With just days remaining in the 2010 Legislative session, Missouri lawmakers have yet to close gaping loopholes in the state's flawed drunk-driving laws. It's unacceptable.

Gov. Jay Nixon promised to make the DWI fix a priority last fall. Mr. Nixon called legislators together for a special session on drunk driving in the wake of a Post-Dispatch investigation that showed:

• Six of every seven people who appear in municipal court on DWI charges leave with no mention of drunk driving on their records.

• One of every three repeat drunk drivers who should have faced felony charges that include the possibility of prison time instead is charged with a lesser offense.

• Automatic license revocations for those who refuse a Breathalyzer test rarely are imposed. In all but the most serious cases, accused drunk drivers are allowed to continue driving.

When those revelations first appeared in print, they sparked outrage and soul searching. How could we allow this to happen, especially so soon after the Legislature dramatically toughened penalties for drunk driving in 2005?

The answer has become apparent over the past few months. Talking about a crackdown on drunk driving is relatively easy. Passing a tough bill with adequate funding to fix some of the systemic failures is difficult.

So far, at least, talk is all we've gotten.

On April 14, the House passed HB 1695. While imperfect, it would strengthen DWI laws, divert drunk drivers to special courts and improve the tracking of DWI cases, a major weakness in the current system. It also would have diverted repeat offenders and those with blood-alcohol content above 0.15, or about twice the legal limit for driving, into special state courts.

For nearly a month, that House bill has awaited final action in the Senate. There, lawmakers have raised concerns about a provision that allows police to draw blood for alcohol testing without first applying for a warrant.

Predictably, one other item has raised concern in the Senate: Cost. The House version of the bill would cost slightly less than $1.9 million over three years.

It's predictable that cost would be a concern for two reasons. First, state revenue is in free fall, down nearly 12 percent over the first 10 months of the fiscal year. Second, that's exactly what happened in 2005 when lawmakers last tried to toughen penalties for drunk driving.

They had no trouble with the penalties, which included jail time for repeat drunk-driving offenders and automatic license suspensions for people who refused a Breathalyzer test.

But lawmakers balked at providing enough money to computerize records in all of Missouri's municipal courts, where most drunk-driving cases are heard.

The result is that judges often are unaware of previous drunk-driving arrests or convictions in other communities. As a result, drivers who should face felony charges as repeat offenders often walk out of court with little more than a slap on the wrist. They are treated like first-time offenders who are unlikely to re-offend long after it has become clear that they will, and do, continue to drive drunk.

There is dwindling time for lawmakers to approve a meaningful bill to crack down on repeat drunk drivers.

Missouri senators should join their House colleagues in passing HB 1695. They should find the money needed to fully fund it. Mr. Nixon, who made a drunk-driving remedy one of his priorities last fall, must insist that they act.