[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES: OPERATING WHILE STONED
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 31, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-130
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-703 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan Vacancy
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Operations
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
TIM WALBERG, Michigan GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 31, 2014.................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Christopher A. Hart, Acting Chairman, U.S. National
Transportation Safety Board
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Jeffrey P. Michael, Ph.D., Associate Administrator for Research
and Program Development, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Ms. Patrice M. Kelly, Acting Director, Office of Drug and Alcohol
Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Mr. Ronald Flegel, Director, Division of Workplace Programs,
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services
Oral Statement............................................... 43
Written Statement............................................ 46
APPENDIX
Wall Street Journal 7-29-14, ``Science Collides With the Push to
Legalize Pot'' by Peter Wehner, submitted by Rep. Fleming...... 70
Response to the New York Times Editorial Board's Call for Federal
Marijuana Legalization by Office of Nat'l Drug Control Policy
Staff, submitted by Rep. Fleming............................... 72
Answers to questions for the record from Rep. Turner to Jeffrey
P. Michael, Ph.D., and Patrice Kelly from NHTSA and DOT,
Respectively, submitted by Rep Farenthold...................... 74
Statement from Ms. Patrice M. Kelly.............................. 78
PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES: OPERATING WHILE STONED
----------
Thursday, July 31, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, and Connolly.
Also Present: Representatives Fleming and Blumenauer.
Staff Present: Melissa Beaumont, Assistant Clerk; Will L.
Boyington, Deputy Press Secretary; Molly Boyl, Deputy General
Counsel and Parliamentarian; Sharon Casey, Senior Assistant
Clerk; John Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm,
Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda
Good, Chief Clerk; Mark D. Marin, Deputy Staff Director for
Oversight; Emily Martin, Counsel; Katy Rother, Counsel; Laura
L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Andrew Shult, Deputy Digital
Director; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration;
Devon Hill, Minority Research Assistant; and Cecelia Thomas,
Minority Counsel.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to the
Committee on Government Oversight and Reform and our
subcommittee hearing this morning. This is the Subcommittee on
Government Operations and I welcome my ranking member, Mr.
Connolly, and others who may join us this morning.
The title of today's hearing is Planes, Trains and
Automobiles: Operating While Stoned. And this, I believe, is,
what, our fifth hearing on the subject of the impact of
changing laws on the increasing use of marijuana in our
society.
And our subcommittee in particular has jurisdiction and
part of our charter is the difference between Federal and state
laws and the relationships and a whole host of issues that deal
with, again, Federal-state issues and certainly in our most
recent history, there's probably been nothing that has provided
a greater difference in, say, current Federal statutes and
changing state and local statutes than the marijuana issue. So
it's an important matter and we try to approach it and look at
all of the aspects and impacts.
The order of business this morning will be opening
statements. I'll start with mine, yield to Mr. Connolly.
I see we have Mr. Fleming. I don't believe Mr. Fleming is a
member of the committee, but I ask unanimous consent that, and
without objection, that he be permitted to participate in
today's proceedings, and other members who may join us. Right
now there are a number of conferences going on around the Hill.
With that, after the opening statements, we'll hear--I see
we have four witnesses, we'll hear from them. We'll withhold
questions until we've heard from all of our panelists and get
to introduce you and swear you in after the opening statements.
So with that, let me begin.
Again, I have an important responsibility to look at
changing laws. This subcommittee has, in fact, been
investigating the Federal response to state and local
government legalization and change of laws relating to
marijuana and examining the Administration's sometimes chaotic
and inconsistent policies on marijuana.
In fact, most of our proceedings since the beginning of the
year have been based on a statement that the President made,
and he said that marijuana was not much different than alcohol
and I think one of our first hearings was to bring in the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, who differed with the
President's statement. We looked at that issue, then we heard
from the law enforcement agencies. DEA, they disagreed with
that statement.
Then we saw the conflict in Colorado and other states.
Department of Justice had issued some guidelines and statements
relating to enforcement. We heard, as I recall, from the U.S.
Attorney from Colorado, who testified about some of the
problems. We heard from DEA and other agencies.
As we were doing one of the hearings, the District of
Columbia changed its law on possession, tampering down the fine
to $25 for 1 ounce of marijuana, and I illustrated by holding
up a fake joint. Some people thought that was entertaining, but
it was also designed to illustrate you could have 28 of those
joints now in the District and that would be the results and
the $25 fine. And then I held up in the other hand a list of 26
Federal agencies that were charged with enforcing conflicting
Federal law, and it does create a serious dilemma and
situation.
And, again, I think today is very important, because having
chaired Transportation, and you see the results of the
devastation, just for example, on our highways. Probably in the
last dozen years, we've had a quarter of a million Americans
slaughtered on the highways. Think about that: over a quarter
of a million. We've gotten it down. It was down in the 30 some
thousand, but it was running in the mid, almost mid 40,000, and
that's fatalities and half of those fatalities are related to
people who are impaired through alcohol or drugs.
And as we embark on this new era with many more people
exposed to what is now still a Schedule I narcotic and more
potent, as we heard from some of the scientific folks, we are
going to have a lot more people stoned on the highway, and
there will be consequences.
We do have Federal agencies, and we'll hear from the
Department of Transportation to see how they're going to deal
with both vehicles, both passenger vehicles, with commercial
vehicles. And then also, and I don't know if we could put up
some of those charts to see some of the devastation, but--or
the photos. Aviation is another area. Maybe you could put some
of those up there. We haven't gotten into commercial, and we'll
talk about that, but these are civil aircraft. Just keep
flipping them. Every one of these were involved with people
impaired.
And the way we find out right now if they were impaired
was, in fact, by testing the corpse, the blood, and this is
some of the results we see.
The worst train incident that we've had probably in recent
memory--keep flipping that to--let's see if we can--this is the
Metro link. Look at that, 25 people killed, and the engineer
was impaired with marijuana and then automobiles again. I just
showed one on automobile, but there are thousands of accidents
that involve some just marijuana, some a deadly combination of
marijuana and other drugs taking lives. So there are
consequences to what's being done in our society.
Today I want to also focus on the aspect of not only the
number of crash victims, but also those who are the most
vulnerable in this whole process. Right now, listen to this,
from 1999 to 2010, the number of crash victims with marijuana
in their system has jumped from 4 percent to over 12 percent,
and that's actually as some of this has been kicking in.
Furthermore, the influence of both alcohol and marijuana,
they say, is now 24 times more likely to cause an accident than
a sober person and I could cite some of these studies. In a
study, 27 percent of the seriously injured drivers tested
positive for marijuana.
Now, again, one of my major concerns is the impact of the
most vulnerable in our society, and the trend is most troubling
for our young drivers. Most recently one eighth grade school
senior admitted driving after smoking--one in eight, I'm sorry,
high school seniors admitted to driving after smoking
marijuana, and nearly 28 percent of the high school seniors
admit to getting into the car of a driver who had recently used
marijuana or other illicit drugs. At night, 16 percent of the
drivers under age 21 tested positive for drugs, whereas only 7
percent of the same drivers tested positive for alcohol.
As drugged driving fatalities have tripled, a study has
found nearly half of the drivers fatally injured in car
accidents are under the age of 25. That slaughter I talked
about on the highways is impacting no other group as much as
our young people and those particularly are teenagers and those
under age 25. As much as 14 percent of fatal or sustained
injury drivers tested positive for THC in 2012; however, we
don't have to have data to understand the full scope of the
problem.
Data collection policies are set up by states, and
generally testing only occurs, unfortunately, with drivers with
fatalities. Drivers who have used marijuana do not exhibit the
same intoxication effects as drivers who have used alcohol, and
traditional field testing is not always effective to identify
and remove intoxicated drivers from the road. In fact, we have
no standard test for marijuana, for drivers. There is no
standard test. We don't have Federal standards of limits of
THC, since right now at the Federal level, any level of THC is
illegal, it is a Schedule I narcotic, and supposedly zero
tolerance, but we have no way of testing that.
Currently, there's no roadside breathalyzer for marijuana,
but technology is advancing and some countries have started to
use a roadside oral test. Now, this is one of those testing
machines, and this is used actually in Europe and as I
understand, it takes a swab. I was going to swab the panelists,
but I thought I wouldn't do that today, but you could take a
swab with this and it can tell you if anyone has used marijuana
within 4 hours. But, again, we have no standard, we have no
acceptable test, and we have no way of telling if people are
impaired.
Most of the data we're getting right now is from, again,
fatalities and you either have to take an individual to a
hospital for a blood or urine test, or, again, the worst
situation is to the morgue where we test their blood.
In the past 10 years, marijuana was a factor in nearly 50
aviation accidents. I showed some of the civil aviation. We
haven't even begun to think of what can happen in the
commercial market as more people are exposed to marijuana. We
now have 23 states with medical use and two states who have
knocked down most of the barriers and more people will have,
again, exposure to use of marijuana and very little means of
testing them.
The National Transportation Safety Board has investigated
different accidents, and found, again, the use of THC in a
number of these accidents, but, again, all of their testing is
done after the fact and usually where a fatality is involved.
The witnesses today will tell us what, if anything, the
Federal Government is doing to combat drug-impaired operation
of any transportation mode. And, again, we have a whole host of
modes that the Federal Government takes responsibility over,
vehicular, simple passenger cars, commercial vehicles, cargo,
of course rail, both passenger and cargo, and of course
aviation, civil and commercial aviation.
We'll hear from Christopher Hart from the National
Transportation Safety Board, Jeff Michael from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Patrice Kelly from the
Department of Transportation Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy
Compliance, and Mr. Ronald, what is it, Flegel, Mr. Flegel of
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration.
So I look forward to today's further and continuing
discussions on this issue that has a great impact on all of us.
And yield now to the ranking member, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding today's hearing to examine the effects of marijuana on
the ability to operate planes, trains and automobiles. I'm
going to particularly focus in on the automobile, but not to
the exclusion of everything else.
This hearing addresses an aspect of marijuana policy where
I believe there's general agreement over the desired outcome:
reducing the incidents of vehicle accidents resulting from
driving while under the influence of any drugs. Across the
political spectrum, there's widespread opposition to allowing
driving while under the influence of any drug that impairs an
individual's ability to operate a vehicle safely. Where
differences emerge are over the most effective policy to
achieve this widely shared outcome, which I think we can all
agree remains a national challenge.
According to the National Survey on Drug and Health Use--
Drug Use and Health, excuse me, approximately 10.3 million
people have admitted to driving while under the influence of
illicit drugs in the past year. The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention report that in 2010, 10,228 people were killed
in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 31 percent
of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
These statistics are alarming and unacceptable. Our Nation
must continue reducing the incidents of any drug-impaired
driving deaths. A key component to this longstanding effort
will be improving our knowledge base through better data and
research.
With respect to the focus of today's hearing, there's been
very limited research actually conducted by the Federal
Government addressing the relationship between marijuana usage
and driving safety. Reports from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration conclude that THC, the psychoactive
ingredient in marijuana has dose-related impairing effects on
driving performance. For example, NHTSA has previously
reported, quote, ``the impairment manifests itself mainly in
the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its
magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes
produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol, yet NHTSA also
found that marijuana intoxication is short-lived. Peak acute
effects following cannabis inhalation are typically achieved
within 10 to 30 minutes, with the effects dissipating quickly
after about an hour. According to NHTSA, drivers under the
influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and
will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or
increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on
driving performance appear relatively small,'' unquote.
Meanwhile, the National Transportation Safety Board held a
public forum to discuss the most effective data-driven,
science-based actions to reduce accidents resulting from
substance impaired driving. In May 2013, it released a safety
report entitled, Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-
Impaired Driving, in which it reiterated a recommendation from
NHTSA to develop a common standard of practice for drug
toxicology testing.
Scientific analysis and technological advances have
standardized the use of a breathalyzer and the 0.8 percent
blood alcohol concentration limit to determine alcohol
intoxication; however, states beginning to implement marijuana
decriminalization, and there are now 22 of them plus the
District of Columbia, must act swiftly to address the fact that
there really is no legal limit set for driving under the
influence of marijuana as there is with alcohol.
For instance, field sobriety tests may be accurate and
effective in detecting marijuana impairment. A study of the
U.K. examining the accuracy of field sobriety tests in gauging
the amount of marijuana participants had consumed, concluded
that there is, quote, ``a strong correlation between cannabis
dose received and whether impairment was judged to be
present,'' unquote.
Of course, anecdote must not substitute for rigorous
scientific data. That's why I believe we must support further
research in this field to inform the development of effective
public safety policies regulating marijuana and my friend, Dr.
Fleming, and I had a discussion at one of our hearings on this
very matter, and I think we agree that that has to be the basis
for moving forward, it's got to be based in science, and we
need more of it.
My concerns over the ineffectiveness of our Nation's
existing Federal policy of absolute marijuana prohibition is no
more of an endorsement of its recreational purposes use than
opposing prohibition of alcohol is an endorsement for drunk
driving. Our Nation proved with respect to policies regulating
the use of other potentially harmful substances that
discouraging the inappropriate use of drugs need not, and
perhaps should not, involve total prohibition and
criminalization.
I've long believed that the Federal Government governs best
when it listens and learns from our states, which are the
laboratories of democracy. Right now those states are
undergoing a great experiment with respect to this subject, and
we need to learn from their experience and hopefully emulate
them in regulations and policies in the future that address
both use, appropriate use, medicinal purposes and, of course,
the issue of criminalization.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Mica. And I recognize now Mr. Fleming, if he had an
opening comment.
Mr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank Chairman Mica and the other members
of the Government Operations Subcommittee for allowing me to
participate in today's hearing. I would also like to thank the
chairman for holding this series of hearings that are so
vitally important.
You know, it took us centuries of alcohol in our culture
and it took a new organization, a then new organization,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, to realize that we were losing
Americans wholesale, by the tens of thousands as a result of
driving under the influence of alcohol.
It took us approximately 400 years to figure out that
tobacco was similarly killing tens of thousands of Americans
every year. In fact, as early as--or as recently as the early
1960's, there were commercials in which doctors were actually
recommending certain types of cigarettes, saying that it was
good for your throat. I worry that we're not, in fact, in the
same situation in this case when it comes to marijuana.
Drugged driving is a serious problem. According to the
statistics compiled by the 2012 National Survey On Drug Use and
Health, about 10.3 million people 12 and over reported driving
while under the influence of an illegal drug. Marijuana's
active ingredient, THC, is the most common drug found in
drivers and crash victims alike. Studies indicate that between
4 to 14 percent of drivers involved in accidents, fatal or
otherwise, had THC in their system. Marijuana decreases a
driver's response time, awareness and perception of time and
speed, all of which are necessary for safe driving.
Another concern of mine is the combination of drugs and
alcohol. You see, whenever you hear this debate, you often hear
that marijuana is innocuous to begin with, and number two, it's
either or: either someone smokes marijuana or they drink
alcohol. That's not the way it works. Individuals who are
driving under the influence of marijuana will have little
inhibitions for drinking beer and alcohol and other substances
as well, smoking a joint behind the weed or whatever it takes
to get high or feel good.
The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area,
which works closely with the White House's National Drug
Control Strategy, is collecting data on the impact of
Colorado's legalization of marijuana. An August 2013 report
indicated that in 2006, Colorado drivers testing positive for
marijuana were involved in 28 percent of fatal drug-related
vehicle crashes. That number increased to 56 percent by 2011.
And understand that in states that are decriminalizing and
legalizing marijuana, and certainly we know from NIDA, who's
done some work on this, that as marijuana is de-stigmatized, as
a threat to use is reduced, that use goes up, it finds its way
into homes, into candy, into cookies and baked goods, and once
it gets there, it finds its way into the brains of teens.
And we know from statistics that marijuana has a 9 percent
addiction rate among adults, but those who start as teens, that
rate doubles to one in six. So it's very important what's
happening in these states who are legalizing and even
decriminalizing or medicinalizing marijuana.
This Year's Rocky Mountain HIDTA report on 2012 data is
also very alarming. Using data from the National Highway Safety
Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System, FARS, this
year's report, due out in October, will show that between 2007
and 2012, while Colorado's overall traffic fatalities decreased
by 15 percent, over that same time, marijuana-related
fatalities increased 100 percent. Earlier this year, the
University of Colorado released a study confirming that
Colorado drivers are testing positive for marijuana and
involved in fatal accidents is on the rise.
There is no hard and fast way to determine whether an
individual is driving under the influence and there's yet to be
established a uniform amount of marijuana which constitutes
drugged driving, and that is very important, because, you see,
in the case of alcohol, when you arrest someone for--if they've
not been in an accident, you just caught them driving under the
influence, with so many episodes of that arrest, that person
loses their license, they're taken off the road. That's not
happening with marijuana. We don't have a way to do that yet.
While driving under the influence is unquestionably a
problem, it is also concerning that pot smoking American youth
may also have trouble finding a job. This is especially true in
the transportation arena. The U.S. Department of Transportation
requires mandatory drug testing on pilots, air traffic
controllers, railroad employees and commercial drivers, and
that can include buses, it can include 18 wheelers, anything
that requires a CDL license. These individuals are responsible
for numerous lives, and it's critical that they are and remain
drug free.
Marijuana will also become more pervasive as states
continue to embrace permissible laws on medical marijuana, and
the recreational use of marijuana in kids and youth will have
easier access to a dangerous, addictive drug and, again, back
to the medicinal marijuana, there's no reason why we can't use
components of marijuana for disease treatment.
Right now we already have Marinol, which is a Schedule III,
can be used under the monitoring and observation of a
physician, closely monitored at the dosage precisely
prescribed, and can be done safely, just like hydrocodone. It
has the same activity and benefit that the plant marijuana has.
It is a synthetic THC. We have that already.
There is some claim that there are extracts, oils extracts
of cannabis that can be used to treat certain rare seizures in
children. Well, it has little or no THC activity. There's no
reason why that--and it's under fast track FDA approval right
now. There's no reason why that can't be taken out as well, but
there's no reason to de-schedule or to make legal marijuana,
which is now Schedule I, for those purposes. All of those
things can be done without reducing the schedule or to legalize
the marijuana plant itself.
Mr. Chairman, it's no surprise to you or to anyone here
that I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana. What is
surprising, however, is that the New York Times editorial board
is fully supportive of the legalization of marijuana.
Mr. Chairman, I have two response pieces to the New York
Times that I would like to submit for the record, one from the
White House Office of National Drug Policy and another opinion
piece by Peter Wehner published in The Wall Street Journal on
Tuesday. Legalization is not the answer nor is it a prudent
decision for America. Marijuana remains a dangerous, highly
addictive drug. Even science will tell you that.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, both of those articles,
statements will be made part of the record.
Mr. Mica. There being no further opening statements,
members may have 7 days to submit opening statements for the
record.
Mr. Mica. Now let me proceed and recognize our first panel.
The first panel consists of Christopher A. Hart, and he's
the acting chairman of the National Transportation Safety
Board; Mr. Jeff Michael is the associate administrator for
research and program development at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration; Ms. Patrice Kelly is acting
director for the Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and
Compliance at the Department of Transportation; and Mr. Ron
Flegel is the director for the division of workplace programs
at the Center for substance abuse prevention at the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Administration. I welcome all of our
panelists.
This is an investigative and oversight subcommittee of
Congress. We do swear in all of our witnesses. If you'll stand,
please, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm
that the testimony you're about to give before this
subcommittee of Congress is the whole truth and nothing but the
truth?
All of the witnesses, the record will reflect, answered in
the affirmative. Welcome them again.
And I gave misinformation on a statistic, and I didn't
realize it until after I said it, and I want to clarify that
for the record. I said nearly a quarter of a million people had
been killed in the last dozen years on our highway. It's nearly
a half a million people, a half a million people. Think about
that. And half of those people died, that's nearly a quarter of
a million, with either alcohol or some substance in their
system. I'll get the exact numbers and we'll put them in the
record, but I didn't give the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey
would say.
Mr. Mica. With that correction for the record, let me first
welcome and recognize Mr. Hart. Welcome, and you're recognized,
sir.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER A. HART
Mr. Hart. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member
Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much
for inviting the NTSB to testify today.
The subcommittee's focus on Federal marijuana policies
affecting transportation is very timely. We've been working
extensively for many years to address alcohol use by drivers,
which you've heard about already in the opening statements, but
that still kills almost 10,000 people every year on our
highways. Now we're becoming more concerned that our
investigations also illustrate the problems of marijuana use in
transportation operations.
Among the more egregious drug-involved accidents that are
listed in my written testimony are a recreational boating
accident in Ponte Vedra, Florida, that killed five, a daycare
van driver in Memphis, Tennessee, who was high and crashed,
causing five deaths, and a railroad accident in Chase,
Maryland, that killed 16 that's already been referred to. But
we don't have a good idea of the number of drug-related
transportation fatalities.
We're not surprised about the growing evidence of drug use
by drivers, pilots and others, however, given that as we have
heard, many states have authorized medical marijuana programs
and two states have decriminalized recreational use of the
drug. In addition, recent news reports have noted pressure to
decriminalize marijuana at the Federal level as well. Perhaps
most disturbing, as we've heard mentioned in the opening
statements, is evidence that marijuana use among teenage
drivers is increasing and their perceived risk of marijuana use
is decreasing.
In 2013, we completed a year-long review of substance-
impaired driving, which included drug use and we concluded that
there is not enough data on drugged driving. Consequently, we
asked NHTSA to establish guidelines for collecting this data to
enable policy makers to make more informed decisions regarding
how to address this important issue, and we understand that
NHTSA is working on this recommendation.
Lack of data about drug impairment is not only a problem in
highway accidents, but also in other transportation modes. In
general aviation, our investigators sometimes see evidence of
drug use by pilots who are involved in accidents. So we've
decided it was time to look at this issue in greater detail. In
September, we will meet to discuss drug use in general aviation
by examining toxicology testing results conducted on fatal
injured general aviation pilots. We will look at over-the-
counter, prescription, and illicit drugs in pilots. We are
missing important data on the role of illegal drugs, and not
only that, but the public is pretty much unaware of important
information about how legal drugs may also affect their
performance. We will also examine drug use in general aviation
pilots as compared to trends observed in the U.S. Population in
general. Information that we obtain in this September meeting
will help us evaluate whether there is a need for additional
recommendations or other advocacy efforts on our part.
Fortunately, shifting state laws have not resulted in
changes in illegal drug use policies for commercial operators.
You'll hear on this panel today that the Department of
Transportation has stated that it continues to have a zero
tolerance policy for drug use, illegal drug use by commercial
operators, and the NTSB fully supports that policy.
What is clear is that operator impairment places the public
in jeopardy. Impaired drivers share the roadways with other
drivers, impaired pilots share the air space with other pilots.
Impaired mariners share the seas with other mariners. And
across all modes, many operators have passengers that may be
placed at risk.
Too many people died on our roadways from alcohol-impaired
driving before strong action was taken to combat it. That
strong action has reduced fatalities tremendously, but there
are still too many alcohol-related deaths, and every one of
them is entirely preventable. Hopefully, we will not wait for
more people to die from drug-induced transportation accidents
before we take strong and decisive action.
Hearings like this one today will help inform policymakers
on the issues that so that effective laws can be crafted,
strong enforcement can be implemented, and robust education
efforts can be accomplished in all modes of transportation, and
we look forward to working with you to draw more attention to
this issue.
Again, thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward
to responding to your questions.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And we will withhold questions until
we've heard from everyone.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.013
Mr. Mica. And now let me recognize Jeff Michael, who's with
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You're
recognized.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. MICHAEL
Mr. Michael. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this
opportunity to testify before you today on the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's research on drugged driving.
NHTSA takes tremendous pride in our 40-year record of
protecting Americans by partnering with states to enforce
strong highway safety laws and by working to make vehicles
safer. Since 1970, highway fatalities have declined by 36
percent, traffic deaths have fallen by 22 percent just in the
past decade, but with more than 30,000 fatalities on America's
roadways each year, we must continue looking at new and
innovative ways to save lives.
Working with our state partners and other safety
organizations, we've made substantial progress with critical
safety behaviors, including drunk diving, seatbelt use, and
have applied the same successful approaches to emerging
concerns, such as distracted driving.
The legalization of marijuana under state laws poses new
concerns, and we are actively working from our foundation of
experience to understand these risks and develop appropriate
countermeasures.
Available evidence indicates that alcohol is the most
common source of driver impairment. In 2012, more than 30
percent of all traffic deaths involved a driver with blood
alcohol level at or above the legal limit. With more than 40
years of research, several decades of data collection and a
well established criminal justice process, traffic safety
professionals have a good understanding of the scale and the
nature of the drunk driving problem. Much more research is
needed to gain a good understanding of the effects of drugs
other than alcohol on safe driving.
In 2007, we obtained the first nationally representative
information on the prevalence of drug use by drivers by
including drug testing in our national roadside survey.
Although this survey had been used to track driver alcohol use
for several decades, this was the first time that information
on drug use was collected. This survey, based on information
from voluntary and anonymous participants, found that about 12
percent of weekend drivers were alcohol positive and about 9
percent were marijuana positive. We repeated the national
roadside survey in 2013, and we are in the process of analyzing
those data.
To understand how state level legalization might affect the
prevalence of marijuana by drivers, we partnered with the State
of Washington, at their invitation, this spring to conduct a
similar roadside survey. This is a two-phase study that will
assess the change in marijuana use by drivers before and
following the date at which the state allowed retail sale of
the drug.
In addition to prevalence research, we also need
information on the degree of risk associated with drug use. We
are in the process of completing a new study which compares the
crash risk of drivers using drugs to those with no drugs in
their system. This is the first such investigation of drug-
crash risk in the United States, and more research of various
types will be needed to get a full understanding of the role of
drugs in crashes. As we prepare to release the results of this
new study, we plan to reach out to stakeholders, including
committee staff, to inform them of the findings.
Strong laws and law enforcement are cornerstones of our
efforts to address alcohol-impaired driving, and we are looking
to the same solutions for drugged driving. We worked closely
with the law enforcement community to develop a network of more
than 7,000 drug recognition experts across the Nation. These
trained officers can significantly facilitate the successful
prosecution of drugged driving cases.
We are also looking closely at procedural barriers to
effective drugged driving law enforcement, and recognize the
challenges presented by drug testing methods. While the
prosecution of alcohol-impaired driving cases is complex,
evidential testing for alcohol can typically be done at the
jurisdiction by local officials with a moderate amount of
training. Testing for drug presence among suspected impaired
drivers is often far less convenient, requiring that a blood
sample be drawn, sent to a remote lab for analysis by highly
trained personnel. The cost and delay of such testing can be a
disincentive for criminal justice officials to pursue a drugged
driving charge.
In conclusion, NHTSA's committed to reducing both alcohol
and drug-impaired driving, we support the development of
effective education enforcement programs with guidance for
state officials based on sound research. Much progress has been
made, however, impaired driving still claims more than 10,000
lives per year.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify before your
committee, and I'm happy to take any questions you may have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Michael follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.029
Mr. Mica. And we'll now hear from Ms. Patrice Kelly, and
she's acting director of the Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy
at the department--Compliance at the Department of
Transportation.
Welcome, and you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF PATRICE M. KELLY
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member
Connolly, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the potential
impacts on commercial transportation of recent state and local
legislation that allow recreational and medicinal marijuana
use.
The transportation industry drug and alcohol testing
program for commercial operations is a critical element of the
Department of Transportation's safety mission. Airline pilots,
truck drivers, subway operators, mariners, pipeline operators,
airline mechanics, locomotive engineers, motor coach drivers
and school bus drivers, among others, have a tremendous
responsibility to the public, and we cannot let their
performance be compromised by drugs or alcohol.
Today I will provide you with a brief history of our
program, the scope of its application, and finally, an
explanation of our policy regarding the use of marijuana for
medical or recreational purposes by individuals who work in
federally-regulated transportation industries.
The DOT drug and alcohol testing program was first
established in 1988 following the Department of Health and
Human Service's development of drug testing in alcohol--drug
and alcohol testing for Federal employees. The DOT program was
initiated in response to transportation industry fatal
accidents that occurred due to illegal drug use.
In 1991, Congress enacted the Omnibus Transportation
Employee Testing Act, OTETA, which required the DOT to expand
the application of its program to include mass transit, and
modify its regulations to address the statutory requirements.
The DOT program always has required transportation industry
employers to have drug and alcohol testing programs that
require their employees to be removed from performing safety
sensitive duties immediately if they have drug or alcohol
violations.
Throughout the history of our program, and consistent with
Congress's direction in OTETA, we have relied on HHS for its
technical and scientific expertise for determining the types of
drugs for which we test, the testing methodology we must use in
our program, and the integrity of the HHS certified
laboratories in testing the specimens and reporting the
results. We are limited to testing for the controlled
substances included in the HHS mandatory guidelines.
Currently, those substances include Schedule I, illegal
drugs, and Schedule II, legally prescribed drugs. The drugs and
classes of drugs for which we test are cocaine, opiates,
amphetamines, phencyclidine and marijuana. If an employee tests
positive for any of those substances, the employer must take
immediate action to remove the employee from performing safety
sensitive duties until that employee successfully completes
treatment and additional testing. Currently there are
approximately 5 million DOT-regulated safety sensitive
employees that are subject to our drug and alcohol testing
program.
The Department's policy on the use of Schedule I controlled
substances has remained unchanged since our program began in
1988. There is no legitimate explanation, medical or otherwise,
for the presence of a Schedule I controlled substance, such as
marijuana, in an employee's system.
In December 2009, following the Department of Justice's
issuance of guidance for Federal prosecutors in states that
enacted laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana, we
issued a reminder to our regulated entities that under the DOT
testing program, medical marijuana use authorized under state
or local law is not a valid medical explanation for
transportation employees' positive drug test results. Although
there has been recent movement by some states to allow
recreational use of marijuana by their citizens, the DOT
program does not and will not authorize the use of Schedule I
controlled substances, including marijuana, for any reason by
any individual conducting safety sensitive duties in the
transportation industry.
In December of 2012, we issued a notice explaining that
state and local government initiatives allowing the use of
recreational marijuana will have no bearing on the Department
of Transportation's drug testing program nor any individual
subject to testing. It remains unacceptable for any safety
sensitive employee subject to the DOT's drug testing
regulations to use marijuana and continue to perform safety
sensitive duties in the federally regulated transportation
industries.
Chairman Mica, this concludes my testimony. I would be
happy to answer any questions you or your colleagues have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And we'll hold questions.
Mr. Mica. Ron Flegel is the director for the Division of
Workplace Programs at the Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention, at Substance and Abuse Mental Health
Administration.
Welcome, and you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF RONALD FLEGEL
Mr. Flegel. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking
Member Connolly, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
My name is Ron Flegel and I am the director of division of
workplace programs at the Center of Substance Abuse Prevention
within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service
Administration, or SAMHSA. It's an agency of the Department of
Health and Human Services. I am pleased to speak with you this
morning about SAMHSA's role as it pertains to the issue of drug
testing for marijuana, particularly as it relates to drugged
driving.
SAMHSA's mission is to reduce the impact of substance abuse
and mental illness on America's communities. SAMHSA strives to
create awareness that behavioral health is essential for
health, prevention works, treatment is effective, and people
recover from mental and substance use disorders.
Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol continues
to pose a significant threat to public safety. The
administration has focused on four key areas to reduce drugged
driving: increased public awareness, enhancing legal reforms to
get drugged drivers off the road, advancing technology for drug
tests and data collection, and increasing law enforcement's
ability to identify drugged drivers. These efforts remain the
administration's focus for the upcoming year.
SAMHSA has several roles as it pertains to the issue of
drugged driving. We conduct surveillance through the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health, as said today; we provide
funding for drugged driving prevention efforts; offer technical
assistance about prevention of drugged driving to grantees and
the general public; and evaluate grantees that are focused
efforts on the problem.
SAMHSA administers the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Program,
which includes the random testing of national security, public
health and public safety positions within the executive branch
agencies.
Currently, nine states are focused on drugged driving
prevention efforts using SAMHSA's grant funds. SAMHSA also
provides state-of-the-science training and technical assistance
to states and communities, and thus addresses drugged driving
if states and communities choose to make this a focus of their
efforts and/or if the data suggests that drugged driving is an
issue in their state or community.
SAMHSA's Division of Workplace Program has a unique and
nationally important regulatory role and technical assistance
role and responsibility for Federal and non-Federal workplaces
with respect to their drug-free workplace policies and
programs. DWP has oversight responsibility of the HHS certified
laboratories operating under the mandatory guidelines for
Federal workplace testing program requirements. The HHS
certified laboratories conduct forensic drug testing for
Federal agencies under Executive Order 12564, and the Federal
drug-free workplace program issued by President Reagan in 1986,
and the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1987, public law
100-71, as well as specific federally-regulated industries.
The Federal drug-free workplace program was established as
a deterrent program incorporating detection as well as
referrals for treatment as needed for Federal employees in
safety sensitive positions, while protecting national security
and public safety.
Public law 100-71 directs HHS to publish mandatory
guidelines using the best available technology to ensure the
reliability and accuracy of drug tests and to specify the drugs
for which Federal employees may be tested; hence, the mandatory
guidelines established the scientific and technical guidelines
for Federal drug testing programs and established standards for
certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing for
Federal agencies and the regulated industries.
Currently, 157 Federal agencies are affected by the
guidelines based on public law and executive order. The
executive order covers approximately 2.2 million executive
branch employees and job applicants. The Department of
Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission utilize the
SAMHSA guidelines in their regulatory testing programs
requiring testing of over 5 million safety sensitive employees
and applicants in DOT-regulated transportation related
industries nationally, and an additional 2 million employees
and applicants in the nuclear industry.
In the private, non-regulated sectors, we have
approximately had 20 to 50 million Americans that are tested as
applicants or employees using some aspect of SAMHSA's
guidelines.
Currently, urine is the only specimen a Federal agency may
collect under the guidelines for its workplace drug testing
program. A Federal agency must ensure that each specimen is
tested for marijuana and cocaine metabolites and is authorized
to test each specimen for opiates, amphetamine and
phencyclidine.
The SAMHSA guidelines are specific to testing of Federal
employees for the purpose of workplace settings and do not
directly govern issues related to drugged driving, however, the
revised guidelines may impact testing for drugged driving
through the provisions of scientific standards for oral fluid
testing. The proposed revisions of the mandatory guidelines are
still being finalized and will be posted in the Federal
Register for public comment once completed.
As I stated at the opening of my testimony, the issue of
drugged driving continues to be a priority for SAMHSA and the
administration. SAMHSA, along with other Federal agencies,
continue to collaborate with state and local governments, non-
governmental organizations and Federal partners to raise
awareness of the dangers of drugged driving and meet the
president's goal of reducing drugged driving in America.
The Administration continues to advance the work on this
important issue, and we look forward to continuing to work with
Congress on these efforts.
Chairman Mica, thank you for this opportunity. I welcome
any questions from you or your colleagues may have.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Flegel follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.041
Mr. Mica. Thank each of our witnesses. And we'll start a
little round of questions.
Just, again, to give folks the most accurate information on
the number of highway fatalities, from 2001 to 2012, and this
doesn't include 2013, but during that dozen years that I spoke
of, 468,743 highway fatalities. That's nearly half a million
people and I'm sure if we include 2013, we would top that.
That's just a phenomenal devastation and that's fatalities;
that's not injuries, property damage and everything that has
gone. Everyone in this room can probably name someone who's
died or a family member in an automobile fatality. And, again,
with the changing laws, there are significant consequences.
So, Mr. Hart, again, where do you see us going as far as
reaching some positive steps in, one, containing the issue,
then also adjusting our Federal laws, our regulations, adopting
standards for tests, the whole spectrum of addressing these
changing laws? Maybe you could comment generally.
Mr. Hart. Thank you for the question. As the accident
investigators, when we investigate accidents and see indication
of impairment, as we have in every mode, then we're very
concerned about the need for strong and decisive action, and
typically that will mean, as you've heard from the other
panelists, strong legislation, strong enforcement, and good
education, and in addition, we are look at technologies to help
us with the detection, so we see that--that needs to be----
Mr. Mica. Some of that has to be based on data. Some of
what we have is really not that up to date.
And I think Mr. Michael testified they started collecting
some data as recently as 2007, and then you said 2013 data we
had collected, which we're going the do a comparison of is--but
that has not been calculated, and when do you expect us to have
that data?
Mr. Michael. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We have
collected information in 2007 about the presence of drugs, and
specifically marijuana among drivers on the roadway, and we
repeated that same data collection during 2013. We are now
analyzing that, and it will be compared.
Mr. Mica. But what--my question was when will we see that
completed?
Mr. Michael. We expect to have that information, sir, by
the end of the year.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, if you could check even closer and
advise the committee and staff, maybe we could ask that
question. I would like to find out when we'll have that data.
Now, the next thing that comes to mind is, most of the 23
states, my state may follow, Florida has an initiative
referendum coming in and other entities, state entities that
may change their laws. Do you plan or will there be a plan to
check some of these states? Now, Florida will change the law
possibly and others have already changed the law. Some have
changed the law for some time.
I'm getting back reports on California that a news reporter
told me he went out and he said it's a whole different world in
the uses. Again, much more dramatic than you would expect. It's
not just medical marijuana use but it's spread, and he was
telling me, just the societal change and behavioral change.
So it's having impact, but I think we need to look at doing
testing. Those are the medical marijuana states, and each one
of the languages may be a little bit different allowing more
latitude, but then you have Colorado, which we have had some
experience to date, but I think we ought to go in and look at
Colorado. Washington is more recent, but where you have a
change in law, if its medical marijuana, and again changes
brought about by that law, and then you have a much more lax
use or legalization as you have in Colorado, do you have plans
to go in and do some testing there?
Mr. Michael. Yes, sir. We are working with the State of
Washington currently and using the same roadside data
collection process that we've used across the country looking
specifically at Washington before and after their legalizing
the sale of marijuana to assess what effect that may have with
the levels of use on the roadway.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, again, I think we need accurate data,
and then we need to adopt our Federal regs and get to Ms. Kelly
now.
You have a whole host of areas in which we do some testing
but most of the testing is periodic, is it not, for marijuana
use?
Ms. Kelly. Our program covers preemployment testing to
start with, so before someone enters----
Mr. Mica. Right. But then actually----
Ms. Kelly. --the industry, and then random, and then there
is reasonable cause testing. There is post-accident testing,
and then if someone is being positive, then follow up.
Mr. Mica. The other thing, too, again, in some of these
states--and the marijuana medical use, there is, again,
different language and it's allowed more latitude in some
states and people have taken advantage of that. Are you going
in and doing more testing say in Colorado or Washington? For
example, pilots would be more exposed, commercial drivers would
be more exposed.
In states where you have, again, the possibility of--with
liberalization of the law, are we taking some steps to try to
ensure the safety of the public and again the transportation
mode? An airline pilot, a commercial one can be taking a couple
of hundred people in the air, passenger rail.
We didn't get into, in our headline here, pipeline safety
or maritime or others, but they all pose different risks. Tell
us where you're going with these modes that put public safety
at risk?
Ms. Kelly. Well, we do feel that our program is effective,
and the way our program is structured through the regulation--
--
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Kelly, could I ask you to put that
microphone closer to you. Thank you.
Ms. Kelly. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Under the regulations, our program is administered through
the individual employers.
Mr. Mica. But it's historic and it's been developed, but it
was--and it's applied, but it is--you're mostly talking in
terms of how things have in the past or----
Ms. Kelly. Uh-huh.
Mr. Mica. But not how things are most recently and where
we're going with this.
Ms. Kelly. We don't conduct the testing ourselves.
Mr. Mica. Yeah.
Ms. Kelly. We require the employers to conduct it.
Mr. Mica. Right.
Ms. Kelly. And so many of our employers are nationwide
employers.
Mr. Mica. Have you changed any of those requirements?
Ms. Kelly. No, sir, we have not. We have maintained under
the regulation, the random testing----
Mr. Mica. It's same old, same old, but see, that's my point
is I think we're--you have to go to risk based when you're
doing most of these approaches to try to ensure safety, and
preemployment is one, we've done that in the past, we're doing
that.
Now, we have a new situation with much more of this
available narcotic on the market, and we've seen an increase in
use just by the statistics that were presented by some of the
panelists today. But are you adapting the Department of
Transportation regulations or advisories to where we see the
most risk?
Okay. We've got FAA, we've got Federal Railroad
Administration, we've got National Highway Safety. Tell me if
there have been any changes in directives in the last 24
months?
Ms. Kelly. There have not been any changes to our random
testing rates, but many of our employees are interstate, and so
if a pilot flies in and out of Denver, doesn't mean necessarily
that he or she lives anywhere near Denver, so many of our
employees throughout the different modes of transportation are
not purely in one state. They operate cross states and----
Mr. Mica. Well, again, I think we need to be a little bit
preemptive in DOT in protecting people. I had dinner the other
night with a friend from Florida and asked him what he was
going to do for a vacation. He says, well, we're putting it off
a little and we're going to go skiing, and he said--he said--
this is just in conversation. He said we had planned to go to
Colorado, he says, but the last thing I want to do is take my
three kids out there and have somebody stoned, you know, posing
a risk to him. He's going to Utah. I mean, not just----
Mr. Connolly. No risk there.
Mr. Mica. There will never be any risk in family friendly
Utah, but I mean, that's one change a father in behavior. We
are responsible for the safety of the public. You're
responsible for administrating rules, regulation that impact
pilots who carry passengers, trains--I mean, I showed that one
crash, 25 people killed, and that's before some of these
changes in law are granted, so--and we've seen that, again,
incidents of use, whether it's young people or older, is more
so.
You've told me there aren't any changes, and I want to
get--we'll get a message to Mr. Fox and others that we do need
to look at adapting this. We also need to get the data. Maybe
there isn't the problem that is perceived, and the data would
support that. Maybe it's worse than what we imagine, but we
need to know. We need to act based on facts and act based on
risk and preempt as much, as you can, bad effects on the
general public and their safety.
Ms. Kelly. Well, and the data is a good point, sir. We
collect data from the laboratories, the laboratory confirmed
positives, and we've been doing that every 6 months in our
office with Aggregate National Data, but what we've seen so far
since 2008 is a steady rate of marijuana positives ranging
between 21,000 to 22,000 out of roughly 2.5 to 3 million
employees tested each 6-month period, so we have seen those
numbers remain the same across the nation. Again, as it comes
in as Aggregate.
Mr. Mica. Again, I think it's important, too, that we look
from a safety standpoint. I'm not selling any products, but
this is the only one I found available, this particular
European model for testing, and again, this swabs, can be used
on site. I don't know if we're looking at these, using this
kind of a test for truck drivers, train drivers, you know,
where we're doing spot checking. We're not doing it--using
anything like this now, are we?
Ms. Kelly. We're required by the statute, the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act to follow the science as
it's developed by the Department of Health and Human Services
and implemented through the mandatory guidelines, so we look
to----
Mr. Mica. But we have none of the--this is not accepted
yet, Mr. Flegel, is it?
Mr. Flegel. Currently we are looking at having the oral
fluid standards come out and then be implemented public.
Mr. Mica. And is that--and ITSA, or whatever it is.
Mr. Flegel. No, this would be through the mandatory
guidelines.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Flegel. Right, and----
Mr. Mica. But at least they're involved in setting
standards; is that correct?
Mr. Flegel. We actually set the mandatory guideline testing
cutoff----
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Flegel. --and standards. So, once those standards are
out to the public and be commented, we would like to evaluate
all these devices.
Mr. Mica. Can you give us, the committee, a chronological
estimate as to when you're going to complete, again, your--what
you're saying here before the committee, because dealing with
some of the standards, I just pulled down the national
standards and testing bill a couple of weeks ago, or within the
last 2 weeks just because they had jerked us around for 10
years on a biometric standard for an iris I.D. and they
promised and promised and not performed.
I don't want to be coming back to a hearing saying where
are they, we are developing these things. We need some Federal
standards and we need also new tests that have acceptable
standards to evaluate people who are on the job in
transportation and make certain the public is safe. Do you see
my point?
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
By the way, I know the chairman did not mean to suggest in
any way that Colorado is not a safe place to go skiing. His
friend at dinner may have a private view. I'm sure there are
wonderful reasons to go to Colorado and Utah and anywhere else
one wishes to ski, and I know my Colorado colleagues who aren't
here would want me to say that, so I'm sure you didn't mean to
suggest that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. No. Maybe he could stay home in Florida or go
to----
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Mica. Go to Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Florida and Virginia, however, obviously are
better.
Mr. Hart, there is legislation with respect to pilot
licensed medical certification here in the Congress that would
actually no longer require medical certificates for pilots
whose craft carries up to five passengers. Are you aware of
that legislation?
Mr. Hart. Yes, I'm aware of that legislation.
Mr. Connolly. And what do you think about it?
Mr. Hart. Well, we are very concerned about pilots flying
without, you know, inadequate medical standards.
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Hart. But we based our what we--our policy based on
what we see in accidents, and so far we haven't seen enough
accidents to warrant an agency position on it yet, but we are
very concerned not only about not having to have a medical, but
then, in addition to that, if you don't have a medical, you are
less likely to pay attention to the FAA's list of prohibited
legal drugs as well as obviously the illegal drugs----
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Hart. --but also the legal drugs, and we're concerned
that that list will not be paid attention to by people who
don't have a medical certificate.
Mr. Connolly. It just strikes me as very odd. Here we are
having a hearing on, you know, the utilization and potential
harmful effects of any kind of drug or controlled substance in
the operation of any kind of vehicle and meanwhile there is
apparently legislation that would exempt a class, a subclass of
people who fly airplanes, and I can't believe for a minute that
if we really are concerned about the use of marijuana or any
other drug, that we would ever countenance legislation like
this.
I cannot believe that that could come to any good, so I
encourage you, Mr. Hart, and your colleagues to re-examine that
legislation and hopefully take a position on it because it
seems to contradict everything we're talking about this morning
at this hearing.
Mr. Hart. We will certainly pay close attention to that in
our future accident investigations.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Dr. Michael, I was just thinking about, talking about
driving while impaired and things that we discourage. For
example, we're worried about THC, but I mean, texting while
driving, bad idea?
Mr. Michael. Of course, sir, very bad idea.
Mr. Connolly. Kills people?
Mr. Michael. Of course.
Mr. Connolly. Do we have data on it?
Mr. Michael. Yes, we do.
Mr. Connolly.How many people were killed on the roads last
year texting while driving?
Mr. Michael. Distraction in general is about 3,000 people.
Texting alone is several hundred.
Mr. Connolly. Right. Alcohol and driving?
Mr. Michael. In 2012, 10,322 people died in crashes in
which a driver had a blood alcohol limit above the legal limit.
Mr. Connolly. Sleep deprivation?
Mr. Michael. Sleep is harder to measure, of course, but we
believe it is a significant problem.
Mr. Connolly. Would it be fair to say, by the way, that
studies on sleep deprivation and driving suggests that sleep
deprivation mimics in almost exact detail drinking and driving
in terms of impairment?
Mr. Michael. At least in some details.
Mr. Connolly. Aggressive driving, driving at unsafe speeds?
Mr. Michael. As many as a third of crashes are attributed
at least in part to excessive speeding.
Mr. Connolly. And how many deaths can we attribute to THC
in the bloodstream?
Mr. Michael. Currently, that's difficult to say, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Hmm. I just, fair enough, probably not zero.
Mr. Michael. Probably not.
Mr. Connolly. But we don't know.
Mr. Michael. We don't. We don't have a precise estimate.
Mr. Connolly. We do have precise estimates on distracted
driving, 3,331. We have precise estimates of drinking and
driving, so I just want to put it in context. No one is arguing
that it's a good idea, but the fact of the matter is we don't
have a lot of data.
Now, let me ask. Do we have a standard, if I could borrow
your gizmo here for a minute.
Mr. Mica. You want to swap?
Mr. Connolly. The chairman points out that in parts of
Europe they take a swab sample, put it in here and measure THC.
Do we have any such device that we use in our law enforcement
in the United States?
Mr. Michael. Yes. Excuse me, sir. There is some use of
devices very similar to that by law enforcement. In fact, we
are currently doing a pilot test in California to test the
feasibility of more widespread use of devices very similar to
that.
Mr. Connolly. We have an alcohol standard that blood
alcohol above a certain standard, you're in legal jeopardy.
Would you remind us what that standard is?
Mr. Michael. .08 blood alcohol.
Mr. Connolly. And that's a national standard.
Mr. Michael. Yes, it is.
Mr. Connolly. And accepted by virtually all States?
Mr. Michael. That's right.
Mr. Connolly. Do we have a comparable standard for THC?
Mr. Michael. No, we don't, sir. The available evidence does
not support the development of an impairment threshold for THC
which would be analogous to that for alcohol.
Mr. Connolly. Why is that, Dr. Michael?
Mr. Michael. The available evidence indicates that the
response of individuals to increasing amounts of THC is much
more variable than it is for alcohol, so with alcohol, we have
a considerable body of evidence that can place risk odds at
increasing levels of blood alcohol content. For example, .08
blood alcohol content is associated with about four times the
crash risk of a sober person. The average arrest is .15 THC.
That's associated with about 15 times the crash risk.
Beyond a--some broad confirmation that higher levels of THC
are generally associated with higher levels of impairment, a
more precise association of various THC levels and degrees of
impairment are not yet available.
Mr. Connolly. That's really interesting. So we don't have a
uniform standard. The variability is much greater than that
with other controlled substances such as alcohol.
Mr. Michael. Yeah.
Mr. Connolly. We actually can't scientifically pinpoint
levels of impairment with any accuracy. We would all concede
there's some impairment for some period of time, but it's very
variable, and we're not quite sure yet, certainly not sure
enough to adopt a uniform standard as to here's the maximum
level beyond which we know there's serious impairment?
Mr. Michael. That's fair to say, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Wow. And that's a substance 1 controlled
substance.
Well, I think it underscores--your testimony underscores,
Dr. Michael, why we need a lot more science here, and I guess
what really strikes me is that meanwhile, as I said in my
opening statement, the laboratories of Democracy, 22 states
plus the District of Columbia, have decided to legalize
marijuana in some fashion, most of them for medical purposes,
but some of them even for recreational purposes, and meanwhile,
at least on a national level, we're not comfortable with the
science, and in terms of the impact of THC on operating a
vehicle of any kind. Fair statement?
Mr. Michael. Yes. And of course, we're pursuing that
science.
Mr. Connolly. I understand. So, we're pursuing it. Is there
a goal or an end, you know, date where we want to achieve so by
a certain date we hope to have some preliminary--well, we hope
to have the basis upon which to examine or adopt some
preliminary standards comparable to other substances?
Mr. Michael. We have sponsored some work with standards
development with regard to measurement techniques and specific
drugs to be measured in--among drivers involved in traffic
crashes and also minimum cutoff levels that represent the
analytical capabilities of existing technology. Those
recommendations have been established. What we lack are a
thresholds of impairment that are analogous to .08 BAC.
One step that is currently ongoing that will take us well
into that direction is the crash risk study that I mentioned in
my opening statement. This is the same sort of study that was
done for alcohol a number of years ago which established those
risk levels that I told you about. So this involves a very
careful look at two groups of subjects, one group who has been
involved in a crash, another group who has not, and looking for
relative concentration levels of factors that might have caused
a crash, factors such as THC use. Those kinds of studies can
develop the risk odds that could potentially be used to develop
a threshold in the future.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you, and I wish you luck in your
research. I just think it is amazing with some of the
hyperventilated rhetoric about marijuana use and THC that 50
years after, I guess it's 50 years we've declared it a class 1
substance, we still don't have enough data to know just how
dangerous it is in operating a vehicle.
Mr. Michael. That's correct.
Mr. Connolly. And that really raises questions about
either, you know, the classification itself and whether that
makes any sense or raises serious questions about how our
Government's operating in terms of the data it does not have
and the science it does not know and yet the assertions that we
make. And that is not a good recipe for rational public policy,
and it's one of the reasons, I suggest, why 22 states have just
headed in a different direction, but there's danger in that,
too, because they're going in a direction also without the
science, and there are lots of complications.
The previous hearing we had, and Dr. Fleming and I talked
about this, along with the chairman, you know, you've got
doctors in States where legalization for medicinal purposes has
been granted who, nonetheless, really don't have protocols,
really don't have the science to decide on, you know, levels of
efficacy, mixing it with other drugs for enhanced efficacy,
potential dangers, overdose, whatever, and I just think we're
at a point where we've got to get a lot more serious about the
science in order to have, to fashion rational public policies,
including with respect to transportation safety.
I thank you all for your testimony, and Mr. Chairman,
again, a thoughtful hearing, and I thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Fleming.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming.
Mr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Michael, to kind of follow up on some of the question
from my good friend from Virginia. We don't have adequate
science on the effects of marijuana, THC specifically on the
body, and speaking as a physician and someone who's worked in
the area of addiction, my understanding of this is that it's a
much more complex interaction in physiology between the drug
and the body. For instance, we know metabolites remain in the
body for after 30 days after use. Much of it is stored in the
fat, so fat body content can affect. Would that be a correct
assumption on my part that that's really what makes this a more
difficult issue in terms of measurement than alcohol?
Mr. Michael. Yes, sir. Of course, you're completely right
on that. The study of the effect of THC on driving is much more
challenging in just about every aspect than that for alcohol.
Mr. Fleming. Right. So really it's multidimensional as
opposed to alcohol, which you can draw a straight line on the
graph, again plus or minus a small tolerance level, .08 is when
people become far more impaired, hitting a critical threshold.
We just don't know that. Even if it exists in THC, it may be a
much smoother graph.
Well, given the fact that we have certainly a lack of
knowledge of the effects of THC on the body and on the brain
and behavior, although we know we have a lot of examples of
problems from it, would it lead you to be more restrictive
until we get that information or less restrictive in the
application and allowance of the use of that drug going
forward?
Mr. Michael. With regard to use on the roadway, which of
course is my major concern, it's the decision of the States how
they want to deal with these impairment issues. We've tried to
provide them with guidance, with scientific evidence that they
can use to support effective policies.
We've been able to do that with alcohol, and States have
been able to respond very positively to alcohol impairment and
drive those numbers down. In 2012, there were just over 10,000
killed in such crashes, 20 years previously, that number was
well over 20,000.
Mr. Fleming. But I mean, going beyond whether we're
talking--comparing THC with alcohol or any other drug, and I'm
asking your personal opinion, I'm going to ask the opinion of
the rest of the panel members here as well. If you have a drug
that you really can't define the effects adequately but we know
that it can have serious, in fact, proof that it can actually
kill people, does it make sense to be more aggressive in terms
of relaxing the standards or does it make sense to be more
conservative and wait for that science to develop?
Mr. Michael. Well, I think that it makes sense to be very
cautious with a policy when the complete evidence is not yet
available.
Mr. Fleming. Okay. Mr. Hart, what is your opinion, sir?
Mr. Hart. As accident investigators, we follow where the
accidents take us, and that's the reason that, for example, we
did something that was very controversial, which was to
recommend that the blood alcohol content number be reduced from
.08 to .05 because we know any alcohol is impairing and there
is no bright line that says this much is too much, and it's
really a policy question of where should it be for legal
enforcement. We would have that same approach with respect to
any other substance, is that it's kind of wait and see based on
our accident experience.
Mr. Fleming. So certainly buzzed driving is the same thing
as impaired driving.
Mr. Hart. That's the slang for it----
Mr. Fleming. Yes.
Mr. Hart. --is buzzed driving, that's correct.
Mr. Fleming. So whenever there's a question as to being
more conservative and more protective and more restrictive,
when in doubt, always be a little safer and a little more
restrictive, would that be a safe estimate from your opinion?
Mr. Hart. Well, we are the safety people, so we would
always go in the direction that is for safety.
Mr. Fleming. Okay. Very good. I am two for two here. How
about you, Ms. Kelly?
Ms. Kelly. Well, we rely on the science, and we make the
policy based on the science.
Mr. Fleming. But when there's a lack of science, do you
lean towards being more conservative until that science
develops or to just full steam ahead, let's go ahead and give
it a chance?
Ms. Kelly. We remain with the science on it. So when our
scientists at the Department of Health and Human Services tell
us that things have changed, then we follow under the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act, we follow what they say.
Until then, it remains a schedule 1, we treat it as a schedule
1.
Mr. Fleming. Okay.
Ms. Kelly. With no excuses.
Mr. Fleming. So you would agree that certainly being
cautious, not being aggressive to change something to a more
relaxed standard without the science to back that safety up,
you're reluctant to move forward?
Ms. Kelly. We cannot make changes----
Mr. Fleming. Yes.
Ms. Kelly. --without the science, yes, sir.
Mr. Fleming. You, Mr. Flegel, how about you?
Mr. Flegel. As with my colleague here from DOT, under
executive order, THC is mentioned directly, and we will
continue to test for schedule 1 and schedule 2 drugs.
Mr. Fleming. So, I think certainly we have somewhat of
agreement here. I think we can all agree to the fact that until
we have the science, we should be careful and cautious, and
certainly one of the things about THC is, because it has been
illegal, we haven't really been doing the studies, the
research, and only now, I mean, even some of the important data
that's come out has only come out very recently as it's become
legalized.
For instance, we know that even in casual users, there's
profound changes in the brain. We see that on MRI scans, and
we've done a number of them to see that. We also know that a
longitudinal study showed a progressive decline in IQ, so just
even with early studies, we're beginning to see a lot of
problems, and that's notwithstanding the up to 14 percent of
fatal accidents involve THC.
Now, we hear about medicinal marijuana. It's interesting
that in the State of California and in the city of Denver, we
have more pot dispensaries than we do Starbucks, and I don't
know what your opinion is, but I don't think people are that
unhealthy in Denver and in California. Is there anyone on the
panel that would disagree with that?
So, again, I question--and here's my question as it
interacts with what you do. Do you treat someone who is on
medicinal marijuana versus recreational marijuana any
differently when it comes to traffic accidents, when it comes
to being able to say fly an airplane, or to engineer a train,
do you treat those people any differently? Anyone like to
comment on that? Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Kelly. No, sir, we do not in the Department of
Transportation. All the transportation safety sensitive
employees are subject to the same testing, and we did issue the
two statements, one in 2009 in response to the medicinal
marijuana laws in States, and in 2012 on recreational. Everyone
is to be treated the same. There is no legitimate medical
explanation for the schedule 1 drug, marijuana.
Mr. Fleming. Right. So for all intents and purposes, if
someone is sick and needs marijuana, that person is disabled
for the purpose of having a job in transportation?
Ms. Kelly. If that person tests positive, they will put--
they will be required to be removed from safety sensitive
functions.
Mr. Fleming. All right, okay. Very good. Now, there was a
mention here about, I think, I didn't catch all of the exchange
there, but I believe there was a--Mr. Connolly brought up Mr.
Rokita's bill that would actually reduce the standards for
private pilots such that all you would require is just a
regular driver's license to be able to qualify in terms of
safety standards to fly an airplane.
Mr. Hart, did I catch that right, or am I--or were you
talking about a different subject?
Mr. Hart. You are correct. It's legislation to allow
private pilots to not have to have the medical examination that
they are now required to have.
Mr. Fleming. Right. So, in theory, someone could be with
that standard, and maybe even under the current standard, a
private pilot could be flying an airplane under the influence
of marijuana, THC?
Mr. Hart. That is possible, and we have investigated
accidents where that was occurring. That's the reason we're
having this forum, and we're going have this meeting in
September to look at that and get----
Mr. Fleming. Right.
Mr. Hart. --more data and get more specific about it.
Mr. Fleming. You know, I love to watch documentaries on TV,
and I was watching one the other night that discussed airplanes
and mid-air collisions, and what they focused on was private
aircraft that had drifted in the wrong air lane and interacted
with a commercial aircraft.
One that comes to mind, I was living in the area at the
time was in San Diego. I believe it was 1978 where you had a
private airplane that drifted in the wrong--they were actually
in the wrong air space, they collided with a commercial
aircraft, and hundreds of people died as a result of that.
So what that would suggest to me is that no matter what the
highest standards you could ever come up with for a commercial
pilot, when you have private pilots out there who could be
impaired and not receive the same high standard, then they are,
in effect, just as dangerous to the commercial passengers as
the commercial pilot himself if his standards were lowered as
well.
Would you agree or disagree with that? A private pilot
flying with lower standards in effect has the same potential
danger impact as if the pilot of the commercial aircraft is
impaired instead.
Mr. Hart. When we do our accident investigation, the issue
of impairment, it may be independent of the issue of what their
medical standard was. If they're impaired, whether they had a
medical certificate or not, then we're going to put that in our
probable cause if that was a cause of the accident.
Mr. Fleming. Right. So certainly a private aircraft--the
safety of aviation in general is no better than what the lowest
standard for any pilot who is in the air, and so as we have
pilots who in this case, hopefully it will never make it into
law, but we have pilots who are flying with no more standard
than to have a driver's license and hopefully will be certified
to fly, of course, that makes sense but no medical standard
beyond that, and then we have the legalization and the
increased medicinalization and decriminalization of marijuana,
then I see the risk to air travel to be growing in the future
as we go forward with that.
So, certainly I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we look
at this at both sides. One is the fact that there is many
reasons, in my view, why we should not go forward with
legalization, medicinalization or even decriminalization, but
also have the highest standards for all who fly in the air
realizing that there are new threats when it comes to THC.
One last question. What sort of guidance are you getting
from the White House? You know, the President has been giving
some ambiguous cues on this. In 2011 he made very clear
statements that marijuana should not be legalized, that it's a
potential danger, and certainly young people should stay away
from it, but in 2014, he made other statements that suggested
that it's maybe no worse than tobacco or alcohol, so I'd love
to hear from you as Government agencies what sort of guidance,
if any, are you getting from the White House. Mr. Michael?
Mr. Michael. We work closely with the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy, and we are a part of the national
drug strategy. The office has provided us support for our
roadside survey and for other research that we've done, so I
would say that we are getting very good input and very good
support.
Mr. Fleming. Okay. Anyone else?
Mr. Flegel. I would say also the same. We work closely with
the Office of National Drug Control Policy in setting
standards. They set policy, we set the regulatory side, so
we've worked well with them over the last year.
Mr. Fleming. But have you been moved in any direction
towards relaxed standards or legalization of marijuana from the
White House, any guidance in that direction?
Mr. Flegel. We are currently, as I stated, under executive
order, so we are under executive order to test for schedule 1
and schedule 2 drugs, and that will remain.
Mr. Fleming. Okay. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A very interesting discussion----
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Fleming. --and panel. Thank you so much.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Dr. Fleming.
Didn't the President, after he made his statement it was no
worse than alcohol or tobacco, we did have testify the ONDCP, I
think it was his deputy, and he said he disagreed with the
White House. So you-all said you've been working with ONDCP,
you would agree with them more than you would with the
President, Mr. Hart? Come on, I want to put you on the spot.
Mr. Hart. Our guidance is to investigate accidents, find
out what happened, and recommend what is necessary to----
Mr. Mica. And that's right. You didn't commit yourself on
that, but Dr. Michael did. Okay, Dr. Michael, you said you were
working with ONDCP and you concurred with them, so which--you
agree with what they said, ONDCP?
Mr. Michael. We are in agreement with ONDCP, and I would
like to say we are in agreement with the President as well.
Mr. Mica. Oh, now. I could make a funny comment now but I
won't. We might have to get the testing equipment out here.
Mr. Flegel.
Mr. Flegel. And again, we work closely with ONDCP on
everything as far as, both in setting----
Mr. Mica. But again----
Mr. Flegel. --the standards.
Mr. Mica. --the President said one thing. We hauled in the
deputy director. He disagreed with the President. We had a
whole host of people, DEA, other agencies who also disagreed
with the President on--and that was my point. I tried to
embarrass you, but it didn't work.
So Dr. Michael, you said it's the decision of the States
really, but the Federal Government does set some standards, and
we have a .08 standard now. If you don't comply with that, we
can penalize you and that is an incentive, is it not?
Mr. Michael. Yes, the Congress established a statute.
Mr. Mica. Yeah, and that's come down. In fact, I just read
your office, or one of the office's--yeah, it's your office
said just recommended going to .5; is that right?
Mr. Michael. I believe that was a recommendation from----
Mr. Mica. Mr. Hart. Okay. I knew one of you did, but
there's a recommendation, and then we do assess penalties to
states that don't comply where there is some, some reduction in
their eligibility for programs or funds. But that was your
recommendation, Mr. Hart?
Mr. Hart. That was our recommendation, that's correct, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mica. One of the problems we have here is we don't have
federal standards. We do have States adopting standards.
Colorado, it's five nanograms per milliliter, I guess, and is
there any consideration of any standard under way other than
what the national standards board is considering? Are you guys
looking at anything? Dr. Michael.
Mr. Michael. Yes, we are. We, recognize that we need more
testing of drivers at the state level.
Mr. Mica. And then you need some means of testing and I
want you also to comment, you said you're using some similar
devices in testing. There's nothing with a standard, there's
nothing that has been accepted as an acceptable or certified,
I'm sure you haven't certified anything yet, piece of equipment
that can test, correct?
Mr. Michael. That's right. The technology, which you have
in your hand, is developing rapidly, and we think this will
improve testing quite a lot.
Mr. Mica. You said California you're doing some testing?
Mr. Michael. Yes, we're doing some pilot tests in four
locations in California as we speak to test the feasibility of
those with the idea, if they are working well, that encouraging
their use by states. More testing, we believe, would also
call----
Mr. Mica. Is this just internal, or are you working with
the national standards testing agency?
Mr. Michael. This test is--we're working with State
officials on this.
Mr. Mica. But not with the ones who are setting the
standard, or at least looking at setting some standards which
would be our National Standards testing, NS, whatever the
initials are----
Mr. Michael. Yeah.
Mr. Mica. It's NS.
Mr. Michael. No, we are not working with----
Mr. Mica. I think it would behoove you to contact them, and
we'll also. I'll ask the committee to put you in touch with
them. I've had my go-arounds with them, and they do take awhile
to develop a standard. I mean, it's an important responsibility
and you have to be accurate, and whatever you adopt does become
a standard. So, I would suggest that, you know, I don't do
these hearings just to hear ourselves talk. We're trying to
also stay ahead of the curve.
We have changing, dramatically changing laws that our
states--and it changes social behavior, and we don't have the
same--Mr. Connolly was talking about the marijuana when he went
to college or something, and this is much more powerful----
We've had testimony that confirms this that we've got
people more at risk, we've got laws rapidly changing, societal
view of the risk, and then we talked about teens are most
susceptible and also the most vulnerable and the most
slaughtered by transportation, by a vehicle, many of them by
alcohol, some by substance abuse, and we see increasing use of
that particular among the most vulnerable who are now viewing
this as less of a risk, so we do have some serious issues here.
No standards, no testing capability, and then we haven't
done--we've done some testing in the past, 2007, 2013, we don't
have that data back. I want to see some data and I want to see
Fox and others looking at beefing up the testing and the
regulations where we have now more exposure to a schedule 1
narcotic being more available to the public and the
implications on public safety and transportation. So, that's
something hopefully positive that can come from this.
Also, it's my understanding marijuana stays in the system
longer than alcohol. We've got a whole host of things that need
to be looked at, and again, implications from a different type
of substance that is posing a risk. I've been on transportation
for two decades, says something good about some institutional
knowledge, but one of the things we focused on transportation,
when you see people getting slaughtered by the tens of
thousands a year, we did some simple things. We put in
guardrails in the median, there were so many crossover--we put
in simple, what do you call it, the rumble strips so people who
fall asleep are awakened or shaken alert. We've encouraged the
safety airbags on the side and structural changes.
Now, if we don't do something when we see a danger of a new
narcotic, again, the potential of more people impaired, driving
while impaired, whether, again, a vehicle, manning a train,
piloting, and I showed just a few samples of the civil planes
that went down. We have pages and pages. I shared four. I
showed one picture of a teenage fatality, and we know from the
blood test, the people say no one gets killed from smoking
marijuana, well, I differ with that, so it's a serious issue.
We have serious responsibility, and I intend to pursue the
matter beyond even this hearing.
So I thank each of you for coming out, for being part of
today's hearing. Hopefully we can all do a better job, and
there being no further business, well, let me see. With the
concurrence of the minority, we'll leave the record open for 10
additional days. We may have additional questions, and I've
asked for additional information to be submitted for the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Mica. No further business before the Government
Operations Subcommittee, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9703.033