Federal Drunken-Driving Standard Nears Approval

House-Senate negotiators agreed Tuesday to require states to set a 0.08% blood-alcohol level to define drunken driving or lose millions of dollars in federal highway funds--a rare instance of Republican congressional leaders using the government’s financial muscle to promote changes in state laws.

Eighteen states, including California, and the District of Columbia currently use the 0.08% standard. Nearly all others, including Nevada and Arizona, use 0.10%.

The push for a national 0.08% drunken-driving standard is included in a $17.8-billion transportation spending bill expected to pass the full House and Senate. Agreement on the drunken-driving provision handed President Clinton a victory on a major initiative while removing another roadblock in the budget battle between the GOP-led Congress and the White House.

Clinton hailed the action as a “new milestone” in the effort to crack down on drunken drivers. “This common-sense nationwide limit will save an estimated 500 lives a year and prevent thousands of injuries,” he said.

Also Tuesday, the House approved a bill boosting funding for another one of Clinton’s pet programs: a measure providing $12 billion over six years for parks, coastal protection, historic preservation and other conservation programs. Senate approval is expected soon.

The House also approved a stopgap measure that funds the government through Oct. 14. But it might not take that long for Congress to work out its differences with Clinton concerning spending for the fiscal year that began Sunday. Lawmakers are itching to get back to their districts to campaign before the Nov. 7 elections.

Millions in Highway Funds at Stake

In the transportation bill, the congressional negotiators dropped a provision that would have blocked a government plan to rate the rollover risks of sport-utility vehicles. Auto industry lobbyists sought to delay the rating system, but the recent Firestone tire recall has heightened concerns about SUV safety. That prompted lawmakers to allow the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to proceed with the rating plan.

Under the drunken-driving provision, states failing to adopt the 0.08% standard would gradually lose highway funds--beginning with 2% of their allotted money in 2004 and increasing to 8% in 2007. States could get their money back if they adopt the 0.08% standard by 2007. (The amounts are considerable. New York, for example, could lose $50 million in 2007.)

The vote represented a defeat for the alcohol and restaurant industries, which were joined by groups representing governors, state legislatures and road-building interests in lobbying against the measure.

They had succeeded in 1998 in persuading Congress to choose the carrot over the stick: Lawmakers created a $500-million incentive fund to coax states into enacting the 0.08% standard. But only two states have done so since then.

This year, Mothers Against Drunk Driving mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign for the provision to cut off highway funds to states not accepting the lower standard.

Elections Likely Influenced Outcome

While Republicans traditionally have decried federal efforts to override state laws, Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the transportation appropriations subcommittee, championed the measure--recounting a 1985 head-on collision with a drunken driver that injured him and his family.

“Few times do we in Congress get an opportunity to cast a vote that we know will save lives,” Wolf said.

Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow for the conservative Hudson Institute think tank, said the measure’s proponents benefited from the timing of the election. “No one wants to be seen as being soft on DUI [driving under the influence],” he said.

Todd Gaziano, a senior fellow in legal studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, criticized Tuesday’s accord. “A majority of states have chosen a different standard than the one the federal government wants to impose on the states. There is almost no evidence that this change in blood-alcohol content will do anything to catch the serious problem drinkers.”

According to MADD, a 170-pound man can consume about four beers on an empty stomach before reaching the 0.08% level. For a 137-pound woman, the level would likely be reached after three beers in an hour on an empty stomach, the group estimated.

Alcohol-involved traffic deaths have been declining nationally. Still, 38% of all U.S. traffic deaths nationally last year involved alcohol.

California had 1,170 deaths and 29,833 injuries from alcohol-involved collisions in 1999, according to the most recent figures available from the California Highway Patrol.

In pushing for the 0.08% standard, anti-drunken driving forces invoked the name of no less a critic of federal mandates to the states than former President Reagan, a Republican.

Reagan, seeking to end what he called the “crazy quilt of different states’ drinking laws,” in 1984 signed legislation requiring states to raise their drinking ages to 21 or lose federal highway funds. All states passed such laws.

In lobbying against the 0.08% provision, representatives of the alcohol industry contended that it would punish social drinkers.

Representatives of the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors’ Assn. contended that federal lawmakers were intruding on states’ rights. And the Automobile Assn. of America objected that the measure could deprive many states of money needed for highway safety projects.