because they 

were college age, I was proud to author the Age 21 law and pleased 

also that we have saved so many mothers, fathers, sisters, and 

brothers from the grief of losing a child because of that law. 

But even with these laws, our job isn’t complete. Drunk driving 

remains an epidemic. Seventeen thousand victims still die each 

year in vehicle crashes involving alcohol. That is 41 percent of all 

the highway deaths. In my home State of New Jersey, 341 of our 

residents died in alcohol-related crashes last year, a 20 percent increase over the year before. 

Despite these grim figures, some people want to roll back the 

lifesaving laws that we have put in place. It is hard to understand. 

I want to be clear. We will not be revisiting these well established 
2 

and successful laws. Any attempt to diminish the effectiveness of 

these laws or subsequent laws will have to face a huge fight if they 

want to expose more of our young people, or more of our people. 

We talk primarily about young people here, but there are lots of 

not so young people who die on the highways as a result of alcohol 

and driving. 

We will be looking at head to what Government can do to protect 

more Americans from drunk drivers. Congress has got to take action to convince States to pass more effective laws to combat drunk 

driving. For example, not every State has tougher laws for repeat 

drunk drivers. Arrests and even convictions can pile up without repercussion. 

One news report tells the story of a man who was caught drunk 

driving 11 times and who never had his license taken away. Amazingly, there are many places in this Country where you can refuse 

to take a blood alcohol test even after causing a fatal crash, and 

the penalty is only the loss of a driver’s license. 

Now, when it comes to better enforcement of laws, sanctions do 

work on States. When we offered incentives to States to pass the 

.08 blood alcohol laws, only three States took us up. But when we 

passed a sanction to withhold some of their Federal highway funding, 32 States changed their minds. So the proof is there. 

To prevent more injuries, we ought to make greater use of technology such as ignition interlocks that lock a car’s ignition when 

a driver’s blood alcohol level is too high. I look forward to hearing 

about those efforts. 

The bottom line is that drunk driving kills. Seventeen thousand 

American families a year who lost a loved one can testify to that. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about actions 

that Congress can take to further save lives on our roads. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Today we will review the progress we have made in getting drunk drivers off the 

road, and how to save even more people from dying from a preventable tragedy. 

Since 1984, the Federal Government has taken tough action to prevent senseless 

drunk driving deaths on our roads. 

Two of the most successful examples are the national minimum drinking age of 

21, and the national .08 blood alcohol content standard for drunk driving. These 

smart, tough laws have saved tens of thousands of lives. Though my children were 

a little annoyed, I was proud to author the ‘‘age 21’’ law—and am proud that we 

have kept so many mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers alive because of it. But 

even with these laws, our job is not complete. 

Drunk driving remains an epidemic. Seventeen-thousand victims still die each 

year in vehicle crashes involving alcohol. That’s 41 percent of all highway deaths. 

In my home State of New Jersey, 341 of our residents died in alcohol-related crashes last year—a 20-percent increase over the year before. 

Despite these grim figures, some people want to roll back the life-saving laws we 

have put in place. Let me be clear: We will not be revisiting these well-established 

and successful laws. Instead, we will be looking ahead to what the government can 

do to protect more Americans from drunk drivers. 

Congress must take action to convince states to pass more effective laws to combat drunk driving. For example, not every State has tougher laws for repeat drunk 

drivers. Arrests and even convictions can pile up without repercussion. One news 

report tells the story of a man who was caught driving drunk 11 times—and who 

never lost his license. 

Amazingly, there are many places in this country where you can refuse to take 

a blood-alcohol test even after causing a fatal crash and the penalty is only the loss 
3 

of a driver’s license. When it comes to better enforcement of laws, sanctions on 

states work. 

When we offered incentives to states to pass .08 blood-alcohol laws, only three 

took us up. But when we passed a sanction to withhold some of their Federal highway funding, 32 states changed their minds. 

To prevent more injuries, we should make greater use of technology, such as ignition interlocks, that lock a car’s ignition when a driver’s blood alcohol level is too 

high. I look forward to hearing about those efforts. The bottom line is that drunk 

driving kills. Seventeen-thousand American families a year who have lost a loved 

one can testify to that. 

Today I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about actions Congress can 

take to further save lives on our roads. 

Now we are joined by Senator Klobuchar. Senator, I have a 10:30 

management on the floor on the transportation bill. So I wonder, 

would you be able to chair? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I would love to, but I have the farm bill 

markup. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. Would you like to make a short statement? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I will make it very quickly. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. One minute. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for holding this critically important hearing and for your leadership 

on this issue. 

Simply put, your work in drunk driving, Senator Lautenberg, has 

saved lives. It has been over 20 years since your legislation made 

21 the national drinking age. In that time, over 20,000 lives have 

been changed. Your legislation made our roads and our communities safer and for that we are all grateful. 

But there is so much work to be done, as each of our panelists 

will highlight. There are well over 16,000 alcohol-related highway 

traffic deaths in the U.S. each year. 

In Minnesota, we have had some success in containing these 

hardcore drunk driving fatalities by being strict with enforcement 

and aggressive with prevention. As Hennepin County Attorney, I 

would say one of my, if not the proudest legislative accomplishment 

I had, and it took 2 years, was to pass Minnesota’s felony DWI law. 

When I came into office, I realized we had felonies for things like 

stealing a cable TV cable and various theft of animals, but someone 

could have 20 DWIs and it was still a misdemeanor and they really 

could only go to prison for one or 2 years, and in fact is was a county workhouse. 

Today in Minnesota, if you get four DWIs within 10 years, you 

are charged with a felony and face the possibility of prison time up 

to 7 years. 

Again, an example of why we had to do it, there was a man 

named Raymond Sherman. In his early 40’s, he had more than 20 

DWIs on his record. When he was arrested when we had the felony 

DWI law in place, right near the Mall of America, he tested at well 

over the legal limit. What we found out when we looked back at 

his record was the last time he had gotten it, he said, well, you 
4 

can’t get me because Minnesota doesn’t have a felony DWI. Well, 

we did get him the next time and he went to 5 years in prison. 

The goal here is not to put a bunch of people in prison, but it 

is to prevent them from going out and driving and drinking again. 

I have experience with this in my own life. My dad had three DWIs 

and it was the third DWI that really made him stop drinking, and 

his whole life has been turned around. He has been a successful 

journalist his entire life and is now very happy in his retirement, 

being sober and it has really turned him around. So I believe that 

strict rules can make a difference. 

I just want to leave you with one thought. One of our rural 

judges has embarked on a successful and innovative program in 

Minnesota for repeat drunk drivers. It is Judge James Denn, and 

he has been sentencing some repeat drunk driving offenders to 

staggered jail terms, allowing them to serve one third of their time 

immediately, one third a year later, and one third a year after that. 

Now, it doesn’t work for everyone, but the idea is that in between 

those jail stints, if the offenders can prove that they have reformed, 

they can earn their way out of the remaining jail time. But if they 

get another DWI, they serve the full sentence. He has been doing 

this not necessarily with the ones I am talking about like Mr. Sherman, who has 20—it wouldn’t work for him—but for some of the 

ones who have smaller numbers of DWIs. 

It is the use of effective monitoring and prevention programs 

such as staggered sentencing, ignition locks, vehicle impoundment, 

highly visible checkpoints and advertising campaigns, coupled with 

this strict kind of enforcement that we have started to do now the 

last few years in Minnesota that I believe has made a difference. 

I also want to thank the advocacy groups in our State that have 

been at our side. We had the most powerful testimony to get our 

law passed, which involved a man who had lost his son to a drunk 

driver, and a repeat drunk driver who had killed someone. When 

he got out of prison, the two of them went together and testified 

in favor of stricter drunk driving laws. 

So I believe in this kind of redemption, and I believe you get 

there by having incentives, but I also believe you need the strict 

enforcement. 

I also wanted to thank you for the .08 incentives. Our State was 

one of the last to do it. People where my relatives are from in 

Northern Minnesota were not that excited about it, I will tell you 

that. One of my favorite legislators actually took to our House floor 

and said, if you change the standard to .08, how will my constituents get home in the morning? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. However, we have now turned around and 

we have it in place, and I think that would not have happened 

without having these kinds of incentives on the Federal level. 

So I want to thank you all for your good work, and especially Mr. 

Chairman, and if it is possible, I would love to fill in. You know 

how much I like to chair hearings, so if it works out, I will do it. 

Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I just started to say before that when I 

wrote the law, two of my four children were in college and they 

said, Dad, you know, we would like to have a party, but we can’t 
5 

just serve Coca-Cola at our age, and they were 18 or so. I said, 

well, Pepsi will have to do. We are not going to permit that. Of 

course, now today when they have children, they sure don’t want 

drunks on the road where we can avoid it. 

I am going to recess this session for now. I thank you all. You 

are excellent candidates for your testimony today. 

Senator Boxer will be here shortly. So forgive the delay, but 

other duties call and I have to do it, especially when the Majority 

Leader says so. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Senator, if you would like, I could stay for 

10 minutes if we want to get started. 

OK. Whatever you say, Mr. Chairman. 

[Recess.] 

Senator BOXER. [Presiding.] The Committee hearing will begin. I 

understand we had a couple of colleagues here. As you know, we 

have an insane schedule today which affected everybody’s ability to 

be here. I myself just came in this morning back from California 

where I was very concerned about the devastation in my State. I 

thank everybody from all over the Country for caring and asking 

me about it. It looks like the winds have changed in our favor and 

we will be dealing with the aftermath for quite a while. But I am 

glad to be back here to be able to conduct this hearing. 

As you well know, Senator Lautenberg, to say he is passionate 

on the subject is an understatement. He has to manage a bill on 

the floor, the Amtrak bill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. I thank you all for being here to discuss the effectiveness of Federal drunk driving programs. Alcohol-related 

crashes are among the biggest highway safety challenges we face, 

accounting for 41 percent of overall traffic fatalities in 2006, 17,602 

lives needlessly lost. Drunk driving causes thousands of deaths and 

injuries each year that could otherwise have been avoided, changing the lives of families and accident victims really forever. 

But the consequences of drunk driving are not limited to the 

families of those who are killed or injured. A 2002 study by NHTSA 

estimated that alcohol-related crashes cost the American public 

more than $114 billion. That is just in 1 year, the year 2000. 

And here we are struggling to find funds for children’s health 

care. You know, we are having a problem, fighting over, you know, 

$30 billion, with $114 billion lost in 2000 alone. So we can’t ignore 

this problem. The regulation of alcohol and its use by the operators 

of motor vehicles is largely left to the States. However, Congress 

has encouraged States to adopt legislation aimed at reducing drunk 

driving through the use of sanctions that withhold or transfer Federal funds and incentive grants that are given to States if they 

take certain actions. 

There are currently five different provisions in Federal law that 

either withhold Federal funds from States that would be available 

for the national highway system, InterState maintenance and surface transportation programs, or transfer a portion of these funds 

to a State’s highway safety program. It will take a coordinated ef-
6 

fort on behalf of the States and the Federal Government to address 

the problems of drunk driving. 

Drunk driving is a serious problem which has seen little improvement over the past decade. This hearing will help the Committee make the record as to what we are learning and what we 

are not learning. I look forward to working with the other members 

of the Subcommittee as we review this issue in anticipation of the 

next transportation bill, which as you all know will be coming next 

Congress. 

So we are grateful to the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to testimony. We will get right to it. Because of the loss of 

time, we are going to just start at 4 minutes and see if you can 

do that so we can have time to ask you questions. 

Senator BOXER. The Honorable Thomas Barrett, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. Sir, we welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT, DEPUTY 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. BARRETT. Madam Chairman, thank you. I am pleased to represent the Department this morning on this important safety issue. 

Secretary Peters takes this very seriously, as do I. And I know you 

do and the Committee does as well. 

Alcohol-impaired driving is a serious public health problem. As 

you know, there were over 13,000 deaths last year in which a driver or operator had a BAC above .08. As you indicated, Senator, this 

number has remained relatively flat for the past decade. This is not 

acceptable to the Department and we are working aggressively 

with State law enforcement partners, criminal justice partners, advocacy groups like MADD, to address what is a complex and tragic 

social issue. 

I also want to note we have just updated the driving under the 

influence model code to assist States in fashioning their laws. I 

want to thank Senator Lautenberg for his personal leadership on 

this issue. 

The program we have set at DOT calls for comprehensive solutions, education, strong laws, law enforcement, and suitable legal 

consequences for offenders. NHTSA is emphasizing high visibility 

law enforcement, support for improved adjudication of drunk driving cases, and technology to prevent impaired driving. 

We believe that these measures will be effective in reducing the 

numbers that we see. We also want to thank the more than 9,000 

State law enforcement agencies that participated in our recently 

completed Labor Day national drunk driving crackdown. We could 

not be successful without their help. 

You may have heard the phrase ‘‘Over the Limit. Under Arrest.’’ 

Thanks to the support of Congress, the nationwide drunk driving 

enforcement crackdowns are supplemented by $18 million of national advertising, $11 million over Labor Day and an additional $7 

million purchase in December during the holiday season. 

NHTSA has also recently focused renewed attention on ignition 

interlocks. Studies show interlocks can reduce recidivism by as 

much as two thirds. However, currently only about 10 percent or 

about 100,000 offenders potentially eligible for the devices actually 

must use them. 
7 

We have also convened a National Interlock Ignition Summit to 

develop recommendations from the criminal justice community for 

increasing the benefits of this technology. The agency is involved 

in developing guidance on model programs and curricula for educating judges and others on the benefits of expanded deployment 

of interlocks. 

As longer term countermeasures, we are pursuing more advanced 

technology and have established a cooperative research initiative 

with the automotive industry to lead to new technologies that 

would prevent impaired drivers from operating vehicles. 

I also want to note that the particularly tragic aspect of the 

drunk driving problem is impact on the youngest drivers. We believe it is essential that the 21 minimum drinking age be retained 

and strictly enforced. The model code that we developed notes zero 

tolerance for underage drinking and driving. 

Madam Chairman, the Department is committed to reducing alcohol-impaired driving problems, especially as it affects our youngest drivers and their families. Our plans include both shorter and 

longer term solutions to provide very aggressive steps to reduce the 

horribly tragic consequences we see in this. 

I thank you and I would be pleased to answer any questions 

when appropriate. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barrett follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT, DEPUTY

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to represent the Department on this very 

important safety issue. 

Alcohol impaired driving is a serious public health problem. In 2006, there were 

more than 13,000 deaths in crashes in which a driver or motorcycle rider had a 

blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above 0.08 grams per deciliter of breath, the legal 

limit in every state. Following a decline through the 1980’s, the number of alcoholrelated traffic deaths has remained at essentially the same level since the late 

1990’s. Further progress in reducing alcohol-related traffic deaths has been inhibited by a number of factors, including changes in the demographics of the driving 

population and a decline in the rate of enactment of State drunk driving laws as 

most States completed their basic legislative package. 

While impaired driving affects individuals of all ages, both genders and every area 

of the Nation, some groups have much higher involvement rates than others. Males 

comprise more than 80 percent of annual alcohol-related fatalities and those between ages 21 and 34 years of age are greatly over-represented. Per licensed driver, 

the highest rate of involvement in a fatal crash with a BAC at or above 0.08 in 2005 

was for 21—24 year olds. The next highest rate was among 18—20 year olds, despite the fact that every State has a minimum drinking age of 21 years. Alcoholrelated fatality rates vary considerably among States. In 4 States, the proportion 

of all traffic deaths that are alcohol-related is 50 percent or more, while in 7 other 

States the proportion is less than 35 percent. 

Most drivers with positive BAC who are involved in fatal crashes are well over 

the legal limit. In 2006, about 84 percent of those with positive BAC were above 

the legal limit of 0.08, and the median among those with positive BAC was 0.15, 

nearly double the legal limit in every State. 

Impaired driving is a complex social issue and requires a comprehensive solution 

including education, strong laws, law enforcement, suitable legal consequences for 

offenders, and appropriate treatment for those with abuse or addiction problems. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) works with States to 

address a full range of countermeasures. However, the agency emphasizes several 

priority programs because of their effectiveness and the benefit of coordinated State 

implementation. These priorities include high visibility law enforcement, support for 

improved adjudication of drunk driving cases, and technology to prevent impaired 

driving. 
8 

High visibility law enforcement has proven to be an especially effective means to 

reduce impaired driving crashes because it not only removes drunk drivers from the 

road, but also serves as a general deterrent, creating an increased perception of risk 

of arrest that discourages community members from drinking and driving. NHTSA 

coordinates nationwide high visibility impaired driving enforcement crackdowns 

twice annually, during the Labor Day and December holiday travel periods. During 

the Labor Day 2007 crackdown, about 9,000 law enforcement agencies participated 

by conducting highly visible enforcement operations such as sobriety checkpoints or 

saturation patrols. State Highway Safety Offices devoted a total of about $21 million 

to support these law enforcement activities. 

NHTSA supports the nationwide enforcement crackdowns with the purchase of 

national advertising on television, radio and other media, using the message Drunk 

Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest. to alert motorists of the increased enforcement activity and enhance the general deterrent effect. Using high visibility enforcement funds appropriated by Congress, NHTSA purchased $11 million of national advertising for the Labor Day period and plans an additional purchase in December. 

These advertisements are placed in media outlets that reach the demographic 

groups most likely to drink and drive. In addition to the national advertisements, 

State Highway Safety Offices spent about $16 million on paid advertising using the 

same theme and message. 

To provide financial support for States to conduct high visibility law enforcement 

and other impaired driving program activities, NHTSA administers a number of 

grant programs for States. Under SAFETEA-LU, the Section 410 impaired driving 

incentive program provides funds to States if they carry out specified impaired-driving countermeasures. These statutory activities include high visibility enforcement 

campaigns and programs that deter underage drinking. Over the past 2 years, 

NHTSA has provided over $200 million in Section 410 grant funds to support State 

impaired driving programs in every State, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

Several statutory provisions require States to have certain impaired driving laws 

in place. These requirements include laws that establish a minimum drinking age 

of 21 years, a per se impairment level of 0.08 BAC, harsher sanctions for repeat 

offenders, and restrictions on open alcohol containers in motor vehicles. States that 

do not enact and enforce these laws face the prospect of reduced or transferred highway construction funds. NHTSA is responsible for making the legal findings of noncompliance that would result in the Federal Highway Administration transferring 

or withholding of highway funds. 

NHTSA has recently focused attention on another impaired driving priority, alcohol ignition interlocks. Evaluations indicate that, while installed on offenders’ vehicles, interlocks reduce recidivism by as much as two-thirds. Experts also agree that 

interlocks may offer even greater potential when integrated in a State impaired 

driving system as a means to link court and treatment functions. Currently about 

100,000 offenders are using ignition interlocks, a small proportion of those who 

could be eligible for this technology. 

In August, NHTSA Administrator Nicole Nason convened a national ignition 

interlock summit to develop recommendations from judges, prosecutors and treatment professionals for increasing the benefits of interlocks. The agency is now engaged in developing guidance on model interlock programs and curricula for educating judges, prosecutors and others on interlock technology and its benefits. 

As a longer term countermeasure against impaired driving, NHTSA is pursuing 

more advanced technology. The agency is currently establishing a cooperative research initiative with the automotive industry that could result in technology that 

would prevent an impaired driver from operating a vehicle. In order to be effective, 

any technology would need to be passive, requiring no deliberate driver action, and 

sufficiently accurate, reliable and affordable for widespread use. The timeframe for 

developing and deploying such technology is estimated to be 10—15 years. 

A particularly tragic aspect of the impaired driving problem is its impact on the 

youngest drivers. Nearly a quarter of deaths of drivers less than 21 years of age 

have a BAC of more than 0.08 despite the fact that it is illegal for these drivers 

to drink alcohol. In 2005, about 3,500 drivers younger than 21 years of age were 

killed in crashes, nearly 1,000 of whom had been drinking. Young drivers are especially vulnerable to the risks of impaired driving due to their inexperience both with 

driving and with drinking alcohol. 

While these young driver statistics are tragic, they are much improved from the 

situation 25 years ago, prior to enactment by all States of Age 21 Minimum Legal 

Drinking Age (MLDA) Laws. MLDA laws have proven to be one of the most effective 

impaired driving deterrents, resulting in nearly 25,000 lives saved since 1982, according to NHTSA estimates. 
9 

The scientific evidence behind MLDA laws is unequivocal. In 2001, the Centers 

for Disease Control (CDC) conducted a review of 23 studies of the effect of changes 

in minimum drinking age laws that met strict standards of scientific rigor. The CDC 

review concluded that raising minimum drinking age laws results in a 16 percent 

decline in underage crashes, while lowering the minimum drinking age results in 

a 10 percent increase in crashes. 

More recent evidence comes from studies of a policy change in New Zealand, 

where the minimum drinking age was lowered from age 20 to 18 in 1999. A study 

of New Zealand data from before and after the change in drinking age was published last year. The study found that the rate of traffic crashes and injuries increased 12 percent for 18—19 year old males, and 14 percent for 15—17 year old 

males following the lowering of the drinking age. The change was even greater 

among females, with the rates increasing 51 percent for 18—19 year olds and 24 

percent for 15—17 year olds. The study concluded that raising New Zealand’s minimum drinking age would prevent 400 serious injuries and 12 deaths among 15— 

19 year olds each year. 

There are clear physiological and behavioral reasons for maintaining and strictly 

enforcing MLDA laws. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 

(NIAAA) of the National Institutes of Health reports that impaired driving is just 

one of the risks associated with underage drinking and that the total impact of alcohol on those under 21, including homicide, suicide and other injuries, amounts to 

approximately 5,000 deaths per year. NIAAA studies point to the tendency of younger drinkers toward risky binge drinking, a greater tendency among those who begin 

drinking earlier to develop alcohol dependence at some point later in their lives, and 

a greater likelihood of young drinkers to engage in other risky behaviors, including 

drug use. 

The Department of Transportation is committed to reducing alcohol impaired 

driving, especially as it affects our youngest drivers and their families. We have set 

an ambitious goal to reduce the number of deaths in crashes where a driver or motorcycle rider had a BAC at or above 0.08 BAC to 0.48 per 100 million vehicle miles 

traveled by 2008. Our plans for addressing the problem include both short and 

longer term solutions that together provide the most aggressive strategy feasible for 

reducing impaired driving and its tragic consequences. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

Our next speaker is Hon. Mark Rosenker, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. 

When we finish this panel, I will turn to Senator Vitter for his 

opening statement. 

Honorable Mark Rosenker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK V. ROSENKER, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 

Mr. ROSENKER. Thank you and good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Vitter. Thank you for allowing me the 

opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the NTSB regarding 

oversight of the effectiveness of Federal drunk driving programs. 

While the Safety Board has testified before Senator Lautenberg 

on several occasions, we have not testified before this Committee. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to do so. 

Progress has been made at the Federal, State and local levels in 

reducing alcohol-related crashes, injuries and fatalities. In 1982, 

there were more than 26,000 alcohol-related fatalities, almost 60 

percent of all highway fatalities. We are now down to about 17,600 

alcohol-related fatalities, or about 41 percent of the highway fatalities in general. 

Most of that progress, though, was achieved in the 1980’s and 

the 1990’s, likely attributable to implementation of the National 

Minimum Drinking Age Act and State passage of the age 21 laws, 

along with administrative license revocation, sobriety checkpoints, 
10 

mandatory seatbelt use laws, and public education campaigns on 

the dangers of impaired driving. 

We have been stuck, unfortunately, in a decade-long plateau 

where the number and percent of alcohol-related fatalities have not 

declined further. The Safety Board issued recommendations in 

2000 aimed at eliminating hardcore drinking and driving as the 

means to further reduce the toll of impaired driving. 

The NTSB is particularly concerned with hardcore drinking drivers who are involved in about 54 percent of the alcohol-related fatalities. The Board defines hardcore drinking drivers as individuals 

who drive with a blood alcohol content of .15 percent or greater, or 

who are arrested for driving while impaired within 10 years of a 

prior DWI arrest. 

Drivers with a high BAC are at much greater risk of being involved in a fatal crash. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

estimated that the relative fatality risk for drivers in single vehicle 

crashes with a high BAC is 385 times that of a zero BAC driver. 

For young male drivers between the ages of 21 and 34, the risk is 

607 times that of a sober driver. 

The American Psychological Association states that even one 

DWI offense is indicative of a substance abuse or a dependency 

problem. A high BAC or repeat DWI arrest supports the conclusion 

that the individual has an alcohol abuse problem and will continue 

dangerous driving practices unless significant countermeasures are 

imposed. 

From 1983 to 2005, more than 183,000 people died in hardcore 

drinking driving crashes. Impaired drivers persist in their behavior 

because they believe they won’t get caught or convicted. That belief 

is based on reality. An individual it is estimated is driving on 1,000 

drinking driving trips before being arrested. 

Senator BOXER. A thousand? 

Mr. ROSENKER. Yes, ma’am. 

The hardcore drinking driving problem is complex. We need a 

comprehensive system of prevention, apprehension, punishment 

and treatment to reduce these crashes, injuries and fatalities. The 

Board’s model program is derived from State programs that were 

proven effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes, injuries and fatalities, or recidivism. Some elements make the system work more 

efficiently. Only five States, unfortunately, have implemented a 

sufficient number of elements of the Board’s program to close these 

recommendations, and I applaud the people of California because 

they are part of this program and it is working. 

With regard to age 21 laws, the Safety Board thought the minimum drinking age was resolved a quarter century ago. The change 

in the legal minimum drinking age has been one of the most extensively studied policy changes in our transportation history. All the 

rigorously drawn and peer-reviewed studies have concluded that 

lowering the drinking age increases both alcohol consumption and 

alcohol-related fatalities among young drivers, and raising the 

drinking age reduces consumption and fatalities. 

NHTSA estimates since 1975, age 21 laws have prevented almost 

25,000 young people traffic deaths. Research and current data do 

not justify changing our recommendations. Motor vehicle crashes 
11 

remain the leading cause of death for teenagers, and alcohol remains the leading drug of choice. 

Madam Chairwoman, that concludes my statement and I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenker follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK V. ROSENKER, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Good morning, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members of 

the Subcommittee. My name is Mark Rosenker, and I am the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the Safety Board regarding the oversight 

of the effectiveness of Federal drunk driving programs. While the Safety Board has 

testified before Senator Lautenberg on several occasions, we have not testified before this Committee. Thank you again for the privilege. 

As you know, the Safety Board is an independent agency charged by Congress 

with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant 

accidents in railroad, highway, marine, pipeline and hazardous materials in order 

to determine the causes and issue safety recommendations to prevent future accidents. 

Each year, there are between 42,000 and 44,000 highway fatalities, more than 

any other mode of transportation. Of that number, roughly 40 percent of highway 

accidents is attributed to alcohol related deaths. For that reason, the Safety Board 

has had a long history of recommending action to reduce alcohol-related fatalities, 

injuries, and crashes. Many of these recommendations were issued in 1983, 1984, 

and 1989 as a result of our investigation of the Carrollton, Kentucky church activity 

bus crash which is still the worst drunk driving crash in the nation’s history. Addressing impaired driving has been on our list of Most Wanted Safety Recommendations since its inception in 1990. 

We have made a lot of progress at the Federal, state, and local level in reducing 

the alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities. In 1982, there were 26,173 alcohol-related fatalities, almost 60 percent of all highway fatalities. We are now down 

to 17,602 alcohol-related fatalities, or 41 percent of highway fatalities. Most of that 

progress was achieved in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, likely attributable to implementation of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act and State passage of Age 21 

laws, administrative license revocation, sobriety checkpoints, mandatory seat belt 

use laws, and public education campaigns on the dangers of impaired driving. We 

have been stuck, however, in a decade-long plateau where the number and percent 

of alcohol-related fatalities have not declined further. The Safety Board issued recommendations in 2000 aimed at eliminating hard core drinking driving as means 

to further reduce the toll of impaired driving. 

THE HARD CORE DRINKING DRIVER

The Safety Board is particularly concerned with hard core drinking drivers, who 

are involved in about 54 percent of alcohol-related fatalities. The Board defines hard 

core drinking drivers as individuals who drive with a blood alcohol concentration 

(BAC) of 0.15 percent or greater, or who are arrested for driving while impaired 

(DWI) within 10 years of a prior DWI arrest. 

Drivers with a high BAC, 0.15 percent or greater, have consumed large amounts 

of alcohol, much more than is generally considered to be social or responsible drinking. High-BAC offenders are also likely to be repeat drinking drivers. Research has 

found that drivers with a high BAC are at a substantially greater risk of being involved in a fatal crash. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has estimated 

that the relative fatality risk for drivers in single-vehicle crashes with a high BAC 

is 385 times that of a zero-BAC driver and for male drivers the risk is 607 times 

that of a sober driver. 

The Safety Board defines repeat offenders as individuals who are arrested for a 

DWI offense within 10 years of a prior DWI arrest. The Board specifies arrest, not 

just conviction, because DWI offenders are not always convicted of DWI violations. 

Their charges may be reduced to a lesser, non-alcohol-related offense or erased. The 

original DWI could not be used as a prior offense for the court to impose more rigorous measures for a subsequent offense. The American Psychological Association 

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual states that even one DWI offense is indicative of 

a substance abuse and/or dependency problem. A high-BAC or repeat DWI arrest, 

therefore, supports the conclusion that the individual has an alcohol abuse problem 
12 

and will continue to engage in dangerous driving practices unless significant countermeasures are imposed. 

From 1983 through 2005, more than 183,000 people died in crashes involving 

hard core drinking drivers. Most experts agree that impaired drivers persist in their 

behavior because these drivers believe that they will not be caught and/or convicted. 

That perception is based on reality. NHTSA estimates that on average, an individual makes about 1,000 drinking driving trips before being arrested. 

One of the accidents investigated by the Safety Board occurred on October 23, 

1999 in Irving, Texas. A Chevrolet pickup truck driver was merging onto a highway 

when it veered to the south, crossed over three lanes and a shoulder, and struck 

the guardrail. The collision with the guardrail caused the truck to become airborne 

and travel 98 feet before striking the ground in the center median. It then continued 

traveling for an additional 97 feet and collided with a tractor-semitrailer, which 

eventually crashed through a guardrail, and collided with a bridge pillar. A post 

crash fire ensued, destroying the tractor-semitrailer and damaging the bridge structure. The debris from the initial collision struck a Ford pickup truck and a Cadillac 

during the accident sequence. The tractor-semitrailer truck driver was killed. The 

Chevrolet pickup truck driver was found partially ejected and was also killed. He 

was an unlicensed driver with a BAC of 0.29 percent. 

The problem of hard core drinking drivers is complex; no single countermeasure 

by itself appears to reduce recidivism and crashes sufficiently. We need a comprehensive system of prevention, apprehension, punishment, and treatment to reduce the crashes, injuries, and fatalities caused by these drivers. 

The Safety Board’s model program includes such countermeasures as: 

Sobriety Checkpoints: States must take measures to convince motorists that there 

is a strong likelihood that they will be caught, thereby deterring impaired driving 

before an arrest. Well-publicized and frequent sobriety checkpoints are a key component of deterrence because they increase the perception among drivers who potentially would drive impaired that they will be caught. 

Vehicle Restrictions: States should authorize vehicle restrictions such as license 

plate impoundment, vehicle immobilization, vehicle impoundment, vehicle forfeiture, 

and ignition interlocks. Most can be administratively imposed. Vehicle restrictions 

substantially decrease the opportunity for hard core drinking drivers to operate vehicles illegally. 

Habitual Offender Tally (HOT) Sheet Programs: States should promote this special enforcement program where the State licensing agency, on a regular basis, provides lists of drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked for alcohol-related offenses. Law enforcement agencies then use these lists to identify drivers who 

subsequently operate vehicles without a license. 

Zero BAC Limits: States should require DWI offenders, upon conviction, to operate vehicles without any alcohol in their system. Such a provision forces DWI offenders to demonstrate that they can operate a vehicle legally and separate their 

drinking from their driving. 

High BAC Limits: For those offenders arrested with a BAC of 0.15 percent or 

higher, States should impose penalties and employ countermeasures similar to those 

penalties and countermeasures used for repeat offenders. These drivers require 

strong intervention. 

Confinement Alternatives: States should implement alternatives to traditional jail 

confinement, such as jail-treatment facilities, home detention with electronic monitoring, and intensive supervision probation. These alternatives, which reduce prison 

overcrowding, allow offenders to remain productive members of society and address 

any underlying alcohol problem, offer greater benefit than the traditional confinement alternative, community service, which has not been proven to reduce crashes. 

Plea Bargaining Restrictions: States should prohibit DWI offenders from pleading 

to non-alcohol-related offense, or at least include information on the original arrest/ 

charge in the offenders’ criminal record. This provision would help ensure that prosecutors and judges know when they are dealing with a hard core drinking driver 

who may require countermeasures beyond the traditional punishment of a short jail 

term and a fine. 

Diversion Elimination: Diversion is a system by which an offender’s record is 

wiped clean if the offender complies with certain requirements. States should eliminate diversion as an option for DWI offenders, again, because it makes it that much 

harder to identify and develop appropriate rehabilitation measures for hard core 

drinking drivers. 

Administrative License Revocation: States should authorize administrative license 

revocation, which gives a law enforcement officer the authority, on behalf of the 

State licensing agency, to confiscate the license of any driver who either fails or refuses to take a chemical breath test. The driver then receives a temporary license 
13 

that is valid for a short, specified period of time. During that time, he or she may 

seek an administrative hearing—independent of any criminal proceedings. 

10-Year Look-Back Period: The likelihood of arresting, let alone convicting, a person even once for impaired driving is small. For penalty enhancement, the length 

of time a State will ‘‘look back’’ to determine how many convictions an offender has 

should be at least 10 years. 

Individualized Court-Based Programs: States should develop and fund programs, 

such as a DWI court, that allow judges to tailor the sanctions to an offender’s circumstances on a case-by-case basis. 

Attached for your review is a summary of the model elements recommended by 

the Safety Board to address hard core drinking driving. The Board’s model program 

is derived from programs operated in the States that have been shown through research to reduce alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities or have been shown 

to reduce recidivism. Some elements of the model program aid the workings of the 

impaired driver control system. Only five states have implemented a sufficient number of elements for the Board to close this recommendation to them. 

AGE 21

The issue of the minimum drinking age has recently been in the news. This is 

an issue we thought was solved a quarter century ago through extensive congressional, Federal, and State action. 

The change in the legal minimum drinking age has been one of the most extensively studied policy changes in our transportation history. All of the rigorously 

drawn and peer-reviewed studies have essentially come to the same conclusion; lowering the legal drinking age increases both alcohol consumption and alcohol-related 

fatalities among young drivers and raising the drinking age reduces consumption 

and fatalities. 

In 2005, 28 percent of teen drivers killed in traffic crashes had a positive BAC, 

and 74 percent were unrestrained by safety belts. Teen drivers (age 15 through 20) 

made up slightly more than 6 percent of the driving population. But although this 

population is not allowed to drink, almost 11 percent of alcohol-related fatalities 

(1,800 people) still involved a teen driver with a positive BAC. This is down from 

the 20 percent involvement we had in 1982. The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration estimates that since 1975, Age 21 laws have prevented almost 

25,000 traffic deaths. 

Research and current data do not justify changing the Board’s recommendations. 

Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for teenagers, and alcohol 

remains the leading drug of choice. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

HARD CORE DRINKING DRIVER MODEL PROGRAM

• Sobriety checkpoints (frequent, statewide) 

• Vehicle restrictions 

• License plate actions (impoundment, confiscation, etc.) 

• Vehicle immobilization 

• Vehicle impoundment 

• Vehicle forfeiture 

• Ignition interlocks (court-ordered and administrative) 

• State and community cooperative enforcement programs for driving while suspended/revoked/unlicensed 

• Zero BAC for DWI offenders 

• Aggravated offense for high BAC (0.15 or greater) 

• Alternatives to confinement 

• Home detention with electronic monitoring 

• Intensive supervision probation 

• Jail-treatment facilities (for multiple DWI offenders) 

• Eliminate community service (does not reduce recidivism) 

• Plea bargaining restrictions 

• Prohibit lessening of DWI offense to non-alcohol-related offense 

• Require reasons for DWI charge reduction to be entered into public record 

• Eliminate diversion programs that allow erasing, deferring, or otherwise purging the DWI offense record, or that allow the offender to avoid license suspension 

• Administrative license revocation for BAC test failure and refusal 

• 10 year DWI record retention and offense enhancement period 
14 

• Individualized court-based sanction programs with frequent offender contact, 

unannounced testing, mandatory assessment, treatment, and long-term follow-up 

‘‘Actions to Reduce Fatalities, Injuries, and Crashes Involving the Hard Core 

Drinking Driver,’’ June, 2000. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for your testimony. 

Honorable Calvin Scovel, welcome. Mr. Scovel is the Inspector 

General at the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. SCOVEL. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Vitter, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today on the effectiveness of Federal drunk driving programs. This Subcommittee has played a key 

role in passing significant legislation to reduce alcohol-impaired 

crashes and lessen their emotional toll and costs. 

Curbing drunk driving is key to reducing all highway deaths. In 

2006, over 42,600 highway traffic deaths occurred in the United 

States. Over 17,600, or about 41 percent, were alcohol-related, almost the same as in 2005. No appreciable improvement in reducing 

the total number of fatalities can occur unless alcohol-related fatalities also drop. 

The Administration and Congress recognize the seriousness of 

this problem and have provided significant resources to counter alcohol-impaired driving. We estimate that States will expend more 

than $1 billion in grants and penalty transfers through TEA–21, 

the prior surface transportation authorization law. SAFETEA-LU, 

the current law, provides further resources, most notably $555 million for grants dedicated solely to reducing alcohol-impaired driving. 

To ensure the wise use of this funding will require three things: 

good laws, well-run State traffic safety programs, and effective 

leadership from NHTSA. We realize that impaired driving is a complex problem with no simple solution. Accordingly, our ongoing 

work focuses on providing NHTSA and the States with better tools 

such as improved performance measures to oversee and implement 

safety programs aimed at impaired driving. 

My statement today concentrates on three areas: first, identifying key strategies. Our work found significant agreement on specific strategies that are most promising. State and Federal officials 

identified sustained enforcement of existing laws and effective prosecution and full application of available sanctions as key strategies 

of a successful program for countering alcohol-impaired driving. 

Best practices for carrying out these strategies in the States we 

reviewed included using fines to support enforcement efforts and 

streamlining the grant process for local communities. Challenges 

identified for fully implementing these strategies included lengthy 

arrest procedures and State-specific restrictions on sobriety checkpoints. 

NHTSA has issued guidelines to carry out these key strategies, 

but better tools are needed to more effectively implement them. 

Second, effectively implementing key strategies with better performance measures. NHTSA could better measure the success of 

key strategies if States used better performance measures. For ex-
15 

ample, State officials and NHTSA agree on the use of sustained enforcement, and NHTSA defined the strategy as a sobriety checkpoint or saturation patrol conducted weekly in areas where 60 percent or more of fatalities occur. We found, however, that State 

plans and reports didn’t use this definition to measure sustained 

enforcement. As a result, the degree to which the strategy was 

used, and thus its effectiveness, could not be determined. 

Third, action NHTSA needs to take with the States to improve 

performance measures. Currently, each State is responsible for developing performance measures tailored to its specific safety challenges. NHTSA cannot mandate performance measures. However, 

NHTSA can exercise its leadership with States and in response to 

our March, 2007 audit, NHTSA agreed to take the lead to work 

with States and other key stakeholders such as the Governors 

Highway Safety Association, to improve performance measures for 

alcohol-impaired driving. Specifically, it agreed to work with the 

States over a 3-year period to develop improved performance measures, encourage the use of those measures, and modify its own 

State reviews to see if these measures are adopted and utilized. 

NHTSA must act with a greater sense of urgency. While we support the actions planned by NHTSA, given the importance of this 

issue, NHTSA must work with its State partners more aggressively 

to accomplish these actions in advance of the 3-year period scheduled. 

Prompt action will provide more timely information on the degree to which States are using limited Federal resources to carry 

out the key strategies identified. Moreover, these steps will benefit 

State programs by providing data the States can use to promote 

best practices and identify and correct the challenges that States 

face in implementing laws designed to reduce alcohol-impaired 

driving. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scovel follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the effectiveness of 

Federal drunk driving programs. We are pleased to discuss our past and ongoing 

work in this important area. We recognize the Chairman’s long-standing role in 

passing significant legislation designed to reduce alcohol-impaired crashes and lessen the emotional toll and significant costs these tragic deaths cause to the victim’s 

families and the Nation as a whole. Our work has focused on ensuring the effective 

implementation of these laws—work that we believe complements the efforts of the 

Committee and of the other witnesses here today. 

The Department’s efforts to curb drunk driving are a key component in its overall 

work to reduce highway deaths. In 2006, over 42,500 highway traffic deaths occurred in the United States—the 17,602 alcohol-related highway traffic deaths accounted for about 41 percent of those reported fatalities. The number of alcohol-related fatalities essentially remained unchanged from the 17,590 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005. (A detailed breakout on alcohol-related fatalities by State through 

2006 is in the Appendix to this statement.) 

In addition to reducing the overall number of highway fatalities, a reduction in 

alcohol-related crashes would yield significant monetary savings, as the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that these crashes cost 
16 

1OIG Report Number MH–2007–036, ‘‘Audit of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Alcohol-Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Program,’’ March 5, 2007. OIG reports and testimonies can be found on our website: www.oig.dot.gov. 

the Nation over $100 billion annually. Figure 1 shows traffic fatality trends for all 

traffic deaths and for alcohol-related fatalities from 2000 through 2006. 

Recognizing the seriousness of this problem, the Administration and Congress 

have provided significant resources to counter alcohol-impaired driving. 

• We estimate that appropriations authorized by the 1998 Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (TEA—21) will result in states’ expending $1.1 billion in 

Federal resources provided through grants and fund transfers for alcohol-impaired 

driving programs. 

• Further significant resources were authorized in August 2005 by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU). Most notably, SAFETEA-LU increased funding for the grant program dedicated solely to reducing alcohol-impaired driving to $555 million and also 

increased funding for grants that are not dedicated solely to reducing alcohol-impaired driving but which can be used, in part, for these efforts. 

Ensuring the effective use of this funding requires good laws, well-run State traffic safety programs, and effective leadership from NHTSA. We realize that impaired 

driving is a complex problem, with no simple solution. Accordingly, our recent1 and 

ongoing work focused on providing NHTSA and the states with better tools (such 

as improved performance measures) with which to oversee and implement safety 

programs aimed at impaired driving. We believe that prompt implementation of our 

recommendations by NHTSA and its State partners will help ensure that key strategies for countering alcohol-impaired driving are more effectively carried out. 

My statement today concentrates on three areas: 

First, key strategies identified for countering alcohol-impaired driving. Our work 

found significant agreement across State and Federal jurisdictions on what strategies are most promising. State and Federal officials identified sustained enforcement 

of existing laws and effective prosecution and full application of available sanctions 

as key strategies of a successful program for countering alcohol-impaired driving. 

States identified a number of best practices for carrying out these strategies, including using fines to support enforcement efforts and streamlining the grant process 

for local communities. On the other hand, states identified individual challenges 

with fully implementing these strategies, such as lengthy arrest procedures and 

state-specific restrictions on sobriety checkpoints. NHTSA has published and pro-
17 

2California, Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Texas, 

and South Carolina were selected for review based on 2003 data. 3Saturation patrols are coordinated law enforcement efforts in locations known to have high 

concentrations of alcohol-related arrests, crashes, injuries, or fatalities. 

vided to the states guidelines on carrying out key strategies for countering impaired 

driving; but better tools are needed to more effectively implement these strategies. 

Second, effectively implementing key strategies with better performance measures. NHTSA could better measure the effectiveness of key strategies if states included in their annual plans and reports more meaningful performance measures. 

For example, State officials and NHTSA agreed on the use of sustained enforcement—a strategy involving regular enforcement events, such as sobriety checkpoints 

or saturation patrols in high-risk areas. However, State plans and reports did not 

always detail the measures and data needed to assess the implementation of this 

strategy. As a result, the degree of progress, or lack of progress, this key strategy 

was having on the state’s drunk-driving problem could not be determined. 

Third, specific actions NHTSA needs to take, in concert with the states, to improve performance measures. Federal regulations place responsibility on each State 

to develop performance measures that are tailored to its specific safety challenges. 

Thus, NHTSA cannot mandate those performance measures. However, NHTSA can 

exercise its leadership with states and other key stakeholders, such as the Governors Highway Safety Association, to improve performance measures for alcoholimpaired driving and other traffic safety areas. 

As a result of our audit work regarding alcohol-impaired driving, NHTSA has 

agreed to take a number of specific actions. These include working with the states 

to develop improved performance measures that communicate the degree to which 

key strategies are being implemented. NHTSA also agreed to encourage states to 

use this guidance; and it has committed to overseeing the degree to which these 

measures are adopted and used. Our ongoing work also shows the potential for improving performance measures for all traffic safety programs that NHTSA is responsible for, such as improving motorcycle safety. 

We believe that the states and NHTSA’s actions, if carried out, would provide 

states with better tools to judge their performance and would allow NHTSA to make 

valid comparisons across states. These actions would also enhance public accountability for programs to counter alcohol-impaired driving and other traffic safety 

problems by providing stakeholders with the information on the degree to which 

states are carrying out key strategies as they expend resources provided by Congress. 

The balance of my statement provides further details on these three areas. 

KEY STRATEGIES IDENTIFIED FOR COUNTERING

ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING

Our March 2007 audit reported on 10 state2 programs implemented to counter alcohol-impaired driving under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(fiscal years 1998 through 2005). Our work did not assess the impact that laws or 

sanctions had on the states. Rather, we concentrated on what the states had done 

to implement their programs. 

State officials attributed the success of their alcohol-impaired driving programs to 

a number of factors, but two key strategies emerged as prevalent: (1) sustained enforcement of laws and (2) effective prosecution with full application of available 

sanctions. Other prevalent strategies we identified addressed educational and medical aspects. 

A sustained enforcement strategy focuses on high police visibility through sobriety 

checkpoints or saturation patrols3 and media efforts to raise public awareness. We 

were not able to make valid comparisons across states on the implementation of this 

strategy because the performance data were not available. However, we did note an 

array of best practices for achieving a sustained enforcement strategy in all states. 

For example, enforcement programs were provided steady funding, local community 

needs were addressed, and arrest procedures were streamlined. To illustrate this, 

presented in table 1 are examples of best practices reported in five states with low 

alcohol-fatality rates visited during our review. 
18 

Our work also highlighted the fact that more needs to be done to improve the use 

of a sustained enforcement strategy. As demonstrated in table 2, states we reviewed 

reported challenges in carrying out the strategy. Specifically, some states reported 

their inability to fund all requests for police patrols, which either produced gaps in 

enforcement or decreased the states’ ability to target areas with a higher incidence 

of alcohol-impaired driving. Some states also noted lengthy arrest procedures that 

increased the cost of making arrests, decreased the number of offenders arrested 

during peak alcohol-impaired driving periods, and acted as a disincentive for police 

to make arrests. 
19 

4According to NHTSA, one aspect of effective prosecution depends on the involvement of welltrained police officers and effective prosecutors. Another aspect is the application of sanctions 

as determined by an adjudicating official. 5According to NHTSA, medical strategies include medical screening, which consists of a primary or emergency room physician conducting short interviews with patients to screen for alcohol problems and to discuss the adverse effects of alcohol abuse and possible treatments. One 

State reported that it was actively exploring the implementation of medical screening in emergency rooms. Additional medical strategies advocated by NHTSA included offender treatment 

and rehabilitation. 

In the other key strategy, ensuring that offenders were convicted and sanctions 

were applied,4 all states we reviewed reported challenges. Some officials perceived 

that ineffective prosecution and the states’ failure to apply sanctions against those 

convicted of alcohol-impaired driving were weakening deterrent effects. For example: 

• A safety official expressed concern that judges imposed court supervision 

against guilty parties instead of fines or penalties. 

• Officials reported difficulty in preventing individuals from driving with a revoked or suspended license and in identifying repeat offenders. 

To address these challenges, some states trained prosecutors and educated judges 

regarding applicable laws; tried cases in courts specializing in alcohol-impaired driving; and established a prosecutor liaison responsible for addressing questions on the 

enforcement strategy from prosecutors throughout the state. 

The states we reviewed also applied educational and medical strategies.5 However, in contrast to the key strategies of sustained enforcement of laws and effective 

prosecution with full application of sanctions, the states reported on these strategies 

less frequently. In the area of educational initiatives, each State provided some form 

of educational program on alcohol abuse at elementary schools, secondary schools, 

and colleges. 

The medium through which schools implemented the strategy varied not only by 

state, but also by schools in a particular state. For example, states provided education material in public forums and in schools; used police officers to make presentations to elementary and secondary school students; held mock alcohol-impaired 

driving trials at schools or had students witness actual court proceedings; had convicted offenders, victims of alcohol crashes, or surviving family members of crash 

victims address students; and conducted information sessions on college campuses. 

Finally, our audit noted that officials in all states reviewed reported that the resources provided under TEA–21 had benefited their efforts. States used this money 

on activities such as providing overtime pay for police to carry out enforcement efforts. 
20 

6Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1200. 

EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTING KEY STRATEGIES WITH

BETTER PERFORMANCE MEASURES

In 2006, the overall rate of highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled declined slightly to 1.42, while the fatality rate for alcohol-related crashes with 

the highest blood alcohol concentration (.08 or above) remained flat. The Department’s goal is to reach an overall highway fatality rate of 1.0 by 2011. As shown 

in figure 2, the Department needs to move quickly and effectively if it is to reach 

its goal by 2011. No appreciable improvement in reaching the Department’s goal of 

reducing overall fatalities can occur unless alcohol-related fatalities also drop. 

Better performance measures addressing the key strategies identified would help 

target resources to the areas most likely to lead to future reductions in alcohol-related traffic fatalities. States are required6 to include performance measures in their 

annual reports and evaluations on traffic safety initiatives funded through Federal 

resources. Accordingly, it is the states’ responsibility to develop the specific measures. Our work has found that the states’ plans and reports do not include measures 

showing the degree to which they carry out key strategies for countering alcoholimpaired driving. NHTSA should prompt the states to include in their annual plans 

and reports more meaningful performance measures. 

For example, the Highway Safety Plans and Annual Evaluation Reports for the 

10 states we reviewed did not include a measure addressing the degree to which 

the states had carried out sustained enforcement. NHTSA defined this strategy as 

a sobriety checkpoint or a saturation patrol, conducted weekly in areas of the State 

where 60 percent or more of fatalities occur. It will be particularly important for 

NHTSA to verify states’ performance regarding sustained enforcement because 

SAFETEA-LU requires states to provide assurances that they will support sustained 

enforcement of impaired driving laws as a condition for receiving certain highway 

traffic safety grants. 

Regarding effective prosecution, neither NHTSA nor 9 of the 10 states we reviewed had established a specific gauge to measure the states’ success. The one 

state, South Carolina, did include a performance-related measurement in the form 

of a conviction rate under grants designed to increase the number of successful convictions. 

Table 3 illustrates the potential benefits of improved performance measures addressing the key strategies identified by State and Federal officials and includes elements of the sustained enforcement definition NHTSA has set forth. 
21 

Our ongoing work on NHTSA’s oversight of State highway safety programs has 

also identified areas for improvement in performance measures, such as a mismatch 

between performance measures used in the State plans and those in the annual reports. For example, one state’s performance plan measured the number of alcoholrelated fatal crashes but its annual performance report measured the alcohol-impaired driving rate. This makes it difficult to determine whether the State had 

made progress in reaching its goal. 

The need for improving performance measures in other traffic safety programs 

was also found. For example, one state’s performance plan did not include a measure for reducing the number of motorcycle fatalities. The state’s annual report identified a general measure for reducing motorcycle fatalities but the measure did not 

identify a specific target. This is an important area given that the number of motorcycle deaths increased nationwide by 5.1 percent in 2006. 

While we recognize the autonomy granted to states to formulate performance 

measures and plans tailored to their specific needs, NHTSA’s leadership in promoting the establishment and consistent use of improved performance measures 

would allow the states and NHTSA to better determine the effectiveness of key 

strategies. This in turn would give both the impetus to adjust programs and the application of resources as necessary. 

SPECIFIC ACTIONS FOR NHTSA TO TAKE, IN CONCERT WITH THE

STATES, TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

In responding to our March 2007 audit, NHTSA agreed to take a number of steps 

that would provide better tools for assessing the degree to which states are carrying 

out key strategies to combat alcohol-impaired driving. We would encourage the 

timely completion of these actions in advance of NHTSA’s proposed 3-year time period. 

NHTSA noted that carrying out our recommendations would allow it and the 

states to better determine the effectiveness of key strategies and adjust the states’ 

Highway Safety Plans as necessary. NHTSA officials also noted challenges posed, 

such as states experiencing difficulties with consistently collecting the needed data. 

Despite these challenges, NHTSA agreed to take the lead in working with states 

and other key stake holders, such as the Governors Highway Safety Association, to 

improve performance measures for alcohol-impaired driving. Specifically, it agreed 

to: 
22 

• Work in coordination with the states to develop performance measures to use 

in carrying out the key strategies identified for countering alcohol-impaired driving. 

NHTSA committed to initiating this work in 2007 and completing it by 2009. 

• Provide the recommended measures to the states by March 2010. 

• Modify the checklists its regional staff used when reviewing State safety plans 

and reports, to include checks on the use of and reporting on the performance measures. All this would be accomplished after NHTSA develops the recommended measures. 

NHTSA must act with a greater sense of urgency. While we support the actions 

planned by NHTSA, given the importance of the issue, NHTSA should work with 

its State partners more aggressively to accomplish these actions in advance of the 

3-year time period scheduled. Prompt action will provide more timely information 

on the degree to which states are using limited Federal resources to carry out the 

key strategies identified. Moreover, these steps would benefit State programs by 

providing data the states can use to promote best practices, and identify and correct 

the challenges states face in implementing laws designed to reduce alcohol-impaired 

driving. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to address any 

questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee might have. 
23 
24 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, sir. 

Senator Vitter, would you like to make an opening statement? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will make a brief 

one. 

Certainly, I applaud us having this hearing. It is a very, very important topic. We made significant strides at reducing drunk driving and drunk driving fatalities with changes the legal drinking 

age, but we have sort of hit a plateau, largely, since then. 

As with a lot of problems, the work gets tougher the further 

along the curve you go. And so I think we need to re-group, which 

we are doing here, and your work is doing, to figure out those 

somewhat more subtle or complicated ways to bust through that 

plateau and go even lower in terms of reductions. 

It is still a problem in my State, where 475 people lost their lives 

last year to drunk driving. I think we are doing some things right 

in my State, and I am encouraged by that, like the fact that we 

recently passed ignition interlock legislation for the first time, but 

we have other work we have to do. Certainly, get rid of the open 

container law which allows for open containers. 

So I am very interested to hear all of your thoughts about how 

we do this in a partnership with States and others, and what specifically the best, most productive Federal role is. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

I just want to hone in on the Inspector General’s points. I just 

want to compliment you, sir, because you are very direct and sometimes we don’t get that, so I really appreciate it. 

And so I guess I need to talk with the NHTSA representative 

and ask you this. You, from the tone of your voice, I know care 

about this a lot. The Inspector General is saying we need to really 

move. It seems to me, as we lay out the facts, let’s just say, leave 

the emotion aside for a minute, and just look at what this is costing us and the fact that some States appear to be doing better than 

others. Is that right, Mr. Rosenker? Is it true? 

Mr. ROSENKER. We have an 11 point program that we actually 

assess. 

Senator BOXER. It is the model program. 

Mr. ROSENKER. At this point, again California is one of those 

States that has completed a significant number of elements. There 

are only five States. Senator Vitter is getting close to it. Eight out 

of 11 gets close. Right now, the Senator’s State in Louisiana has 

seven of those elements. 

But a significant amount of work needs to be done at the State 

level if we are going to get the results we are looking for. 

Senator BOXER. Well, knowing the bipartisan support we have 

here for the adoption of that type of program, I am just going to 

recommend something and you can think about it. It seems to me 

that, and maybe you have already done this, but we ought to have 

a summit here that NHTSA could call, where Members of Congress 

such as Senator Lautenberg, who has taken such a lead on this, 

and others across party lines would come and present. It seems to 
25 

me this is such an obvious plus if all the States were to enact this 

model program. 

So I wonder if you would consider working with us on such a 

summit, where we really highlight this. Because the problem is, if 

it wasn’t for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, people would just 

turn away. It is such a horrible thing to look at, what happens to 

families. And it is such a statement of the failure of our society. 

We all feel like we failed. 

Look what we have done here. We have changed our laws. We 

have made our funds contingent upon States doing certain things. 

And even with that, as you point out, we have stalled out since the 

1980’s. And it is costing us over $100 billion a year. We can’t afford 

that, not to mention the tragedies that befall families. 

So I wonder if you have thought about doing some kind of a high 

profile, ask the President to come, the First Lady to come. We 

would have just all of us working together because there are a lot 

of issues we don’t work together on. This is one we could. 

Mr. ROSENKER. Madam Chair, we would be delighted to be a 

partner in such a program. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, let’s talk afterwards. Let’s work together. That would be great. 

Any questions, Senator? 

Senator VITTER. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I take it from everything I have read that two key problems, not 

the only ones, but two problems near the top of the list are underage drinking still, and very, very drunk drivers. You know, folks 

who are just not near the limit, but way over the limit. 

Is it correct that those are two key problems? And what specifically should we doing to focus on those in partnership with States? 

Mr. BARRETT. Senator, I would be glad to address it from the Department of Transportation. I would agree with you. Those are two 

significant problems. To address the Chairman’s point there, too, 

Nicole Nason, the NHTSA Administrator recently did convene a 

summit which was more focused than the one you are speaking of 

here on ignition interlocks. The emphasis of that meeting was, trying to get the criminal justice prosecutors, law enforcement in the 

States to focus on more effective use of that technology, which we 

believe is a deterrent and also a means of preventing recidivism. 

When installed on an offender’s vehicle, ignition interlocks have 

been proven to reduce recidivism by as much as two thirds. 

Recently, Louisiana, New Mexico, Illinois and Arizona have acted 

to make more aggressive use of interlock devices by enacting legislation requiring there use by first time DWI offenders. Also, we 

have joined with MADD on a campaign to eliminate drunk driving, 

which has among its areas of focus expanding the use of that technology. 

We think that gets at the higher BAC offender, and Senator, you 

are absolutely right. If you look at drunk driving arrests and convictions, the median, this is the median, half above, half below, of 

the BAC where you have a .08 as the standard in all the States, 

is .15. So it is way up at the high end where we are seeing this 

problem. We have to get at what the NTSB Chair calls hardcore 

drunk driving. 
26 

We would frankly like to see more aggressive use of the interlock 

technology in States. They are trying to bring that forward to first 

offenders. We think it is effective. We think it has a deterrent effect and we certainly would encourage its use. We also support retaining the 21 minimum drinking age to prohibit underage drinking. 

Senator VITTER. Any other reactions to those two problems in 

particular? 

Mr. ROSENKER. Clearly, there is an issue now that we are very 

concerned about, and that is the issue to try to, believe it or not, 

bring the age from 21 down to 18. There is a lot of publicity about 

it. We believe it would bring back carnage on the highway like we 

saw back in the 1970’s. When the 26th Amendment passed and 

States began to actually change their laws, what we saw was a 10 

percent increase over those few years when in fact as many as 43 

States changed their laws. There were only seven that kept the 21 

law age limit. And we saw significant increases in the carnage and 

fatalities because of the lower age limit. 

When they brought that age limit back to 21, we saw the reduction by 16 percent. We know that in fact these laws work. Despite 

the fact we have 21 age limit laws, a significant number of the fatalities that we see on our highways are teenage drivers that in 

fact have some form of alcohol in their bloodstream. And recognize 

that 6 percent of the driving public is between 15 and 20. They represent as drivers a little more than 12 percent of the fatalities, and 

as an age group, 20 percent of the fatalities. 

Mix that with alcohol and we are going to increase those numbers significantly. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Senator, if I may? To comment on the renewed 

movement to lower the drinking age. My office has not performed 

studies of that specific proposal so we don’t have data of our own 

on which to rely. However, we have reviewed reports from NHTSA 

and also from the Centers for Disease Control that have pointed 

out significant benefits, as the other witnesses today have mentioned, to the fact that when the drinking age was raised, highway 

traffic deaths among that section of the population were significantly lowered. 

We think the burden of proof is heavily on those who would advocate a change to the status quo to make clear why it is now necessary. In our view, we haven’t seen compelling evidence to make 

that case. 

One other point, sir. Our March 2007 project focused on 

NHTSA’s ability to oversee and to implement the key strategies 

that both Federal officials and State officials have identified as the 

best ones for implementing Federal drunk driving programs. That 

is, sustained enforcement of existing laws and effective prosecution 

and maximum use of available sanctions. 

We know that NHTSA currently doesn’t have statutory authority 

to mandate performance measures on the States, and that raises 

complex policy questions, we realize, that are properly the purview 

of the Administration and of the Congress. 

But we do believe that NHTSA has the ability to take a leadership role and on a collaborative basis to work with the States and 

its key stakeholders, like the Governors Highway Safety Associa-
27 

tion to establish those performance measures that will allow both 

NHTSA and the States to measure the effectiveness of programs to 

carry out the strategies and to target Federal resources on those 

that have been proven most successful. 

NHTSA has promised a 3-year timetable to move forward on a 

couple of key initiatives. Today in our statement, we have urged 

them to advance that timetable, and in view of the high stakes involved here, we think that would be most prudent. 

Senator VITTER. Just to follow up on the drinking age issue, to 

sort of summarize, isn’t it fair to say, if you look at the whole history of the drunk driving issue and all sorts of changes and legislation that has happened in one direction or another, the single biggest game by far, or loss when it happened in the other direction, 

in terms of the problem, has been associated with that drinking 

age. Isn’t that fair to say, really without a close second in terms 

of identifiable factors? 

Mr. BARRETT. Senator, I don’t know if it is the greatest, but 

clearly it had a substantial impact in the years following its passage across the Country. The involvement dropped from approximately 60 percent of all fatal crashes down to the 40 percent range 

we are talking about. So it is enormously significant. 

I also will offer, everybody has personal observations on this. 

Madam Chairman, if you give me leave, I would like to offer one 

on this particular issue. 

I hear this bandied about that, if you are old enough to fight for 

your Country, you are old enough to have a beer kind of deal. I 

have a son who I am very proud of who served in combat recently 

who was under 21 when he served in combat. And yet at the same 

time, as a parent, and I won’t speak for my son, I was very pleased 

that the drinking age when he returned was still 21. I don’t think 

it is the same type of maturity we are talking about, to be able to 

handle essentially what is a drug ingested into your system, with 

the maturity associated with other high stress activities. 

So I just think I want to offer that as a parent. I think the 21 

age is essential. That is certainly the Department’s position and we 

would not like to see any back pedaling on that. 

Mr. ROSENKER. Right. If I could follow up with Admiral Barrett’s 

comments, the statistics are there over the history of this issue. If 

we take a look at Virginia, for example, when they changed their 

law in 1974, there were 1,900 alcohol-related accidents. When they 

changed their law and dropped it to the age of 18 in 1979, 4,900 

accidents occurred with teenagers with alcohol in their systems. 

The facts are clear. They encourage the additional activity that 

enables them to have these kinds of accidents when you have this 

kind of drug in their bloodstream. It is that simple. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much to our first panel. 

I would just say in closing out this part, we want to be helpful. 

We need to be a team on this. There are lots of issues out there 

where we don’t see eye to eye. We see eye to eye on this one and 

there is no reason that we cannot move strongly. 

When the Inspector General says we need a greater sense of urgency, and I know we all have so much on our plate and there are 

so many issues. I would take those words very seriously. I think 
28 

a lot of these things are trends. We can step up to the plate and 

keep reiterating how we feel about this. 

Admiral, I think your personal story that you shared with us is 

very meaningful. I just want to thank you for your service, for your 

son’s service, and to say that you make a very important point because even when you think about the message we are sending our 

kids, that if they are in harm’s way in combat and to ease the fear 

and ease the pain, they can turn to a drug like alcohol, it is going 

to hurt them. It is going to hurt the military. It is going to hurt 

everything. So I think you make a very important point. 

This is an area where you almost want to shake America by the 

shoulders and say, wake up. Think of the torture we could save. 

That is not a good word. Think of the grieving we could prevent 

if we just understood this situation. 

Now, I think that Senator Vitter is right to harp on the young 

driver, because the younger you are, the less likely you are to think 

anything can happen to you, you are infallible. We all know that. 

We remember back when we were young. People talked about 

death and we didn’t really get it until we were a lot older. And this 

becomes a particular challenge, but on the bright side, we know 

how to reach young people with messages. We know how to reach 

them. We know the stations that they listen to on the radio, what 

they watch on TV. We know when they are a captive audience. We 

even know what websites they go on. 

So I think this chance of developing a message that is aimed at 

the young people, and I know you do some of that, I think maybe 

we really do need to sit around in a summit that is a very broad 

one, and have breakout sessions and have people from the best advertising companies sit with us for free and give us their advice on 

how do we grasp the attention. Not everything has to have a dollar 

associated with it. 

So again, I get back to that point. Mr. Rosenker, I really look forward to working with you, and with you, Admiral, and the Inspector General and with Senator Vitter, and let’s move forward on 

this. 

I thank you very much for your testimony. 

Our second panel is Hon. Michael Fields, Judge, Harris County 

Criminal Court of Law, Number 14, State of Texas; Mr. John 

Wheeler, Governor’s Crime Advisor, Department of Public Safety, 

State of New Mexico; and Mr. Glynn Birch, National President, 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 

We welcome you all here. 

We will begin with Hon. Michael Fields, Judge, Harris County 

Criminal Court of Law. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. FIELDS, JUDGE, HARRIS 

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT OF LAW, NUMBER 14, STATE OF 

TEXAS 

Judge FIELDS. Good morning, Senator Boxer. Thank you. In light 

of what devastation is going on in your State, I particularly appreciate your being here today. 

Ranking Member Vitter and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for having us here today, and thank you for 

inviting me to appear before you today. 
29 

It is an honor to be here, and I am especially pleased that as a 

member of the judiciary I have been allowed the opportunity to 

participate in this very important issue. 

Senator Boxer, you are correct. We do see eye to eye on this 

issue. No member of the community and no member of the judiciary wants to see anyone’s loved one lost to the tragedies of drunk 

driving. 

I want to commend the U.S. Congress for its leadership in the 

fight to eliminate the threat of drunk driving. In particular, the resources that you have provided to the States has helped communities across this Country. As you well know, each year in this 

country 13,000 people, some say more than 17,000, are killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes where the driver’s blood alcohol content is .08 or greater. 

The crash data reveals some very interesting points. The first 

being that over the last 10 years, the decline in these tragedies has 

flat-lined. The question becomes, why is that? The second is that 

drunk drivers, particularly hardcore drunk drivers, are those who 

drive with high BACs, .15 or greater, and repeat offenders who are 

resistant to changing their illegal behavior, require special adjudication strategies if further declines are to occur. 

The judiciary, in my opinion, plays a pivotal role in that effort 

to reduce and ultimately eliminate drunk driving. In order for all 

of the laws and strategies that we have heard about here this 

morning to work, judges must be a part of the process on how to 

effectively implement those laws. They must be consulted on how 

it is that the laws as they are written, although well intentioned, 

can often result in conflicting results. 

These cases, especially dealing with hardcore drunk drivers, are 

often very complex and as such judges need to be able to exercise 

discretion in sentencing so that the sentences can be tailored to individual offenders. To accomplish that, we have to realize that one 

goal, one cookie cutter size, does not fit all. 

My experience tells me that there are certain strategies that 

have been proven to work. In Harris County, we use a combination 

of efficient docketing strategies of cases, using effective sanction 

strategies, and a combination of time management, technology in 

position, and treatment to eliminate the threat of hardcore drunk 

driving. 

Evidence suggests that the sooner a person who meets the criteria of a hardcore drunk driver is identified, the sooner and more 

likely that they can begin the process of rehabilitation and reduce 

the likelihood of re-offending. 

A combination of effective adjudication, pretrial service strategies, in concert with judicial leadership holds the greatest potential 

for reducing drunk driving and the tragedies that occur as a result. 

That is why for the last 4 years, I have been involved in an exciting 

educational project, along with the National Association of State 

Judicial Educators, the Century Council and other judges from 

around the Country, that has so far touched nearly 4,000 judges in 

more than two thirds of the United States. 

We educate judges on leadership principles and how those principles can guide sentencing strategies in making a difference. Some 

of those are: recognizing high BAC as a sign of a hardcore drunk 
30 

driver; pretrial supervision strategies; drug and alcohol evaluations 

and assessments; intensive monitoring and supervision during probation; staggered sentencing, as Senator Klobuchar said happen in 

her State; the use of vehicle sanctions, including interlocks; home 

confinement; dedicated detention facilities; and other measures. 

Senator Klobuchar said, and I agree, that our mothers, fathers, 

sisters and brothers are being killed. But they are also the ones 

who are doing the killing. We have to do more to help those people 

out of their addictive behavior and out of those killing situations. 

Thank you for having me. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Fields follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. FIELDS, PRESIDING JUDGE HARRIS COUNTY

CRIMINAL COURT OF LAW, NUMBER 14, STATE OF TEXAS

Good morning Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter and other members 

of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the 

issue of drunk driving prevention. It is an honor to be here. 

I want to thank the U.S. Senate for including State incentives for judicial education efforts and DWI courts in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU bill. I also want to commend your commitment to fully fund U.S. Department of Justice efforts to expand 

DWI courts across the Nation. Your congressional leadership will foster the development and adoption of programs that show great promise in addressing this complex 

issue. 

Each year more than 13,000 people in this country are killed in alcohol-related 

traffic crashes involving a driver or motorcycle operator with an illegal blood alcohol 

concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher. The majority of these deaths are caused by 

hardcore drunk drivers, those who drive at high BAC levels (.15 and above) and repeat offenders. Over the last 10 years, progress in reducing alcohol-related traffic 

fatalities has generally remained unchanged and the percentage of fatalities involving hardcore drunk drivers has not decreased. 

The judiciary plays a pivotal role in the effort to reduce drunk driving. Of all 

types of criminal cases, drunk driving cases are among the most complicated in 

terms of legal and evidentiary issues, and hardcore drunk driving cases are often 

especially challenging. Judges need judicial discretion in order to effectively deal 

with these offenders who vary greatly in their response to specific deterrent efforts. 

In order to adequately address the individual needs of drunk driving suspects and 

convicted offenders, judges require greater flexibility in sentencing options. This is 

especially true as it concerns the hardcore offenders. Research has shown that alternative sentencing methods, tailored to each offender, such as staggered sentencing, 

the imposition of ignition interlock devices as well as other forms of technology 

geared at stopping the addictive behavior commonly associated with hard core 

drunk drivers can have a profound effect on an offender’s ability to avoid re-offending. In contrast, drunk driving sentences that do not take past criminal history and 

habits into consideration may actually contribute to recidivism. The judicial system 

can produce a significant social impact with a thoughtful, individualized combination of sanctions that force a hardcore drunk driver to change his or her behavior 

or face additional consequences. As important as judicial discretion and sentencing 

alternatives are, they alone will not change the landscape in the field of hardcore 

drunk driving. Judges must ‘‘take the reigns’’ so to speak, and adopt a greater leadership role in the effort to combat hardcore drunk driving. 

For the last 4 years I have been working with organizations such as the National 

Association of State Judicial Educators, The Century Council as well as judges and 

judicial educators from across the Nation on an exciting judicial education project. 

To date, more than 4,000 judges in nearly two-thirds of the United States have received this invaluable leadership training and the companion Hardcore Drunk Driver Judicial Resource Guide. However, there’s still more to do. Educating judges on 

the issues surrounding hardcore drunk driving as well as teaching strategies to effectively reduce all drunk driving, is critical to stemming the tide of drunk driving 

deaths. The Hardcore Drunk Driver Judicial Guide’s goal is to educate judges on 

the need for comprehensive sentencing that not only punishes the criminal behavior 

of driving while intoxicated but also changes the addictive behavior associated with 

drunk driving by rehabilitating offenders, thus reducing recidivism rates. 

From the moment a person who research suggests may be a hardcore drunk driver first appears before a Judge or Magistrate to the time of final conviction and sen-
31 

tencing, the criminal justice system must immediately begin to assess and address 

the reason(s) for the offender’s behavior and work to reduce future occurrences. Unfortunately, at times inadequate funding and resources, a lack of judicial leadership 

or other breakdowns in the system thwart that opportunity. That is why, in Harris 

County, we strive to avoid such system failures by utilizing efficient docketing of 

cases, coupled with the logical use of both technology and treatment in an effort to 

stop drunk driving. Evidence, both anecdotal and real, suggests that the sooner a 

person identified as a hardcore drunk driver begins the process of rehabilitation, the 

greater the likelihood that they will not re-offend in the future. 

As a result of my judicial training experience coupled with my own personal experiences, I believe the following strategies are effective as it relates to changing an 

offender’s behavior and reducing recidivism: 

Increased resources for judicial training and for developing effective judicial strategies such as DWI Courts, DWI tracking systems, supervised probation and treatment programs that increase sentence compliance; 

Legislative recognition that high BAC levels of .15 percent and above are an indicator of a hardcore drunk driver. (The fatality risk posed by drivers at .15 BAC levels is more than 300 times that of a sober driver. Currently, these drivers are involved in 58 percent of all alcohol-related traffic fatalities); 

Greater compliance monitoring and increased penalty options for non-compliant 

offenders (Studies show that hardcore drunk drivers often fail to comply with their 

sentences because they know it is unlikely they will be caught, making the conviction meaningless and increasing recidivism); 

Utilization of pre-trial supervision programs for repeat offenders and first offenders who identify as potential hardcore drunk drivers so they can obtain counseling, 

treatment and monitoring as soon as possible following a DWI arrest. (A long-term 

analysis of Wisconsin’s pretrial intervention program shows participants were less 

likely to be re-arrested for drunk driving); 

Employment of pre-sentence investigations or interviews with drunk driving offenders in order to track and review the offender’s record, any previous sanctions 

imposed, and compliance history (This will further enable judges to choose sanctions 

that will help protect the public while punishing and rehabilitating the offender); 

Mandate an alcohol assessment for all hardcore offenders so that alcohol addiction 

can be identified and appropriate treatment and aftercare can be administered. 

(While sanctions that merely punish drunk-driving offenders can serve as necessary 

and useful tools, they are meaningless unless accompanied by rehabilitation efforts 

that deal with long-term lifestyle changes. Otherwise, recidivism will always be a 

looming issue); 

Utilize intensive monitoring, supervision and probation during the drunk driving 

offender’s rehabilitation program to increase the chances of sentence completion 

(This is another promising strategy shown to reduce drunk driving); 

Consider staggered sentencing with intensive probation. (This concept is being implemented in Minnesota and staggers the repeat offender’s jail sentence into three 

periods with probation between each period. Offenders serve the first period of incarceration but the remaining periods can be suspended if the offender succeeds in 

meeting rehabilitation criteria. A 2003 preliminary analysis by the Minnesota House 

of Representatives found a 50 percent reduction in DWI recidivism through this program); 

Judicial intervention in the plea bargaining process so as to insure effective sentencing of drunk driving offenders; 

Restrict diversion programs in order to prevent repeat offenders from being mistakenly identified as first offenders. 

Increase measures to reduce failures to appear at hearings. (Criminal defendants 

should not be allowed to flee the jurisdiction of the Courts without appropriate repercussions.) 

Preventing convicted drunk drivers from re-offending through the use of vehicle 

sanctions such as impoundment, immobilization and ignition interlocks while they 

are serving probation. Vehicle sanctions should be applied in tandem with alcohol 

assessment and treatment as required. Otherwise, the offender will likely resume 

his or her drunk driving behavior once the vehicle sanction is removed. Ideally, the 

judge should determine the amount of time a vehicle sanction remains in place 

based on the offender’s progress in alcohol education or treatment. 

Use of home confinement with electronic monitoring in tandem with other interventions such as treatment as an alternative to jail. (Numerous studies have found 

home confinement to be effective in reducing DWI recidivism); 

Utilize dedicated DWI detention facilities that combine confinement with supervised alcohol treatment services. (In Suffolk County, New York repeat DWI offenders are allowed to choose between 2–3 years in the State penitentiary or 6 months 
32 

in the County DWI jail followed by a 5-year intensive probation program. If they 

violate the terms of their sentence or probation, they must return to the State penitentiary to serve their full sentence); 

In conclusion, drunk driving—particularly hardcore drunk driving—is a very complex problem that requires comprehensive solutions. A series of mutually reinforcing 

interventions tailored to individual offenders will undoubtedly lead to behavioral 

change and reduce drunk driving recidivism. Focusing on the complexities and challenges that exist in the judicial system with regard to drunk driving should be a 

top priority. Many times, these challenges cannot solely be met through the passage 

of State legislation. It is essential that Federal and State laws aimed at reducing 

drunk driving carefully avoid prescriptive sanctions that limit judges from considering individual offender’s needs. 

Understanding the judicial system, increasing its resources and focusing on improvements in each State and locality are important steps in reducing drunk driving. In addition, understanding each DWI offender and building a set of individualized sanctions will rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism. In order to significantly impact the hardcore drunk driving problem, these actions are essential. In 

recent years, millions of Federal dollars have been allocated to highly visible enforcement efforts to identify suspected drunk drivers on our roads and several thousand laws have been passed to sanction convicted offenders, yet the drunk driving 

problem has remained largely unchanged. 

By expanding our focus to incorporate effective sentencing strategies, increased 

Judicial education efforts along with appropriate judicial leadership and discretion 

drunk driving and its related fatalities will be dramatically reduced. Thank you. 

RESPONSES BY HON. MICHAEL R. FIELDS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1. Recognizing that each drunk driving case is complex, requiring a combination of solutions tailored to the individual. Do you believe that Federal sentencing mandates, like the 1-year hard suspension, handicap your ability to adequately and effectively deal with drunk driving offenders? 

Response. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to supplement my earlier 

testimony. In response to your first question, while certain Federal sentencing mandates may not directly handicap a Judge’s ability to adequately and effectively deal 

with drunk driving offenders, the unintended consequences of those mandates often 

do. One such example is the Federal mandate that requires a 1-year ‘‘hard’’ suspension for Second offenders. The hard suspension requirement negates the ability of 

Judges to issue an occupational driver’s license during the suspension period to 

those offenders who wish to take probation. Consequently, defendants are unable to 

get to and from work in order to pay probation associated fines and fees. As a result, 

these offenders do not receive the treatment needed to end their alcohol or drug addiction. The unintended consequence is higher recidivism rates. Judges must be allowed to issue limited occupational licenses (with interlock requirements) to defendants who accept probation so they can continue to work, receive treatment and attend probation meetings. 

In my experience, most first or second drunk driving offenders who refuse probation end up doing minimal jail time with no treatment component attached. They 

then drive without a license (or insurance) during the post conviction suspension period to get to work. This often leads to additional charges being filed against the 

defendant for unlicensed driving, thereby creating a ‘‘revolving door’’ effect. 

Question 2. When we reauthorize SAFETEA what recommendations would you 

have to incorporate effective strategies to deal with repeat offenders? 

Response. One recommendation I would make is to require Judges to place interlock devices on defendant’s vehicles who are identified as potential hardcore drunk 

drivers (HCDD’s). Creating incentives for counties to build treatment facilities in addition to jails or at least requiring that a certain percentage of beds in jails be designated for alcohol and drug treatment purposes would also be helpful. Finally, providing Judicial education about the use of technology such as trans-dermal alcohol 

monitoring, Ignition Interlocks, electronic monitors and other DWI prevention strategies will assist in properly equipping Judges to effectively deal with these complex 

cases. Finally, Judges need the ability to implement post conviction treatment requirements for those defendants who choose to forgo probation. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Judge. 

And now we hear from John Wheeler, who is the Governor’s 

Crime Advisor, Department of Public Safety in the State of New 

Mexico. Welcome, sir. 
33 

STATEMENT OF JOHN WHEELER, GOVERNOR’S CRIME ADVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Vitter. On behalf of the State of New Mexico, Governor Richardson 

and our DWI Czar Rachel O’Connor, thank you for the opportunity 

to present testimony today. 

New Mexico has both a chronic problem with drunk driving and 

a long history of using innovative solutions to alleviate that problem. From 1979 through 1996, New Mexico led the Nation in drunk 

driving fatalities. In the early 1990’s, New Mexico had nearly 400 

alcohol-involved fatalities per year. In 2006, New Mexico had 191 

fatalities and preliminary statistics for 2007 indicate a third record 

low year. 

The Richardson Administration has instituted a number of progressive programmatic and policy changes, and I would like to talk 

about the programs that we feel work. 

In 2003, the Governor convened State agency representatives 

and advocates to develop a stateside DWI plan. Based on the recommendations in 2004, the Governor hired a DWI Czar, a cabinet 

level position, to plan and lead our efforts in DWI. IN 2005, based 

on NHTSA funding, we developed a leadership team to act as a single point of focus to address issues of policy and program change. 

New Mexico uses DWI checkpoints to reduce drunk driving and 

raise awareness of enforcement initiatives. In 2004, the State increased its number of super-blitzes, 2 week periods of very focused 

enforcement. The State uses Federal Section 164 and Section 410 

enforcement dollars to fund approximately 700 DWI checkpoints a 

year through the super-blitz and checkpoint program. 

New Mexico also receives funds from NHTSA’s 403 and Section 

164 programs to fund a pilot program with full-time DWI law enforcement officers in those counties in New Mexico where DWI is 

the deadliest. Enforcement efforts are accompanied by an extensive 

multimedia campaign entitled You drink, You drive, You lose, and 

outreach coordinators who help us get the message out. 

In 2006, the Department of Public Safety started the 

Drunkbuster hotline, a toll-free, 1–800 and three digit cell phone 

number to report drunk driving. In 2007 so far, Drunkbusters has 

received 11,000 calls. We believe it has resulted in 400 law enforcement contacts that may not otherwise have occurred. 

The State has also increased both the enforcement efforts and 

the penalties for bars and restaurants that chronically serve minors or individuals who are intoxicated. Both of these are funded 

by Section 164 dollars. 

In 2004, Governor Richardson spearheaded a task force to study 

and make recommendations regarding the use of ignition interlock 

as a tool to reduce recidivism and deter drunk driving in New Mexico. In 2005, the Governor signed the Ignition Interlock Act and 

New Mexico became the first State to mandate ignition interlock 

for all convicted DWI offenders, including first time offenders. 

Both nationally and in New Mexico, Native Americans die from 

alcohol-involved crashes at a rate up to five times that of non-Native Americans. In 2007, the Governor, by executive order, appointed a State-Tribal DWI Task Force to make recommendations 
34 

to reduce alcohol-involved fatalities on tribal and pueblo lands. The 

State has been proactive on this issue, developing the first television public service announcement that addresses drunk driving 

by Native Americans, and hiring a DWI coordinator to liaison between State, Federal and tribal individuals. 

I want to conclude by emphasizing several points. Using preliminary figures for 2007, we expect to experience an over 20 percent 

drop in alcohol-involved fatalities from 2005 to 2007, and an equal 

drop in alcohol-involved crashes and injury crashes. 

Second, we are grateful for the nearly $10 million in Federal 

funding we have received through NHTSA programs to help us in 

this effort. 

Finally, we believe it is not just one effort, but a combination of 

these programs and the programs that have been talked about here 

this morning that have led to the current trend, and New Mexico 

is committed to increasing the reduction in the future. 

Thank you for the opportunity and I would appreciate any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JOHN WHEELER, GOVERNOR’S CRIME ADVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is John Wheeler, Crime Advisor to Bill Richardson, Governor of the State of New Mexico. I am here to present 

information regarding our DWI programs on behalf of Governor Richardson and the 

State’s DWI Czar, Rachel O’Connor. It is a pleasure to be here today. 

New Mexico has both a chronic problem with drunk driving and a long history 

of utilizing creative and innovative solutions to solve it. From 1979 through 1996 

New Mexico led the Nation in drunken driving fatalities. In the early 1990’s New 

Mexico had nearly 400 alcohol involved fatalities per year. In 2006, New Mexico had 

191 fatalities and preliminary statistics for 2007 indicate a third consecutive year 

of record low numbers. 

The Richardson Administration has instituted a number of progressive programmatic and policy changes that have reduced alcohol involved fatalities in New 

Mexico. I would like to discuss programs that we believe have been effective: 

Leadership: In 2003 the Governor convened State agency representatives and advocates to develop a statewide strategic plan to reduce alcohol involved fatalities. 

Based on the recommendations of the planning team the Governor in 2004 hired a 

‘‘DWI Czar’’ a Cabinet level position charged with implementing the State Plan and 

leading our efforts on DWI. In 2005 as part of a National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) funded law enforcement effort the State also developed a 

‘‘Leadership Team’’ on DWI which includes representation from all State agencies, 

courts, and the advocacy community. The Leadership Team provides a single point 

of focus to discuss mutual issues and make recommendations regarding DWI program and policy issues. 

Enforcement and Public Awareness: New Mexico uses DWI checkpoints to reduce 

drunk driving and raise awareness of enforcement initiatives. In 2004 the State increased its number of ‘‘Superblitzes’’ which are 2 week periods that include a high 

concentration of checkpoints. The State uses Federal Section 164 and Section 410 

enforcement dollars to fund approximately 700 DWI checkpoints a year through its 

Superblitz and checkpoint program. 

The State of New Mexico also receives funds from NHTSA’s Section 403 and Section 164 programs to fund a pilot program with full time DWI law enforcement officers in those counties where DWI is the deadliest. Enforcement efforts are accompanied by an extensive multi-media campaign (funded by Section 164 and Section 

410) entitled ‘‘You Drink, You Drive, You Lose’’ and outreach coordinators who increase the visibility of law enforcement through non traditional media efforts. 

In 2006 the Department of Public Safety started the Drunkbuster Hotline, a toll 

free hotline to report drunk driving. In 2007 Drunkbusters has received over 11,000 

calls resulting in over 400 contacts with police that may not otherwise have occurred. The State has also increased both the enforcement efforts and the penalties 

for bars and restaurants that chronically serve minors or person who are intoxi-
35 

cated. Both of these projects are funded primarily by State dollars and are supplemented by Section164 dollars. 

Ignition Interlock: In 2004 Governor Bill Richardson spearheaded a Task Force 

to study and make recommendation regarding the use of Ignition Interlock as a tool 

to reduce recidivism and deter drunk driving in New Mexico. In 2005 the Governor 

signed the Ignition Interlock act, becoming the first State to mandate Ignition Interlocks for all convicted DWI offenders, including first time offenders. 

Native American: Both nationally and in New Mexico, Native Americans die from 

alcohol involved crashes at a rate of up to five times that of non-natives. In 2007 

the Governor by Executive Order appointed the State Tribal DWI Task Force to 

make recommendations to reduce alcohol involved fatalities on tribal lands. The 

State has been proactive in this issue, developing the first television public service 

announcement that addresses drunk driving among Native American tribes, and 

hiring a DWI Tribal Coordinator to liaison between the State and New Mexico tribes 

on issue related to enforcement, public policy, public awareness and data sharing. 

Both the Coordinator and the PSA were funded by Section 164 dollars. 

I want to conclude by emphasizing several points. Using preliminary figures for 

2007 we expect to experience an over 20 percent reduction in alcohol involved fatalities from 2005–2007; and an equal drop in alcohol involved crashes and injury 

crashes. Second, the State utilizes and is grateful for the nearly $10 million dollars 

per year in funding that we received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to implement many of these programs in our State. Finally, 

we believe it is not just one effort but a combination of the above described efforts 

that have led to our reduction. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir, very much. 

And now, Mr. Glynn R. Birch, National President, Mothers 

Against Drunk Driving. We welcome you here. 

STATEMENT OF GLYNN R. BIRCH, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING 

Mr. BIRCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member 

Vitter. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee 

on Effectiveness of the Federal Drunk Driving Programs. Madam 

Chairman, from your comments already, I want to thank you for 

your keen sense of understanding the problem and your leadership. 

I became involved with MADD after my son Courtney was killed 

by a drunk driver on May 3d, 1988. Courtney was playing with his 

two older cousins when he heard an ice cream truck in his grandmother’s neighborhood. Hearing the sound of the ice cream truck, 

Courtney followed his cousins outside. That is when the offender’s 

car came barreling down the street, hit Courtney going over 70 

miles per hour, dragged his body over 150 feet before the car finally stopped. My son was killed instantly by a three time repeat 

offender who had a BAC of .26. 

Madam Chairman, we need to be honest with ourselves. Most of 

the progress of drunk driving occurred in the mid–1990’s. While 

our efforts, along with those of MADD and other groups that have 

brought the drunk driving situation to be socially unacceptable, it 

is still tolerated. Data tells us that up to 75 percent of drunk drivers continue to drive, and even with their license being revoked. 

Statistics from May 2000 of the Columbus Dispatch article, it 

should alarm us all. It states, according to the story, that Ohio citizens share the road with 33,000 DUI offenders with five or more 

convictions. It is also startling that the on the road there are 

147,000 people with three or more convictions. 

Faced with this dilemma, MADD has looked carefully at the 

numbers. Now, MADD keeps in mind that if we continue to do the 
36 

same things, we shouldn’t expect a different outcome. Following 

only those solutions proven to work, last November MADD announced a campaign to eliminate drunk driving. Now, the four elements of the campaign are high visible law enforcement, mandate 

that interlocks be on all convicted drunk drivers, and voluntary development of advanced technology, and the last of the elements is 

the grassroots mobilization which MADD proudly does. I have also 

submitted testimony on record on this. 

But MADD believes that anyone who violates the public trust 

and drives drunk, 27 years after everyone knows the effects of 

drunk driving, has earned the right for an alcohol ignition lock device be placed on their device or his or her vehicle. The offender 

has to blow into the device before the car will start. They can do 

anything else that the rest of us can do, they just can’t drive 

drunk. 

Had an alcohol ignition interlock law been in place in my home 

State of Florida in 1988, my son Courtney would be here today 

alive, I believe. Last year, Senator Vitter, or just this year, three 

States joined New Mexico in passing legislation to require ignition 

interlocks on all first time DUI offenders, so I applaud your State 

for their efforts. These States mandated interlocks for those convicted at .08 BAC or higher. This is our highest legislative priority 

as far as MADD goes. 

MADD supports substantial Federal incentive grants for States 

that pass legislation requiring interlocks on all first time offenders 

with a BAC of at least .08. MADD also supports the consideration 

of soft sanctions for States that do not have interlock laws on 

drunk driving convictions of .15 and above and all repeat offenders. 

Again, we do not support hard sanctions for States on this measure 

because major progress is being made without that happening. 

We continue to support hard sanctions for States on laws where 

the scientific data is overwhelming, such as the 21 minimum drinking age, the national .08 BAC standard, and zero tolerance laws for 

underage drinkers. 

We also would request increased Federal funding to help with 

the cooperative research initiative between the automotive industry 

and the Federal Government to support technologies that may 

eventually prevent vehicles from being started by drunk drivers. 

So Madam Chairman, in closing, there are some who advocate 

lowering the drinking age to 18. I would like to submit for the 

record statements from the American Medical Association, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Insurance Institute of 

Highway Safety with regard to the science behind the law. There 

is no controversy in the science. The science supports the law. 

The bipartisan work that has taken place in the Senate and elsewhere have saved lives. Thanks to their efforts, 25,000 parents 

somewhere will know that the tragedy of their son or daughter, 

getting that call at 2 o’clock in the morning, won’t happen. I know 

this first hand and would like to make sure that it doesn’t happen 

to any other parent. 

MADD believes that the way to save lives and to move forward 

on drunk driving is through the support of the 21 laws, ignition 

interlock legislation for all convicted drunk drivers, and eventually 
37 

new technology that will 1 day not allow the car to start for drunk 

drivers. 

Since 1980, together we have made great progress, but it is still 

tolerated. Drunk driving is still tolerated. With interlocks, drunk 

driving is no longer tolerated. With advanced technology, it will be 

impossible. That is the march of MADD, and we invite the support 

of the Congress, the Administration and the American people. 

So I would like to end by saying I will be open for questions, but 

before I do that, Madam Boxer, I would like to acknowledge a 

MADD mom from your State of California. Mary Clarksburg is 

right behind me sitting. 

Senator BOXER. Welcome. 

Mr. BIRCH. Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Birch follows:] 

STATEMENT OF GLYNN R. BIRCH NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee on the 

effectiveness of Federal drunk driving programs. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to publicly thank you for your efforts to stop drunk driving. 

You have played a singular role in this fight and MADD sincerely appreciates your 

steadfast leadership. Extraordinary progress has been made to reduce drunk driving, with a 44 percent reduction in alcohol-related fatalities since 1980—the year 

MADD was founded. We would also like to thank law enforcement, prosecutors, 

NHTSA, State highway safety offices, and others for their leadership. Most especially we want to thank the American people, who demanded that progress be made. 

This has truly been a team effort. 

For more than 15 years, I have worked as a volunteer to try and advance MADD’s 

lifesaving mission at the local, state, and national levels. 

I became involved with MADD after my son, Courtney, was killed by a drunk 

driver on May 3, 1988. Courtney was playing with his two older cousins at his 

grandmother’s house. Hearing the music of an ice cream truck, Courtney followed 

his cousins outside. That’s when the offender’s car came barreling down the street 

and hit Courtney at 70-miles per hour, dragging his small body over 150 feet before 

the car stopped. My son was killed instantly by a three time repeat offender with 

a BAC of .26. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know this must not be tolerated. In the fight against drunk 

driving, however, we also have to be honest with ourselves. Most of the progress 

on drunk driving occurred by the mid 1990’s thanks to the 21 minimum drinking 

age, zero tolerance laws, the national .08 standard, administrative license revocation, and especially, tireless leadership by law enforcement. 

For the past 10 years, we have been able to maintain this progress, but have 

made no further gains. In 2006, there were nearly 13,500 fatalities involving a driver or motorcycle operator with at least a .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and 

nearly half a million injuries due to alcohol-related traffic crashes. While your efforts along with those of MADD and other groups have made drunk driving socially 

unacceptable, it is still tolerated. 

For too long in America, we have been practicing a ‘‘catch and release’’ program. 

Law enforcement does their very best to catch drunk drivers and we as a society 

through our legislatures and courts, let them go. The science tells us that up to 75 

percent of drunk drivers continue to drink and drive even when their licenses have 

been revoked. Statistics from a May 7, 2007 Columbus-Dispatch article should 

alarm us all. According to this story, Ohio’s citizens share the road with 33,000 DUI 

offenders with five or more convictions! They are also sharing the road with 147,000 

people with three or more convictions! We are certain that Ohio is not the only State 

with this problem as we hear media report, after media report and victim story after 

victim story telling us repeat drunk driving offenders put our families at risk every 

day. 

Faced with this dilemma, MADD has looked carefully at the numbers—each representing a precious life—to try and decide what can be done to again reduce drunk 
38 

1i Willis, C., Lybrand, S., & Bellamy, N. ‘‘Alcohol Ignition Interlock Programs for Reducing 

Drunk Driving Recidivism.’’ Cochran Data base of Systematic Reviews (2005). 2Voas, Robert, Paul Marques, and Richard Roth. ‘‘Evidence that Interlocks Are Effective with 

First Offenders.: 6th Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium, 2005. 

driving fatalities and injuries. MADD keeps in mind that if we continue doing the 

same things, we shouldn’t expect a different outcome. 

Following only those solutions proven to work, MADD announced the Campaign 

to Eliminate Drunk Driving on November 20, 2006. 

The Campaign’s 1-year anniversary is just a month away, and here are its four 

parts: 

• Intensive high-visibility law enforcement, including twice-yearly crackdowns 

and frequent enforcement efforts that include sobriety checkpoints and saturation 

patrols in all 50 states. 

• Full implementation of current alcohol ignition interlock technologies, including 

efforts to require interlock devices for all convicted drunk drivers. A key part of this 

effort will be working with judges, prosecutors and State driver’s license officials to 

stop the revolving door of repeat offenders. 

• Voluntary exploration of advanced vehicle technologies through the establishment of a Blue Ribbon panel of international safety experts to assess the feasibility 

of a range of technologies that would prevent drunk driving. These technologies 

must be moderately priced, absolutely reliable, unobtrusive to the sober driver, and 

set at the illegal limit of .08. 

• Mobilization of grassroots support, led by MADD and its more than 400 affiliates, and our partners to make the elimination of drunk driving a reality. MADD 

is uniting drunk driving victims, families, community leaders, and policymakers in 

the fight to eliminate drunk driving. 

MADD believes that anyone who violates the public trust and drives drunk 27 

years after everyone knows the effects of drunk driving has earned the right for an 

alcohol interlock device to be installed on his or her vehicle. The offender has to 

blow into the device before the car will start. The offender can still go to work, pick 

up his or her kids from school, or do anything the rest of us can do. They just can’t 

drive after drinking, in violation of their probation. 

Had an interlock law been in place in Florida in 1988, my son Courtney would 

be alive today. Our family would have celebrated Courtney’s 21st birthday this August. It is still difficult for my family and me to comprehend that he never made 

it to this passage in his life. 

Multiple studies on interlocks for both first-time and repeat offenders show decreases in repeat offenses (i.e. recidivism) of up to 90 percent while the interlock 

is on the vehicle.1 For example, New Mexico, even before its new, more extensive 

first offender interlock program, found a decrease in recidivism by over a half 

among first offenders who installed interlock devices.2

<http://www.tirf.ca/whatNew/newsItemPDFs/Bob—Voas.pdf > 

Last year, Arizona, Illinois, and Louisiana joined New Mexico in passing legislation to require ignition interlocks on all first time DUI offender’s vehicles. These 

states mandate interlocks for those convicted at .08 BAC and higher. New Mexico, 

who has had the law the longest, is seeing substantial reductions in drunk driving 

crashes and fatalities. MADD applauds the efforts of these states and will continue 

to work in State legislatures across the country to pass similar bills. This is our 

highest legislative priority. 

MADD supports substantial incentive grants for states that pass legislation requiring interlocks on all first time offenders with a BAC of at least .08. We feel this 

is the best way to persuade more states to require ignition interlocks to keep convicted drunk drivers from continuing to endanger the public. We do not support 

hard or soft sanctions on states for first offense interlocks at .08 for two reasons. 

Many states are actively considering this important measure already, and to be effectively implemented, the State must be sincerely committed to substantial changes 

in its judicial and driver licensing systems. These changes will initially have a significant price tag. The good news for tax payers is that the drunk driver must pay 

for the interlock. 

MADD also supports the consideration of soft sanctions for states that do not have 

interlock laws for drivers convicted with a BAC of .15 and above and all repeat offenders. We do not support hard sanctions for states on this measure because major 

progress is being made. 

MADD will continue to support hard sanctions for states on laws where the scientific value is overwhelming, the public support is strong, and the need for national 
39 

uniformity is demonstrated. The 21 drinking age, the national .08 BAC standard, 

and zero tolerance laws for underage drinkers are excellent examples. 

MADD also respectfully asks Congress to consider supporting increased funding 

for the Governors Highway Safety Program and law enforcement in the next highway reauthorization bill in order to ensure sufficient resources for high-visibility enforcement including enforcement of underage drinking laws. 

We also would request increased Federal funding to help with the cooperative research initiative between the automotive industry and the Federal Government to 

support new technologies that may eventually prevent vehicles from being started 

by drunk drivers. MADD does not support any mandate of this new technology, and 

we believe it is best pursued on a voluntary, data-driven basis over the next decade. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, there are some who advocate lowering the drinking age 

back to 18. We know the earlier youth drink, the more likely they are to become 

alcohol dependent later in life and to drive drunk. In order to prevent this, the 21 

drinking age law is pivotal to protecting youth. 

There has been some debate about the 21 minimum drinking age in the media. 

I would like to submit for the record statements from the American Medical Association, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety with regard to the science behind this law. 

There is no controversy in the science. The science is overwhelming and supports 

the fact that when the drinking age was lowered deaths and injuries on the roads 

increased and when it was raised, deaths and injuries decreased. NHTSA estimates 

the 21 law has saved 25,000 lives since implementation by the states. To repeal it 

would be disastrous and we hope that you, Mr. Chairman, and all your Senate colleagues will make known your support for current law. 

The bipartisan work that has taken place in the Senate and elsewhere has saved 

lives. Thanks in part to your efforts, 25,000 parents somewhere will never know the 

tragedy of the call that comes at 2 o’clock AM in the morning and says their child 

isn’t coming home. I know this tragedy first hand, and will make sure that MADD 

continues to fight so that other parents do not. 

MADD believes the way to save lives and to move forward on drunk driving, is 

through the support of the 21 law, interlock legislation for all convicted drunk drivers, and eventually new technology that will prevent drunk drivers from driving. 

Since 1980, together we have made drunk driving socially unacceptable, but still 

tolerated. With interlocks, drunk driving is no longer tolerated. With advanced technology, it will be impossible. That is the march MADD leads, and we invite the support of the American people. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before your subcommittee. 

RESPONSES BY GLYNN R. BIRCH, TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1. Could you please elaborate on MADD’s definition of ‘‘hard’’ versus 

‘‘soft’’ sanctions? Could you also explain more fully MADD’s position on imposing 

new mandates on States that could result in loss of Federal highway dollars? 

Response. For the purposes of this discussion, MADD views a hard sanction as 

one where a State fails to comply with a Federal mandate and therefore a portion 

of the states highway dollars are eventually returned to the general highway trust 

fund. Therefore, the State would lose this funding. Soft sanctions occur when a 

State fails to comply with a Federal mandate and a portion of the states construction dollars are required to be spent on some form of safety improvement rather 

than general transportation construction. In this case, a State does not lose the 

funding, but the funding is diverted. 

At this time, MADD does not support any new hard sanctions. MADD does support soft sanctions for states without laws requiring convicted drunk drivers with 

a blood alcohol content of .15 and above or repeat offenders to have an alcohol ignition interlock device installed on his/her vehicle. MADD believes that ignition interlock devices are the most effective way to prevent convicted offenders from driving 

drunk. The offender can still use his/her vehicle; they just cannot drive after drinking. 

Question 2. Do you believe it is more effective to work with States with incentives, 

allowing them to determine what works best rather than dictating one size fits all 

Federal mandates? 

Response. In general, MADD believes it is best to work with states rather than 

creating Federal mandates. In fact, our current Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving is focused on passing legislation in each State which would require an ignition 

interlock device be installed on the vehicle of all convicted drunk drivers. There currently is no plan to pursue similar legislation in Congress. 
40 

MADD also supports substantial Federal incentive grants for states that pass legislation requiring all first time DUI offenders to have an interlock device installed 

on his/her vehicle. 

However, in some cases MADD does support Federal mandates. In the past, excessive influence on policymakers by the alcohol industry, defense attorneys, and 

other interest groups prevented forward progress on drunk driving legislation. Two 

cases come to mind where Federal mandates were necessary and have been proven 

successful. The fiscal year transportation appropriations bill effectively created a national .08 blood alcohol standard. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 

created a 21 minimum drinking age. Both of these Federal mandates have saved 

lives and without these laws, it is doubtful that all 50 states would have acted to 

pass State legislation on these issues. 

Question 3. In your statement you State that MADD Supports voluntary exploration of advanced vehicle technologies through the establishment of a Blue Ribbon 

panel of international safety experts to assess the feasibility of a range of technologies that would prevent drunk driving. 

Does this mean that once the technology has been developed, MADD would support putting interlock devices on all cars as they roll off the production line? 

Response. As you may know, the automotive industry working through the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the insurance industry, and MADD have formed a Blue Ribbon Panel to 

support the voluntary development of advanced technology that would prohibit a 

driver with a blood alcohol content of .08 and above from starting his/her vehicle. 

Such technology must be six-sigma accurate (meaning a virtual no fail rate), be completely passive to the driver, and not hassle those who are unimpaired. It must also 

be desired by the public. 

There is a major difference between current interlock technology and the advanced technology being sought by the Blue Ribbon Panel in that current technology 

is not passive. Today, a DUI offender sentenced to an interlock device must blow 

into the device before starting his/her vehicle. In contrast, the advanced technology 

would automatically detect whether the driver is over the illegal alcohol limit 

through no additional action by the driver. 

MADD does support having such advanced technology in every car in the United 

States, but it does not support a Federal mandate to have such technology installed. 

Again, this technology must be a safety feature, much like an airbag, electronic stability control, or anti-lock brakes, which the public wants. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

I want to thank this panel very much, very direct and I think 

very thoughtful points. 

Judge Fields, do you have any idea how many drunk driving convictions in your county are avoided due to plea agreements and reduced charges? 

Judge FIELDS. With respect to reduced charges, I can’t give you 

a specific number. However, the policy in Harris County is to avoid 

reducing charges to anything that is not alcohol-related. Obviously, 

as you know, Senator Boxer, in most courts—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, what if it is alcohol-related? You said to 

anything that is not alcohol-related. 

Judge FIELDS. We don’t have right now a lesser not-alcohol-related reducible option. 

Senator BOXER. What about plea agreements? Do you know how 

many drunk driving convictions in your country are avoided due to 

plea agreements? 

Judge FIELDS. I can’t give you a specific number. I can say that 

studies show that the majority of cases in criminal courts are resolved by the plea bargaining process, which is why judges must 

be educated as to what the effects of a plea bargain will be. 

Senator BOXER. Because I am not a lawyer, I am married to a 

lawyer. My father was a lawyer and my son is a lawyer. So I have 

a little bit by osmosis, but explain to me if there is a plea agreement and there is no trial and there is no conviction, would we see 
41 

that drunk driver, would that situation show up in the public 

record anywhere if it is a plea agreement? 

Judge FIELDS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So you can still know that somebody 

reached an agreement on a drunk driver arrest? 

Judge FIELDS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Now, you talk about the importance of educating judges. I think you said that you don’t think one size fits all 

because each case is different, and in order to impact the individual 

the judge has to really get into what the circumstances are. Do you 

think we could do a little more here? I mean, what do you do in 

the State? Do you have training on dealing with drunk drivers in 

your State? Is there a training program that judges go through? 

Judge FIELDS. There is more of an emphasis on training now 

that this has become such a national issue. That is a great thing. 

In fact, the program that I work with with the Century Council 

and the National Association of State Judicial Educators has gone 

out to a number of States, and as a result in Senator Vitter’s State 

of Louisiana, something called a no refusal year was implemented 

in I believe the Ninth District after we talked about a program that 

I participated in in Harris County where I stayed up all night and 

reviewed warrants all night for everyone who the Houston Police 

Department and other departments that took them to central processing arrested for drunk driving if the probable cause existed and 

they refused to take a breath test, well, we took the blood. 

That program has started in Louisiana as a result of the education on that effort. There are laws on the books that can adequately deal with the issue. The question is, and the concern is 

sometimes just educating judges on how to best use them. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. Well, I just feel in your testimony, I am 

troubled by it just a little. You know, to me it is clear. 

Judge FIELDS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. You want to drink, you want to kill yourself, I 

am really sorry for you. Don’t get in a vehicle. And so I think when 

you sort of say, well, we have to see the person and the situation, 

I just think there can be no deviation from that point. You get in 

a vehicle. You are drunk. You have to go to jail. You have to pay 

a price. I think it has to be clear. 

So I just want to make sure that you are not, when you say we 

have to get—because not all these folks are addicted to alcohol. A 

lot of the young ones are at a party. They don’t get it. So I think 

if we are sort of a little bit soft, if you will, on the notion that, well, 

maybe there is a reason and we have to understand it. There are 

certain things I find, you know, raising a family and whatever, that 

there is right and there is wrong. You shouldn’t drink because I 

love you and its hurts you and you can’t handle it, and all that is 

important. But dare you get in a vehicle, you are going to pay a 

price forever. 

I just wonder if I am misunderstanding what you are saying, let 

me know please. 

Judge FIELDS. If I come off as soft, please ask any of the defendants in my court and they will tell you otherwise. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Good. 
42 

Judge FIELDS. What I am saying is, what we want to prevent is 

that second DWI and that third DWI and that fourth DWI. You are 

absolutely right, Senator Boxer. We can throw those folks in jail 

and we can throw away the key for a very short period of time. 

But ultimately, what we really want to do is change the thinking, change the behavior that gets them behind the wheel of that 

car intoxicated in the first place. The way that we do that is imposing a system, a menu of sanctions that allows a judge to stop the 

drinking behavior for those who just cannot drink, and certainly alters the decision to drink and then drive for those who may be able 

to handle consuming alcohol, but just made a poor decision. But 

you have to have an arsenal at your disposal in order to do that 

effectively. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I think that is good advice for us. 

Did you want to add to that, Mr. Birch? 

Mr. BIRCH. Yes. New Mexico had an example that others States 

are following. Senator Vitter mentioned earlier about where the 

problem lies with the underage and also that hardcore drinker. He 

is absolutely right, but there is also that third party, because when 

you take a look at the hardcore driver, it is about one third of the 

problem. Two thirds are first time offenders. 

This is why it is so important to have that device to help, to 

make sure that we don’t get to that second or third offense. The 

alcohol ignition interlock on the first time offender, because if you 

look at that snapshot of the first time, it is very close in drinking 

habits to that two time offender. So let’s catch it while we can 

early, so we don’t have that repeat offender like the one that killed 

my son with three previous convictions. 

Senator BOXER. Right. What I am going to do is extend my time 

when I am done, 10 minutes in all. And I will give Senator Vitter 

10 minutes because that would finish my questions. 

I want to talk about that device because that is a tremendous 

help. I want to understand what we can do in the highway bill to 

encourage that device going into these automobiles of the first offenders. Frankly, and maybe I am way out here on this, if a device 

was in every car, what harm does it do? But I don’t know enough 

about the technology. Is it hard to use it? Is it expensive to put it 

in? What burden would it put on an ordinary driver? I am just curious about it. 

Do you have someone there who understands it? Do you understand it, Mr. Wheeler? Mr. Wheeler seems to know, but if you don’t 

think he answers it right, let me know. So talk to me about that. 

Mr. WHEELER. Madam Chair, in New Mexico we convened a 

group to look at a lot of things. We brought people from Japan. We 

brought people from Saab in Sweden to show us third and fourth 

generation technology, a steering wheel wrap that uses galvanic 

skin responses like a lie detector to be able to measure that. 

The device is simple. One of the members of the first panel had 

it up here on the chair. You blow into it. It measures the alcohol 

in your breath. It is connected to the motor vehicle. There is a cost 

associated with it. In New Mexico, we have an ignition interlock 

fund for people. 

Senator BOXER. How much is it per car? 
43 

Mr. WHEELER. About $1,000 or so to install. We also have a program in New Mexico where people can voluntarily do it, and we 

have had parents doing that for teen drivers and for other people. 

We have had people step forward and say, I want to do it; I have 

a problem and I want to do that before I get caught or before I kill 

someone. 

Senator BOXER. I guess that price will go down with time. 

Mr. WHEELER. It already is. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Birch and then your cohort there. I don’t 

know your name. What is your name, sir? 

Mr. HURLEY. I am Chuck Hurley. I am honored to be the CEO 

of MADD. 

Senator BOXER. Wonderful. Please join us at the table. Yes, if 

Senator Vitter has no objection. Is that all right? 

Senator VITTER. Sure. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. BIRCH. I also want to mention the cost is down, anywhere from $100 to $150 that we found. 

Senator BOXER. Really? 

Mr. BIRCH. Yes. Again, if you take a look at last year, we had 

about 1.5 million arrests and only about 100,000 interlocks placed 

in vehicles. We can get that cost down, first of all, when we get the 

device on the vehicle, it is 90 percent effective when it is on the 

vehicle, so it does work. Once we get them on there, the costs generally will go down as well. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Sir? 

Mr. HURLEY. Madam Chair, Chuck Hurley, CEO of MADD. 

There are three opportunities in the highway bill that we would 

like you to consider. The first is to have a major incentive grant 

that would get other States to follow the lead of New Mexico. There 

are now four States, and Louisiana, Senator Vitter, is one of those 

four States that has just done that. The science is overwhelming, 

up to 90 percent effective in reducing recidivism. And yet it does 

require States to revamp their licensing and judicial systems so an 

incentive program will work. 

Senator BOXER. This would say if you have a program that on 

the first conviction there has to be this device installed on the car. 

Mr. HURLEY. Exactly. As Glynn said, 27 years after everybody 

knows what drunk driving does, to drive drunk over .08 we believe 

that person needs an interlock. It should stay on until they prove 

they have gotten the help they need. 

Senator BOXER. And how many States have done this? 

Mr. HURLEY. New Mexico was the first. Three States enacted last 

year, Louisiana, Arizona and Illinois. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. HURLEY. And we are very hopeful about your State. 

Senator BOXER. Well, they had better shape up. 

Mr. HURLEY. We have a bill with bipartisan sponsorship in the 

California Highway Patrol who are terrific. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Mr. HURLEY. The second opportunity really is to increase the 

funding for enforcement with the Governors Highway Safety Association, in the 402 program, perhaps a substantial vertical grant 
44 

for enforcement because the 402 program is suffering from that 

Washington disease of hardening of the categories. They need to 

have the ability to plan and enforcement should be the first priority. 

The third and perhaps most important point, Madam Chair and 

Ranking Member Vitter, is the opportunity for technology 10 years 

out. The automobile industry, working with the U.S. Department 

of Transportation and MADD and the insurance industry and others, believe they can make new cars in about 10 years that won’t 

be operable by drunk drivers at .08 and above. Some of it is 

transdermal, some of it is near-infrared, some of it is ocular, some 

of it is algorithms. Cars can park themselves these days. 

The technology can be there, but MADD’s most important job 

will be to build the public support to allow that to happen. We 

don’t seek a mandate for that. We think it has to be done in a voluntary data-driven way, and the opportunity in the highway bill, 

the U.S. Department of Transportation has a cooperative research 

agreement with the automobile industry, and we want to make 

sure that is adequately funded. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Judge FIELDS. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Judge FIELDS. May I add something? Interlock devices are an invaluable tool for judges. It goes back to what I was saying earlier 

about the right hand knowing what the left is doing. Say, for instance, I put an interlock device on a person’s car. Once their case 

is disposed of, a final conviction takes place, I am obligated to remove that device from their car. 

So what that essentially does, while it is a great thing to have 

that interlock device on their car, it forces people into those quick 

plea bargains that you are talking about, so that they can get the 

device removed. 

Now, maybe their license is suspended, but they will continue to 

drive with a suspended license and no interlock device. That is why 

it is important that we educate judges who it is that we are seeing. 

Does this person in front of us look like a hardcore drunk driver, 

a potential repeat offender, someone that we need to take extra 

steps in making sure that they don’t repeat or recidivate. 

Senator BOXER. So your State law says you have to remove that 

interlock device once a certain period of time goes by? 

Judge FIELDS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So wouldn’t that be fixed if the State law 

was changed? 

Mr. HURLEY. In fact, Illinois, Madam Chair and Canada, and 

perhaps also in Louisiana, have what is called compliance-based removal; that the interlock should go on a first offense and if they 

violate or tamper with the device, the clock resets. In other words, 

it should only come off when they have a substantial period of compliance, which would mean they have gotten the help they need. 

Senator BOXER. Senator. 

Senator VITTER. I have the same question as the Chair. Presumably, that problem with the interlock device that you are describing 

in Texas can be easily fixed with State legislation. 
45 

Mr. HURLEY. It can be easily fixed if the State legislature in 

Texas would like to, and thus far Texas has one of the worst drunk 

driving records in the United States. 

Senator VITTER. If Texas passes a State law similar to what we 

are talking about, that limitation of use of interlock device goes 

away. Correct? 

Judge FIELDS. Possibly. 

Senator VITTER. Well, not possibly, certainly. There is nothing in 

natural law of the U.S. Constitution that says you can’t use these 

interlock devices for a protracted period of time, as was described 

by the other witness, right? It is a function of State law. 

Judge FIELDS. I think that State law can help, but unless you 

treat the offender and stop the drunk driving behavior, there are 

many occasions where I order interlocks and the interlock restriction is on the license and the interlock restriction is placed on a 

car, and they drive another car. What we have to do is get these 

folks into programs that stop the behavior that leads to needing to 

blow into the device in the first place. 

Absolutely use the devices. Absolutely. 

Senator VITTER. I understand that if they can use another car, 

that is a problem. I mean, that is a problem in any State no matter 

what the State law is. But you agree this issue that you identified 

of having to take it off upon final adjudication, that specific issue 

which you identified just goes away if you have the right State law. 

Judge FIELDS. It can go away, but what you would then not have 

if you just imposed a law that said you have to keep the interlock 

device on forever—— 

Senator VITTER. Not forever, for some significant period of time 

until a person’s behavior over that significant period of time is 

proven out to be responsible. 

Judge FIELDS. Until they modify their behavior, and that is why 

you would have to give judges the ability, post-conviction, to move 

them into treatment somehow, because that is how you modify the 

behavior. 

Senator VITTER. Well, yes. I think that ability exists in every 

State now. It is a question of funding and other opportunities. 

Judge FIELDS. Precisely. 

Mr. HURLEY. Senator, one of the tougher problems you have just 

identified, Texas law mandates that interlocks shall be imposed 

upon second conviction, and yet as the Judge I think agrees, only 

about 14 percent or 25 percent of the judges in Texas comply with 

that law. Even when the States pass good laws, there is an issue 

of judges ignoring that without penalty. 

We agree, judicial education is a very key component, but we 

need to really work on when a law is passed that judges should respect that law. 

Judge FIELDS. The judges in Harris County follow that law, and 

while I won’t agree with you, I won’t disagree with you because I 

don’t have the stats and I am under oath. So what I will say is that 

greater education efforts will increase the likelihood that judges 

will comply with whatever laws there are. 

Senator VITTER. Judge, do you disagree with State law that 

would mandate this as it now does in my State for first time offenders? 
46 

Judge FIELDS. The imposition of interlock devices on all first 

time offenders? 

Senator VITTER. Correct. 

Judge FIELDS. I have never looked at the issue so I can’t say that 

I agree or disagree with it. I would have to see how your State implements it. 

Senator VITTER. It implements it like I just said. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. I have to be honest. I share some of the 

uncomfortableness with your testimony. Some of this stuff is not 

that complicated, in my mind, and I think it is pretty darn justified 

to have that device for any first time offender. I guess I am asking 

if you agree or disagree with that. 

Judge FIELDS. I think that interlock devices are very helpful. I 

don’t know, without looking at the practical effects of how it would 

work out, I can’t say that I can say yes absolutely this will work, 

without knowing more about how the law would be drafted. And 

that is part of why it is so important to involve judges in the process because when you are sitting in that chair, yes, I see how the 

law is written, but I am going to be dealing with a very crafty lawyer who is going to do everything he can to work around it. So 

without seeing the law, I don’t want to speak on it out of ignorance. 

Senator VITTER. Well, Mr. Wheeler, maybe you can give us insight into practical impact. You all have had a, or you project a 20 

percent overall reduction. How significant in that reduction has 

been interlock devices? Can you tell yet? 

Mr. WHEELER. Madam Chair, Senator, I am not sure we can tell 

yet. We think it has had an impact. We think a number of these 

programs have. There are problems with ignition interlock. One of 

the problems we have seen is in several of our counties we have 

a high percentage of people who say, and we have checked, and 

they don’t have a motor vehicle registered to them. We know they 

drive. 

So it increases our need for enforcement, which was of course one 

of the MADD priorities and one of the priorities we would ask for 

in the transportation bill, Madam Chair, is an increased enforcement effort because the Judge is perfectly correct. 

OK, I sentence you to ignition interlock, but if there isn’t follow 

up and if there isn’t an absolute continuous monitoring—by the 

way, the cost that I mentioned is for the year-long first time offender to have that device monitored and you have to go in and you 

have to have it checked. The installing is pretty cheap, but dealing 

with the repercussions of it and actually following through takes a 

lot of judicial resources and it takes a lot of law enforcement resources. 

So one of the problems we have seen is people say, I don’t have 

a car. We check. They don’t have a car. We know they drive. They 

live in rural New Mexico. You can’t get anywhere without driving 

and there is no public transportation. 

So it increases our need for follow up services. It increases our 

need—in New Mexico law, there is treatment mandated. But some 

of those treatment opportunities are not available in rural New 

Mexico. I suggest they are probably not available in rural Louisiana or rural California either. 
47 

So those are issues that confront us. Ignition interlock is certainly not a panacea, but it is something that we have seen that 

has been an effective tool in the arsenal, as the Judge mentioned, 

and it is something that we are continuing. 

We were very excited to see some of the third and fourth generation technology regarding interlock, the steering wheel wraps and 

some of the other things. They pose some really tremendous opportunities for the future. 

Mr. BIRCH. Senator Vitter, again I applaud your efforts. What we 

had to do is, as I mentioned before, we are going to have to do 

something different if we expect to lower the plateau of deaths that 

have been there for a number of years. The success in New Mexico 

has paved the way and your State is one of the States that brought 

on the change. 

Yes, that language needed to be massaged. Instead of it coming 

off at a given time, let’s allow that offender—it is win-win situation 

for the offender and the public. Let him earn the right to get that 

device off. And if he re-offends, it stays on. But we have to do 

something because we are literally talking about lives, and this is 

the leadership that we need from the Committee. So again, I applaud what your State has done. We can do it in every State. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

I wanted to ask about the cost. That total package cost you said was about $1,000 now? 

Mr. WHEELER. Madam Chair, Senator, that is what I recall. 

Senator VITTER. I am just curious. Of that, what is the cost of 

the device and installing the device? 

Mr. HURLEY. If I could, the installation fee is about $150 per- haps, and it somewhere between $60 and $70 a month to maintain 

it. The good news is that is all paid for by the offender, not the taxpayer. It is less than the cost of a drink a day, $2 to $3 a day. We 

think that it is an excellent system. 

Some of the research that has been done in New Mexico points 

out that interlocks are the key difference in the 20 percent decline, 

the work done by Dick Roth and others. So we are very focused on 

what Louisiana is doing. We hope California will follow, and certainly what Illinois and Arizona are doing as well. 

Senator VITTER. Is there any sense of how that price will come 

down with greater use of it, No. 1? And also, this 10 year project, 

building into autos, is there any guesstimate on the cost of that per 

vehicle? 

Mr. HURLEY. There are really two different technologies. The current technology is the fuel cell breathalyzer technology. Again, the 

costs are fairly stable. It may come down some, but $125 to install 

and $60 to $70 a month we think are reasonable prices to protect 

the public. Our lead volunteer in South Dakota lives down the road 

from what we believe to be the national record, a guy that has been 

arrested for the 34th time. At some point, enough is enough. We 

have to protect the public, and interlocks do that. 

The advanced technology is really extraordinary in that it offers 

the opportunity if it pans out both in technology and in public acceptance, of literally not allowing cars to start .08 and above. It 

won’t stop drinking, never MADD’s goal. It won’t stop impaired 

driving that begins before .08. But .08 and above can be eliminated 
48 

through that technology. It would make drunk driving the public 

health equivalent of polio. 

Senator VITTER. Is there any preliminary guesstimate about that 

cost per vehicle? 

Mr. HURLEY. Early estimates are more of what it would have to meet, and it would have to be about $200 or less, probably. Sensor 

technology breakthroughs may allow that. It obviously cannot hassle sober drivers; 40 percent of the public doesn’t drink, and the 

other 40 percent is responsible. It is really only 20 percent that 

needs to be affected. It has to be absolutely six sigma reliable and 

effective. 

There is a blue ribbon panel on advanced alcohol detection technology that MADD is proud to serve on, with the U.S. Department 

of Transportation, with the Alliance for Automobile Insurers, who 

really need to be thanked for this. Drunk driving isn’t their problem. They don’t sell alcohol at dealerships. They are stepping up 

and really all over the world, in Japan, in Europe and in North 

America, all the auto companies are looking at this advanced technology, and we thank them for that. 

Senator VITTER. Well, great. Thank you all. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just as a closing comment, it sort of goes back to one of my earlier comments, a lot of these things are complicated. A lot of them 

have a lot of factors, but for God’s sake, let’s not allow that to just 

lull us into paralysis, like there is nothing we can do, or like the 

fact that this interlock device can have a major impact. No one is 

pretending that it is the panacea, but anything that can have a 

major impact is worth doing. 

Senator BOXER. I want to thank the panel very, very much. 

I want to thank Senator Vitter as well. 

I am going to speak with my Governor, write to my Governor 

about moving forward on this. It just makes so much sense, and 

I want to congratulate New Mexico, Louisiana, and the other 

States that are really taking the lead. 

You know, it is very important, it seems to me, to have a vision 

of a better future for our children and our grandchildren. That is 

what propels me to stay in this work, and I am sure others as well. 

There was once a bumper sticker during the Vietnam War that just 

said, Imagine Peace, because it gets to a point where you can’t even 

imagine what an absence of war is after so many years. 

And so, you know, you want to imagine what it would be like if 

we could solve this problem and if you could kind of flash back to 

your story, Mr. Birch, and what it would have meant to you. 

So I applaud Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the other organizations, but particularly Mothers Against Drunk Driving for 

what you do because, as Senator Vitter says, you can get into a 

mind set of, gee, we have done all we can, we have made the 

progress, but we are kind of stumped. 

But I think the key here for the long range is this future where 

when everyone gets in a car, there is a simple way that it simply 

won’t start if your blood alcohol is over a certain level. So therefore 

when we do our bill, Senator, I hope we will do a little bit of a 

Manhattan Project for this. I mean, my goodness, the things that 

we can do in this great Country. We should be able to figure that 
49 

out and get it to a point where it is not a prohibitive cost so that 

it goes into the automobile just as we now couldn’t imagine automobiles without airbags and seatbelts. 

Because I think, Judge Fields, I compliment you on your work. 

You are obviously committed, but you harp about treating the addiction, treating the addiction, and that is important and we have 

been trying to treat the addictions for years and years and years. 

I make a difference, I mean, no one could be stronger on stopping 

addiction and being fair to people and giving them a chance and 

giving them treatment, than I am. You go back to everything I believe in, I believe in that. 

But I see a difference between that and someone with an addiction, with a problem, or just because they don’t get it, or are too 

stupid to understand what it means to get drunk at a party, getting behind a wheel. It is a different thing from the addiction. 

I would venture to say a lot of these people who get behind the 

wheel don’t have an addiction. They just, on the weekend they go 

to a party. They could take it or leave it, but they are going to get 

in a car. 

So I think we need to, because we have always tried to stop the 

addiction, and we should never stop trying ever, because we are 

going to make a difference in some lives, and it is important. But 

to me, I am looking at the innocents, the kids running into the 

truck to buy an ice cream. I think to get to that, we just need a 

whole other mind set. 

We will work on the addiction over here, but we will stop any 

human being who can’t drive from getting in that automobile. 

So as we write the highway bill, and it is going to be really an 

exciting time when we get to that, I will take it to heart what you 

have said, and I hope we can work across party lines here and get 

this done for you. 

Again, I want to thank Senator Vitter for coming and being so 

positive in this hearing. And I want to thank the panelists. Thank 

you very much. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you Mr. Chairman. As a member of both Environment and Public Works 

and Commerce Committees, the Chair is well aware of the jurisdictional distinction 

between the two Committees when it comes to safety issues. EPW does the ‘‘hard 

side’’ or bricks and mortar and Commerce does the ‘‘soft side’’ or behavioral side. 

Thus, the issue of reducing drunk driving falls largely in the Commerce Committee’s 

purview as they have sole jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and drunk driving incentive grant program. Nonetheless, I 

welcome a discussion of the effectiveness of the nation’s drunk driving programs in 

preparation for reauthorization of SAFETEA. 

More often than not, when discussing transportation issues we focus on problems 

with funding, congestion and the physical State of our infrastructure; but equally 

important is safety while driving on our nation’s roads. As Chairman of this Committee during the development of SAFETEA, I made safety a priority. A hallmark 

of SAFETEA is a comprehensive and unprecedented new core program focusing solely on addressing safety problem areas. 

States must develop comprehensive safety plans that address their biggest safety 

hot spots. The Highway Safety Improvement Program, or H-Sip, targets funding to 

the greatest problem areas. As we get closer to reauthorization, I hope that as the 

Subcommittee Chair on safety issues, you will be scheduling oversight hearings on 
50 

H-Sip so we can see how well the new safety core program is working. In fact, I 

have GAO examining that program as we speak. 

While I applaud and support efforts to get drunk drivers off the roads, I have opposed and will continue to oppose efforts to achieve this through Federal mandates 

or sanctions. As a former Mayor and State Legislator, I know that Washington does 

not have all the answers and certainly does not always have the right ones. States 

know best what is appropriate for them. The closer government is to the people the 

better the results. 

SAFETEA provided $500 million in grants to encourage States to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce drunk driving. States are actively taking advantage of the incentives Congress has put in place. I am sure my colleagues would 

agree that it is far more effective to work with states and allow them to determine 

what works best in their case rather than dictating a one size fits all legislative prescription. 

TEA–21 directed States to implement a 1 year hard suspension for repeat offenders, using the threat of reduced Federal highway funds if they failed to comply. This 

one size fits all Federal prescription had the effect of derailing efforts to develop 

interlock technologies, and handicapped State’s ability to put in place their own effective drunk driving laws. This well intentioned Federal mandate set States up for 

failure, and denied judges the flexibility needed to most effectively sentence repeat 

offenders on a case by case basis. 

Prior to TEA–21, many States were implementing their own repeat offender sentencing guidelines, using interlock technologies and other initiatives tailored to their 

needs, including my own State of Oklahoma. But all efforts stopped after the TEA21 

mandate because States did not want to risk losing out on Federal dollars for not 

following the new Federal drunk driving mandate. 

A SAFETEA technical corrections bill that would allow states more flexibility with 

their drunk driving laws by amending the existing repeat offender provision was approved twice by both this Committee and the full House. While the final bill awaits 

further Senate action, I think the message is clear, both Chambers recognize that 

leaving this decision to States is optimal. It is also important to note that this provision changes a previous mandate that we now recognize as being ineffective. I see 

this as proof of my point that Washington does not know best and should not impose 

its will on states. 

The loss of life, especially due to a drunk driver, is not only tragic but unacceptable. However, to continue the practice of holding State transportation funds hostage while we force them to adopt federally imposed, one-size fits all solutions to 

combat drunk driving, should not be the answer. Each State has the right, and 

frankly the responsibility, to implement appropriate laws that meet the needs if its 

citizens. Mr. Chairman, while you and I differ on how to achieve the desired result, 

we both agree combating drunk driving must be a national priority. I look forward 

to working with you on this and other issues as we begin to think about reauthorization of SAFETEA. 

I look forward to the testimony and of The Honorable Michael R. Fields, a criminal court judge who deals with DUI cases every day and can provide a unique insight on this issue from a local level. 

I want to welcome all our witnesses today and thank them for taking time out 

of their schedules to share with us their ideas on how to most effectively address 

drunk driving at the Federal level. 
51 
52 

I. Introduction 

The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) is a nonprofit association that represents 

state highway safety offices (SHSO). Its members are appointed by their governors to administer 

federal behavioral highway safety grant programs, including the federal impaired driving incentive 

grant program and the two impaired driving penalty transfer programs. 

GHSA considers itself the voice of states on highway safety issues. As such, the Association 

represents states on a range of behavioral issues such as failure to use proper occupant 

protection, speeding and impaired driving, among others. Our members use federal highway 

safety grant funds for a wide variety of impaired driving purposes including enforcement, training 

and equipment for enforcement personnel, judicial training, public education campaigns (including 

those that use paid media), and DUI information system improvements. 

II. Background 

This country has made considerable progress in impaired driving in the last thirty years. In 1990, 

according to statistics of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 51% of 

total crashes were alcohol-related. By 2005, 39% of crashes were alcohol-related. A part of the 

success must be attributed to simple increases in the number of registered vehicles, licensed 

drivers and vehicle miles of travel. As those increased, the percentage of alcohol-related crashes 

consequently declined. Another part of the success, however, can be attributed to federal and 

state efforts to address impaired driving. These have successfully maintained the progress that 

was made in the last thirty years without allowing further backsliding. Without the federal funding, 

the level of impaired driving would likely be much worse. 

However, in terms of total numbers, relatively little progress has been made over the last decade. 

In 1995, 17,308 persons were killed in alcohol-related crashes. By 2005, that number had fallen 

by only 423 persons to 16, 886 - a 2.4% drop. Federal and state impaired driving policies and 

programs have not enabled states and communities to make the "great leap forward" in impaired 

driving that will result in Significant reductions in alcohol-related crashes, fatalities and injuries. 

Unlike occupant protection issues, impaired driving is a highly complex issue for which there are 

no simple solutions. Impaired driving data can be analyzed in a number of different ways, each of 

which will suggest different countermeasures. One approach is to look at crash records and 

determine who is over-involved in impaired driving crashes. Typically, crashes involve underage 

drinkers, first time offenders and hard core drunk drivers (including high BAC first-time offenders). 

Another way is to analyze the data by BAC level. In that approach, drivers aged 25-34 years old 

appear to be the biggest part of the problem. Another strategy is to examine when and where the 

impaired driving crashes occur. Each approach suggests different parts of the impaired driving 

puzzle in a state, and each requires specific poliCies, programs and most importantly, funding. A 

general deterrence program aimed at first time offenders, for example, cannot be the sole focus 

of a state's impaired driving efforts without having a detrimental impact on programs that reach 

hard core drunk drivers and the other subgroups. 

Additionally, impaired driving is part of a larger societal problem that reflects our ambivalence 

about alcohol use. State highway safety offices, advocacy organizations, public health agencies 

and others encourage "no use" of alcohol when driving, yet our society encourages alcohol 

consumption through the media and our laws permit a certain legal amount of alcohol when 

driving. Further, the impaired driving problem cannot easily be separated from the larger societal 

problems of alcohol abuse and alcoholism. There is a complexity of federal, state and local 

agencies that deal with these problems, and the highway safety community is struggling to 

determine its role. 
53 

many jurisdictions. More federal resources are needed to recruit, train and retain law enforcement 

officers to conduct sobriety checkpoints or saturation patrols. 

Strong laws and consistent enforcement are two key components of a good state impaired driving 

program. However, these components have less impact if impaired driving offenders are not 

properly adjudicated. Judges are difficult to reach, and few judicial education materials are 

available for them. The Century Council, a 2007 winner of a GHSA achievement award, has 

developed excellent materials for judges on hard core drunk drivers and has trained more than 

2,000 judges across the country. The reach of programs like this need to be expanded, distancebased training needs to be developed, and more federal and state resources need to be 

committed to judicial education. 

DUI courts are a very promising approach for handling hard core drunk drivers. These courts go 

beyond punishment and address the offender's abuse of alcohol. Typically in a DUI court, there is 

prompt intake and assessment, court-ordered individualized sanctions for offenders, frequent 

drug and alcohol testing, treatment and aftercare services and frequent monitoring and ongoing 

judicial interaction with the offender. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, probation, law 

enforcement and treatment professionals usually function as a team to systematically change 

behavior. The individualized sanctions are structured to maximize the probability of rehabilitation 

and minimize the likelihood of recidivism. These courts can involve specialized court calendars or 

dockets for individuals, juveniles or families rather, or hybrid drug/DUI courts than specifically 

designated courts. Due to the Department of Justice grant programs, most states have at least 

one DUI court. GHSA strongly supports DUI courts and urges additional federal funding to enable 

further expansion in the states. GHSA also recommends that states be allowed to use their 

Section 410 funding for DUI courts, an unallowable expense under the current 410 program. 

Technology is one component that until recently, has received little attention. GHSA believes, as 

do Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MAD D) and others, that technology has the potential for 

enabling states to make a huge difference in impaired driving. Some proven technology, such as 

ignition interlocks and continuous alcohol monitoring systems, are already available. Others, such 

as expanded uses of transdermal detection devices, are under development. Still others will be 

developed with the support and encouragement of the public-private blue ribbon panel on 

advanced impaired driving technology. GHSA eagerly joined MADD's Campaign to Eliminate 

Drunk Driving because we believe that technology has been a missing link in the fight against 

drunk driving. 

This year, MADD, with the support of GHSA members in the affected states, has successfully 

encouraged three states (lL, LA, and AZ) to enact legislation requiring first-time offenders to have 

restricted drivers licenses as long as an ignition interlock is installed on their vehicle. GHSA 

encourages all states to enact this type of legislation. The Association would strongly oppose, 

however, federal efforts to sanction states for failure to enact first-time offender interlock 

legislation even if those sanctions were preceded by a few years of incentives. Only four states 

currently have such laws (the three previously named and New Mexico). Forty-six states would 

be subject to the sanctions if enacted. 

This issue is an emerging one, and there is little state experience in how such laws will be 

implemented. Based on the August 22 NHTSA conference on interlocks, there are tremendous 

implementation barriers to be overcome and a sizeable amount of judicial and prosecutorial 

education that must occur before there is ubiquitous use of interlocks. A federal sanction could 

cause a backlash against the interlocks and undermine MADD's efforts on the state legislative 

front. Rather, GHSA believes that states should be encouraged, only through federal incentives, 

to support interlock legislation for first-time offenders. 

Improvements to state laws, enforcement, adjudication and technology all need to be supported 

by a solid infrastructure for impaired driving programs at the state and local level. Few states 

have automated systems for tracking an impaired driving offender (regardless of whether they are 
54 

Finding solutions to the nation's impaired driving problem, therefore, will not be easily achieved. 

Public policy should be crafted that encourages states to further action on impaired driving yet 

recognizes the complexity of the issue and sets realistic goals for states. 

III. Potential Solutions 

A. Continue to focus on a comprehensive approach to impaired driving 

Programs to reduce impaired driving must be based on a comprehensive approach that touches 

on all aspects of impaired driving. Anything less will be ineffective. 

Such programs should have a prevention component to stop drivers from driving impaired in the 

first place as well as an intervention component that provides transportation alternative to drivers 

who are impaired. NHTSA is currently funding the Responsible Hospitality Institute's pilot 

programs that attempt to change the social environment in which people are entertained by 

providing alternatives to drinking and reducing the opportunities to drive impaired. These 

programs show some promise and should be further researched. 

Strong laws are a critical aspect of any impaired driving program. Such laws should include .08 

blood alcohol concentration (BAC) laws, zero tolerance laws for underage drinking and driving, 

administrative license revocation laws, repeat offender laws, and laws addressing high BAC first· 

time offenders. Nearly all states have enacted nearly all of these laws. 

GHSA does not support new sanctions on states that fail to enact specific impaired driving laws. 

States are already faced with seven safety·related sanctions (zero tolerance BAC, .08 BAC, open 

container, repeat offender, age 21, drug offenders, and use of seat belts). We do not believe that 

a sanction for states that don't have laws penalizing high BAC first time offenders is necessary 

since states have aggressively enacted such laws over the last few years. 40 states have some 

form of high BAC laws. Sixteen have stronger penalties for first time offenders at .15 BAC and 

above. Another six states have laws for offenders .16 BAC and above, and another four have 

them for offenders at .17 BAC and above. Further, penalizing states for failure to enact high BAC 

laws may make it more difficult for states to enact interlock laws for first·time offenders. If state 

legislatures are forced to enact high BAC laws for first time offenders, then they may be unwilling 

to also enact interlock legislation for first time offenders, regardless of the offenders' blood alcohol 

concentration. 

In the future, states should be encouraged through incentives to strengthen (e.g. criminalize) the 

penalties for test refusal and to require a higher level of BAC testing for dead and surviving 

drivers. Enhanced test refusal laws would address a growing problem in many states. Hard core 

drunk drivers know how to beat the "system" by refusing the BAC test and receiving the same 

penalties as those that test negatively. If this loophole were closed, then hard core drunk drivers 

would be tested more often and would receive more appropriate sanctions. The BAC testing laws 

would yield better data than is currently available on the nature and extent of the impaired driving 

problem. 

Passage of strong laws, however, is insufficient. Those laws must be strictly enforced. 

Enforcement has been a focus of state activity over much of the last several years. All states 

participate in one national DUI mobilization over Labor Day and nearly all participate in an 

additional mobilization during the December holidays. States also conduct enforcement efforts in 

between mobilizations. States in the mid·Atlantic region, for example, have joined forces to 

conduct frequent (e.g. monthly, weekly) sobriety checkpoints at locations throughout the region. 

The difficulty is that there are insufficient resources for law enforcement. Most state police and 

patrols are facing large number of retirements and layoffs caused by state budget cuts. At the 

local level, law enforcement personnel are being diverted to homeland security and immigration 

law enforcement duties. It is not unusual for local law enforcement officers to be called up for 

active duty in Iraq. As a result, traffic enforcement has fallen to the bottom of the priority list in 
55 

a first-time or a repeat offender) from point of arrest to final disposition of the offender's case. 

BAC testing information, which can involve several different agencies, is rarely linked or 

automated. Many states are beginning to use electronic citation systems, but electronic arrest 

records are non-existent in most jurisdictions. Judges who require the use of ignition interlocks do 

not always know if the interlocks have been installed or what effect they have had because there 

is not feedback information. In the rare event there is feedback information, it is not in electronic 

form. It is not unusual for offenders to slip through the cracks because information from one state 

or local agency is not sent to another appropriate state or local agency. Few federal funds are 

available to states to help them address these problems. The Section 408 program is a small 

federal program whose focus is primarily on improving a state's crash data system. The program 

is inadequate to meet that need, let alone meet the need for automating states' impaired driving 

information systems. 

In the next reauthorization, there is a clear need to substantially fund impaired driving programs 

and to address the needs discussed above. GHSA will be working with NHTSA as well as this 

Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee over the next several months to help craft an 

adequately funded and appropriate federal impaired driving program for the next reauthorization. 

B. Fix the current penalties 

Under the current Section 164 penalty transfer program, states must enact legislation that, among 

other things, requires a repeat offender's license to be suspended for one year. GHSA strongly 

believes that the one-year hard suspension requirement actually encourages repeat offenders to 

drive without a license. Once an offender is out of the license control system, it is difficult to keep 

track of the offender or to monitor the offender's driving behavior. Further, judges are often 

reluctant to require the one-year hard suspension because it can affect an offender's ability to 

reach his/her job or go to treatment. In effect, the one-year hard suspension language may 

inadvertently make matters worse. 

GHSA strongly supports the language in the SAFETEA-LU technical corrections bill, H.R. 1195, 

that would give states the option of either requiring a one-year hard suspension or a 45-day hard 

suspension followed by installation of an ignition interlock and limited driving privileges for repeat 

offenders. We encourage the Senate to enact the technical corrections language as soon as 

possible. 

Another difficulty is that the 154 and 164 penalty programs pose a big administrative problem for 

the SHSO's because of the way the statutory language has been drafted. Currently, noncompliant states have 3% of their Interstate Maintenance, Surface Transportation Program and 

National Highway System funding transferred into the 402 program. The state then determines if 

it would like to spend the transferred funds for impaired driving or Hazard Elimination program 

purposes. There is no actual transfer of funding if a state chooses to spend the money for Hazard 

Elimination purposes. Instead, the state highway safety office must subcontract with its state 

department of transportation (DOT) to use the funding. 

Since the Section 164 funds are not actually transferred to the state DOT, the state highway 

safety office bears the administrative responsibility for the penalty transfer funds. The SHSO must 

track the expenditures in the federal grant tracking system and ensure that funds are being spent 

for the purposes authorized. Further, because of the slow spend out rate for Hazard Elimination 

construction funding, most of the SHSO's have substantial amounts of Section 154 and 164 

carryover money. NHTSA strongly encourages states to reduce their carryover funding. However, 

it is impossible for the SHSO's to reduce their Hazard Elimination 154 and 164 carryover funds 

since they have no control over that funding. In effect, the SHSO has all the administrative 

burdens of the Section 154 and 164 funds that are spent for hazard elimination purposes but 

none of the benefits of that funding. 
56 

A simple statutory fix is needed. If a state chooses to use its Section 154 or 164 funding for 

Hazard Elimination purposes, then the funding should be transferred to the state DOT and that 

agency should be administratively responsible for the funds. 

C. Oppose efforts to weaken underage drinking law 

Recently, Parade magazine published a story about the National Minimum Drinking Age (NMDA) 

law intimating that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Further, former Middlebury College 

President John McCardle formed a non-profit association to promote the lowering of the drinking 

age as well as education and regulation of 18-year old drinking behavior. These developments 

have put a spotlight on the NDMA and its effectiveness. 

According to NHTSA, nearly 25,000 teen traffic deaths - an average of almost 1,000 per year--

have been prevented since the enactment of the NMDA. Since enactment, the number of teen 

drivers killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes has been cut in half, self-reported alcohol use by 

high school seniors has dropped by 20% and self-reported binge drinking has declined by an 

estimated 40%. 

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed more than 100 studies of the impact of the 

NMDA and found more than 50 which were considered high quality. In its meta-analysis, CDC 

found that increasing the drinking age decreases fatalities and crashes by 16% and lowering it 

increases fatalities and crashes by 10%. 

Since enactment of the NMDA, researchers at the National Institutes of Health have made great 

strides in understanding adolescent brain development. They have found evidence that alcohol 

consumption negatively impacts adolescent brain as well as nervous system development. One 

important study showed that more than 40% of individuals who begin drinking before age 13 are 

classified with alcohol dependence at some time in their lives. The study also found that lifetime 

alcohol dependence decreases steeply as age at onset of drinking increases. Lowering the 

drinking age wouldn't solve the problem of underage drinking. It would simply push that drinking 

down to younger aged children. 

The evidence is clear: the NMDA has worked exceedingly well and is one of the strongest policy 

tools in the state arsenal. Protecting the health of young people - our country's future -- should 

be of paramount importance, more so than the fact that there are in disparities in public policy 

affecting young people. Lowering the drinking age would be a gigantic and harmful step 

backward. GHSA strongly opposes such a move and is proud to be a member of the Support 21 

coalition. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views and ideas of the Governors Highway Safety 

Association. 
57 

Health Effects of Alcohol on Children and Adolescents 

Good morning. 

Support 21 Coalition 

Washington, D.C. 

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 

10:00 AM 

Ronald M. Davis, M.D. 

President 

American Medical Association 

It's an honor to be here on behalf of the American Medical Association to announce our 

support of this new coalition, and to present information on the health effects of alcohol on 

children and adolescents. 

As physicians, we know all too well the dangers of early alcohol use for children and 

adolescents. We see the impact of alcohol one patient at a time, one family at a time. 

But the collective damage to our children that is caused by alcohol is staggering. The 

negative consequences of underage drinking cost the United States $62 billion per year in 

medical costs, lost productivity, and quality-of-life costs due to motor-vehicle crashes, violence, 

property crime, suicide, bums, drownings, fetal alcohol syndrome, high-risk sex, poisonings, 

psychoses, and dependency treatment. 1 

Alcohol is a leading contributor to the main cause of death-injury-for people under 

age 21. About 5,000 deaths related to underage drinking occur annually as a result of motorvehicle crashes, unintentional injuries from other causes, homicides, and suicides. 2 Researchers 

estimate that annually, alcohol use is implicated in more than 1,700 alcohol-related injury deaths 

1 Miller T.R., Levy D.T., Spicer R.S., Taylor D.M., Societal Costs of Underage Drinking. Journal a/Studies on 

Alcohol and Drugs 67: 519-528,2006. 

2 Faden V.B., Goldman M. (Co-Chairs), NIAAA Interdisciplinary Team on Underage Drinking Research. Alcohol 

development in youth - a multidisciplinary overview: The scope of the problem. Alcohol Research & Health 

28(3):111-120,2004/2005. 
58 

among college students aged 18 to 24, while in 2001 nearly 600,000 college students were 

injured because of drinking and 696,000 were assaulted by another drinking college student? 

If we can stop alcohol use and abuse from starting early, we can help prevent thousands, 

even millions of alcohol-related nightmares before they ever begin. 

A few years ago, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study on 

underage drinking and addiction. It showed that youth who regularly consumed alcohol before 

age 14 were at least three times more likely to develop a diagnosable alcohol dependency than 

those who delayed alcohol consumption to age 21.4 

2 

Moreover, the problem of alcohol abuse and dependence continues into the college-age 

years. In one study, 31 % of college students met the criteria for a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and 

6% for a diagnosis of alcohol dependence in the past 12 months, and more than two of every five 

students reported at least one symptom of abuse or dependence. 5 

This is a disturbing finding, considering the young ages at which many people drink 

today. In one study of young people between the ages of 12 and 13, 13% reported drinking beer, 

13% reported drinking wine, and 11 % reported drinking hard liquor or spirits 6 All of these 

children are at increased risk for alcohol dependency. 

The dangers to their health include more than addiction. A growing body of scientific 

evidence suggests that even modest alcohol consumption in late childhood and adolescence 

results in brain damage-possibly permanent. 

The human brain continues to grow and change throughout adolescence, and those who 

think young bodies and young brains are resilient to alcohol use are dangerously wrong. 

The AMA has compiled and summarized two decades ofresearch on the effects of 

alcohol use on the maturing brains of young people. Here are just some of the facts detailed in 

that report. 

Young alcohol users are at risk of damaging two key areas of the brain, both of which 

undergo dramatic changes during adolescence. 

The first area is the hippocampus, which manages the leaming and memory processes. 

Childhood drinking has an alarming effect on this key area of the maturing brain. In one study, 

J Hingson R., Heeren T., Winter M., and Wechsler H. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among 

U.S. college students ages 18-24: changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health 26:259-79, 2005. 

4 Hingson, R., Heeren T., Jamanka, A., and Howland, 1. Age of drinking onset and unintentional injury involvement 

after drinking. Journal of the American Medical Association 284 (12): J 527-33, 2000. 

S Knight, J.R., Wechsler, H., Kuo, M., Seibring, M., Weitzman, E.R., and Schuckit, M.A. Alcohol Abuse and 

Dependence Among U.S. College Students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63 (3): 263-270, 2002. 

6 Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education, 2000-2001 PRIDE Survey. 
59 

the hippocampuses of teens who abused alcohol were 10% smaller than in teens who did not 

abuse alcohol. 7 

Another study showed that individuals who used alcohol as adolescents exhibit a reduced 

ability to learn, when compared to those who refrained from using alcohol until adulthood. 

Alcohol shrinks memory signals at a more rapid pace in children than in adults, and it reduces 

memory acquisition. Adolescents who abuse alcohol may remember 10% less of what they have 

learned when compared to non-drinking adolescents. 8 

The second area most affected by alcohol abuse is the prefrontal area, which undergoes 

the most change during adolescence. This area plays an important role in the formation of adult 

personality and behavior. Some call it the "CEO of the body." Alcohol abuse has been shown to 

cause deterioration in this important area9 

Given these effects, is it any wonder that adolescent drinkers score worse than non-users 

on vocabulary, general information, memory, and memory retrieval tests? Or that they perform 

worse in school and are more likely to fall behind in their work than their temperate peers? Or 

that they are at greater risk of social problems, depression, unintentional injuries, suicide, and 

violence? 

Yet as terrible as the threat of alcoholism and evcn brain damage may be, that's not the 

only risk taken by children who drink. 

All of us are familiar with the danger of untreated high blood pressure. A representative 

sample of current drinkers aged 12 to 16 showed higher levels of diastolic blood pressure than 

their non-drinking counterparts. 1

0 

Adolescents who drink heavily also are at increased risk of developing cirrhosis of the 

liver in adulthood. A study by University of Pittsburgh researchers found that teenagers (ages 14 

to 18) with alcohol-use disorders had elevated liver enzyme levels and more abnormalities in 

physical exams, especially oral exams. The researchers noted that with continued excessive 

drinking, the teens may develop permanent liver damage.! I 

Addiction, brain damage, high blood pressure, and liver damage-these are serious health 

issues-and a frightening number of our nation's children are at risk. 

7 De Bellis, M.D., et aL Hippocampal Volume in Adolescent-Onset Alcohol Use Disorders. American Journal of 

Psychiatry 157: 737-744, 2000. 

S Brown, S. A., Taper!, S. F., Granholm, E., et aL Neurocognitive functioning of adolescents: Effects of protracted 

alcohol use. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 24 (2): 164-171,2000. 

9 Crews FT, Braun CJ, Hoplight B, Switzer III RC, Knapp OJ. Binge ethanol consumption causes differential brain 

damage in young adolescent rats compared with adult rats. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2000; 24:1712- 23. 

10 Hanna, E.Z., et aJ. Drinking, smoking and blood pressure: Do their relationship among youth foreshadow what we 

know among adults? Paper presented at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. 

November 1999. 

11 Clark, D. B., Lynch, K.G., Donovan, J. E., and Block, G. D. Health Problems in Adolescents with Alcohol Use 

Disorders: Self-report, Liver Injury and Physical Examination Findings and Correlates. Alcoholism: Clinical and 

Experimental Research 25 (9): 1350-1359,2001. 
60 

The challenges we face in reducing underage drinking are not easy, and the stakes are 

very high. But we can and must protect our children and their good health. That's why the 

AMA is proud to have joined the Support 21 Coalition. Working together we can have a 

positive impact on the problem of underage drinking, which will vastly improve our children's 

health. 

4 
61 

President 

RonaJdC.Rueckar 

OlrectorOfPuMcSafe1y 

City of Sherwood 

ShelWOod,OR 

Immediate Past PreSident 

JosephC, Carter 

Tha Adjutant General 

Massochusmts National Guard 

SNO:ln.l Mftford, MA 

F!rslVicePresiden.l 

RusseUB. laine International Association of Chialo/Police 

Chiefs of Police Algonquin Police Deparlment 

Algonquin,ll 

515 North Washington 51"",! 

Alexandria, VA 22314-2357 Seco!id Vice President 

MlchaelJ.CarroJl Phone703·836-6767; 1-801). THE ChlefofPoiice IACP WeslGoshen Township Police 

Fax: 703-836-4543 WeslChester,PA 

Web: WWN.theiacp.org 

October 26, 2007 

The Honorable Frank Lautenberg 

Chair, 

ThlrdVicePresldenl 

MarkA.MarshaU 

ChlafofPolice 

Smithfield Potice Oepartmanl 

Smithfield,VA 

FoufthVicePresident 

Walter A McNeil 

Secrnlaf)'.FlcmdaDepartmentof 

JUVE!nileJuslice 

Taliahassee,FL 

Vice Presidenl at Large 

$usanRlselmg 

ChtefofPolice 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

Police Departmanl 

Madison,WI 

Vice PreSident at large 

Edmun<lH Mosca 

Chie/ofPolice 

Old Sayhrook Police Department 

OklSaybrook,CT 

Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, 

Infrastructure Security and Water Quality 

Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

lntamatlonalVicePrasldent Parliamentanan 

Mohamed Abdulaziz AI-Nassf LonnlaJ. Westphal (Col Rat.) 

Po!lceAttacha,StataofQalar Colorado State Patro! 

wast!lngton,OC20037 larnspuf,CO 

VtcePresident·Treasurer EXOOJ~vaOirector 

CariRWoff Oaniel N. Rosenblatt 

Chief of PO!ice Alexandria, VA 

Haza!woodPo!lceDapartment 

Hazetwood,MQ Deputy Executive Dira<:tOf 

Chlsl of Staff 

Genara! Chair Oiyjsion of Stale James W, McMahOn 

AS$ooa~onsof Alexandna,VA 

Cillefso/Pollce 

YousryAZakhary 

DIrector 

Woo&Nay Public Safety Department 

WoOOiiay, TX 

Genera! Cllair DivisiQn of Stata and 

ProviooalPolioo 

JQsephR.Fuentes 

Supenntooden! 

NewJerseyStatePoiice 

West Trenton, NJ 

As your subcommittee conducts oversight hearing on the effectiveness of federal drunk 

driving programs, I am writing to provide the perspective of the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police on this critical subject. As you know, the IACP is 

world's oldest and largest association oflaw enforcement executives. Founded in 1893, 

the IACP has over 22,000 members in 100 countries. 

Our national efforts to combat drunk driving have always been a critical issue for state, 

tribal and local law enforcement agencies. Every 30 minutes impaired drivers kill 

someone in this country. That means that each day the lives of nearly SO people are cut 

short because someone chose to get behind the wheel after drinking or using drugs. This 

is a crime that is not restricted to one city or one neighborhood. 

It is for these reasons that the IACP has so strongly supported the enactment and 

aggressive enforcement of effective impaired driving policies, which includes: 

• Establishment of .08 BAC national standard; 

• Establishment and enforcement of repeat impaired driver sanctions; 

• Strong open container laws; 

• The adoption of zero tolerance enforcement policies, and, 

• Establishing and maintaining a national minimum drinking age of21 years old. 
62 

The IACP believes that efforts to weaken any of these provisions, most notably efforts 

to lower the minimum drinking age to 18, are both misguided and dangerous. Research 

has consistently shown that while underage drivers between the ages of 16 and 21 

account for just 7 percent of all drivers in this nation, they are involved in 15 percent of 

all alcohol-related fatalities. It is the IACP's firm belief that if these underage drivers 

were able to purchase alcohol legally then this already unacceptable figure would grow 

dramatically. Simply put, to modify or repeal the minimum drinking age would be 

gambling with the lives of our children. As a result, the IACP strongly urges Congress 

to reject any effort to repeal or weaken current laws regarding impaired driving or the 

minimum drinking age. 

Finally, I would also like to provide the Subcommittee with a copy ofIACP's "Impaired 

Driving Guidebook". Developed by the IACP's Highway Safety Committee, in 

collaboration with the National Highways Safety Traffic Administration, Mothers 

Against Drunk Driving, the Governors Highway Safety Association and the National 

Sheriffs Association, this publication serves as a guide to law enforcement executives on 

how to most effectively renew their efforts "to eliminate impaired driving on our 

roadways. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact the IACP 

if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Ronald Ruecker 

President 
63 
64 
65 

of the Washington 
66 

!1itelno! Communicotlon 

DCONTENTS 

16 

16 
67 
68 

FOREWORD 

and 
69 
70 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
71 
72 

LEADERSHIP 

I I 
73 
74 
75 

prm8cutors, 

(Tr\C) 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

COM1\i1Ul~'ICi\TION 

ENGAGING THE MEDIA 
82 
83 

I 
84 
85 

or suogestions for inclusion in poss!bie future updates to 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

AAMV/,,, 

MSHIO 

ABA 

OOJ 

PARS 

FHWA 

IIHS 

NHfSA 

fl,t., 

1/\C 

AP:?ENDrx D -Acronym 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

Æ