On drunken driving bills, lawmakers swerve.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Anne Pratt and Bruce Pratt For The Register-Guard

All we have to show for our 63 trips to the Oregon Capitol to lobby for tougher laws against driving under the influence of intoxicants is sore feet, a humongous gas bill and extreme disappointment in the 73rd Legislative Assembly.

As advocates for victims of crime, we lobbied more than a dozen DUII bills addressing prevention and tougher sanctions.

What is even more alarming amounted to LUII - legislating under the influence. Alcohol is apparently still an acceptable political lubricant in Salem. We and several others saw this while contacting legislators during the final day and evening sessions of the Legislature. While we are neither prohibitionists nor members of the Temperance League, we do believe the time to celebrate is when the work is done, not while deciding serious matters for the state of Oregon.

Methamphetamine seemed to grab all of the attention and energy early on. We were halfway through the session before we realized that many legislators did not seem to connect the dots: Hello, meth addicts also drive. Up to 67 percent of those arrested for DUII are under the influence of both drugs and alcohol.

Several of our DUII bills passed the House nearly unanimously, only to be treated with utter disregard by a dysfunctional Senate Judiciary Committee. We soon realized the committee had no intention of passing any DUII bills that had significant consequences. Members seemed to be locked into their own personal agendas.

Sen. Charlie Ringo, D-Beaverton, said we were taking away privileges from people who simply needed treatment. He asked aloud how many DUII bills he would have to hear this session and the next. There had been a whole slew of them last session, he said. Two hundred-plus Oregonians are killed and more than 2,000 are injured each year by intoxicated drivers. We emphasized that all DUII offenders are evaluated, and then receive treatment. The answer, Sen. Ringo, is, "Yes, we are coming back."

Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, the chairwoman of Senate Judiciary, claimed she was after the worst offenders, yet she would not grant a work session on legislation that held high-risk repeat offenders more accountable. This legislation had passed the House with near-unanimous votes. Burdick attempted more than once, at the request of the Western Prison Project and the criminal defense bar, to increase "earned time" for criminals.

Three bills backed by Crime Victims United were assigned to Senate Rules Committee. We managed to squeak one bill out of committee after frustrating negotiations - House Bill 2828, which would have increased the penalties for those who kill or injure while under the influence when they have killed or seriously injured someone previously.

We were treated disrespectfully by the chairwoman, Sen. Kate Brown, D-Portland, and bounced around for nearly two months before the bill was OK'd by the committee with minor changes just in time for the end-of-session rush.

HB 2828 then passed the full Senate 29-1 and was sent to the House for concurrence. To her credit, Burdick seemed to have a change of heart and supported the bill on the Senate floor and pushed it in the House.

House Democrats, however, took advantage of the fact that Rep. Jeff Barker, D-Aloha, a sponsor of the bill, was home recovering from a heart-related illness. His own colleagues took down his bill in the last hours of the session!

HB 2828 had previously passed the House 54-4.

It was extremely disappointing that alcohol could be detected on the breath of several legislators and their aides. How can sound decisions be made under these circumstances?

There were winners in this legislative session: Barker; Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany; Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Astoria; Sen. Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day; Sen. Jason Atkinson, R-Ashland, and many others worked for the people of this state.

Yet overall, Oregonians lost in this session. Oregonians need to be more in tune, especially at election time, to who is representing them.

For example, Reps. Chip Shields and Mitch Greenlick, both D-Portland, never missed an opportunity to oppose public safety bills, but were readily at hand to speak up for criminals. Are they representing the will of their constituents?

We urge Oregonians to become more involved in the legislative process; they may not be getting what they're paying for.

Anne and Bruce Pratt of Springfield lost their son to a drunken driver in 1998 and have advocated for tougher DUII laws in the past three legislative sessions. They are members of Crime Victims United.