[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 11, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-149
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-235 WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
[email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina RAUL RUIZ, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
Chairman
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey TONY CARDENAS, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virgina DORIS O. MATSUI, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
MIMI WALTERS, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania officio)
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................ 7
Witnesses
Robert L. Dupont, M.D., President, Institute for Behavior and
Health......................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Answers to submitted questions............................... 185
Jennifer Harmon, Assistant Director, Forensic Chemistry, Orange
County Crime Lab............................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Answers to submitted questions............................... 190
Colleen Sheehey-Church, National President, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving........................................................ 29
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Erin Holmes, Director, Traffic Safety Programs, Technical Writer,
Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility................ 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Answers to submitted questions............................... 195
Submitted Material
Article entitled, ``Raising awareness about drugged driving,''
Laker/Lutz News, February 7, 2018.............................. 71
Report entitled, ``Marijuana-Impaired Driving: A Report to
Congress,'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
2017........................................................... 74
Article from the Heritage Foundation, May 16, 2018............... 117
Brochure from Responsibility.org................................. 128
Report from the Governor's Highway Safety Association............ 130
Report from the Institute for Behavioral Health.................. 170
Article entitled, ``Oral Fluid Testing for Impaired Driving
Enforcement,'' The Police Chief, January 2017.................. 173
Article entitled, ``License Revocation as a Tool for Combating
Drugged Driving,'' Impaired Driving Update, 2014............... 179
EXAMINING DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:02 p.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Latta, Kinzinger, Lance, Guthrie,
Bilirakis, Bucshon, Mullin, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex
officio), Schakowsky, Dingell, Welch, Kennedy, and Pallone (ex
officio).
Staff Present: Melissa Froelich, Chief Counsel, Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection; Ali Fulling, Legislative
Clerk, Oversight and Investigations/Digital Commerce and
Consumer Protection; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul
Jackson, Professional Staff, Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital Commerce and
Consumer Protection; Drew McDowell, Executive Assistant; Greg
Zerzan, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection;
Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and
Consumer Protection; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director;
Evan Gilbert, Minority Press Assistant; Lisa Goldman, Minority
Counsel; and Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, good afternoon. And I would like to call
the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee to
order.
And before we get started, just to let our panelists know,
we have had two other subcommittees running today. And so we
were downstairs, but Health is still running, and we had
another subcommittee in here on telecom a little bit ago. So we
kind of have members here, there, and everywhere today. But I
just want to let you know what is going on with the full
committee and the subcommittee.
But I appreciate you all being here today. And, as I said,
we will now come to order, and I will recognize myself for 5
minutes. And, again, good afternoon, and thank you for all
appearing before us today.
``Drive sober or get pulled over.'' It is a phrase that we
have heard in classrooms and television and radio ads and seen
billboards along the highway. Everyone knows that driving while
under the influence of alcohol is dangerous and unacceptable,
and there are methods to identify and apprehend those who break
the law.
Unfortunately, the consequence of driving under the
influence of drugs has not been elevated until recently, and
drugged driving presents new challenges to both law enforcement
and health professionals. Amid the devastating opioid crisis
and as more states legalize the use of marijuana, tackling this
problem is now more important than ever.
According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, in
2016, the number of drivers who were fatally injured in
accidents with drugs in their system surpassed the number of
those with alcohol in their system for the first time.
As marijuana use increases in the general population, it
continues to be the most common drug found in fatally injured
drivers. Marijuana has been proven to increase drowsiness and
decrease reaction speed, both of which limit a person's ability
to drive safely.
Twenty percent of drivers killed in crashes in 2016 tested
positive for opioids. Part of this can be tied to addiction and
negligence, but legally prescribed opioids also play a role.
When a patient is prescribed an opioid for pain relief, they
may not understand the possible side effects. It is important
that physicians and pharmacists draw attention to the warning
labels and give consumers the information they need to take
their medication safely.
Driving while impaired is illegal in all 50 states, but
there is no definition of drug impairment, and testing
practices vary from state to state. Unlike with alcohol, there
is no widely used drug field test comparable to a breathalyzer.
Instead, most officers learn how to recognize signs of drug
impairment, including drivers' verbal and physical responses to
questions and instructions. Teaching these methods has been a
challenge, and the lack of data on drugged driving only
exacerbates this challenge.
New methods for roadside drug testing are being developed
and deployed in several states, including saliva tests. At
their summit in March, NHTSA committed to examining the
operation of these tests and improving the data the government
has about drugged-driving-related fatalities. Understanding the
problem is an important first step to fixing it.
Today, we are here to discuss what local, state, and
Federal efforts are being made to combat this issue and what
else needs to be done. Public education is an essential
component of fighting drugged driving. We believe that, with
improvements in awareness, the dangers of drugged driving will
be as well understood as drunk driving. Additionally, we
believe our witnesses can detail what Congress can consider to
help stop this dangerous trend.
Almost 1 year ago, this committee unanimously passed the
SELF DRIVE Act. Getting safe self-driving cars on the road
would prevent the senseless deaths of thousands of Americans on
roadways every year. Until that day comes, we need to all do
all we can to raise awareness of the dangers of impaired
driving.
More recently, this committee developed a package of over
50 bills, including my legislation, the INFO Act, to address
the opioid crisis. These bills were included in the bipartisan
House-passed opioids package.
My bill creates a public dashboard consisting of
comprehensive information and data on nationwide efforts to
combat the opioid crisis. Establishing a one-stop shop makes it
easier for individuals to access and analyze data that could
lead to real solutions that save lives.
We are committed to the communities and families
confronting this challenge on a daily basis and will continue
investigating key areas that contribute to the crisis. I want
to thank you all again for being with us today.
And, at this time, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, the
ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Good morning and thank you to all our witnesses for
appearing today. ``Drive sober or get pulled over.'' It's a
phrase that we have heard in classrooms and television and
radio ads, and seen on billboards along the highway. Everyone
knows driving while under the influence of alcohol is dangerous
and unacceptable, and there are methods to identify and
apprehend those who break the law. Unfortunately, the
consequences of driving under the influence of drugs has not
been elevated until recently, and drugged driving presents new
challenges to both law enforcement and health professionals.
Amid the devastating opioid crisis, and as more states
legalize the use of marijuana, tackling this problem is now
more important than ever. According to the Governors Highway
Safety Association, in 2016 the number of drivers who were
fatally injured in accidents with drugs in their system
surpassed the number of those with alcohol in their system for
the first time.
As marijuana use increases in the general population, it
continues to be the most common drug found in fatally injured
drivers. Marijuana has been proven to increase drowsiness and
decrease reaction speed, both of which limit people's ability
to drive safely.
Twenty percent of drivers killed in crashes in 2016 tested
positive for opioids. Part of this can be tied to addiction and
negligence, but legally prescribed opioids also play a role.
When a patient is prescribed an opioid for pain relief, they
may not understand the possible effects. It is important that
physicians and pharmacists draw attention to the warning labels
and give consumers the information they need to take their
medication safely.
Driving while impaired is illegal in all 50 states, but
there is no set definition of drug impairment and testing
practices vary from state to state. Unlike with alcohol, there
is no widely used drug field test comparable to a breathalyzer.
Instead, most officers learn how to recognize signs of drug
impairment, including driver's verbal and physical responses to
questions and instructions. Teaching these methods have been a
challenge, and the lack of data on drugged driving only
exacerbates that challenge.
New methods for roadside drug testing are also being
developed and deployed in several states, including saliva
tests. At their summit in March, NHTSA committed to examining
the operation of these tests, and improving the data the
government has about drugged-driving related fatalities.
Understanding the problem is an important first step to fixing
it.
Today, we're here to discuss what local, state, and Federal
efforts are being made to combat this issue, and what else
needs to be done. Public education is an essential component of
fighting drugged driving. We believe that with improvements in
awareness, the dangers of drugged driving will be as well-
understood as drunk driving. Additionally, we believe our
witnesses can detail what Congress can consider to help stop
this dangerous trend.
Almost 1 year ago, this Committee unanimously passed the
SELF DRIVE Act. Getting safe, self-driving cars on the road
would prevent the senseless deaths of thousands of Americans on
our roadways every year. Until that day comes, we need to do
all we can to raise awareness of the dangers of impaired
driving.
More recently, this committee developed a package of over
50 bills, including my legislation, the INFO Act, to address
the opioids crisis. These bills were included in the bipartisan
House-passed opioids package. My bill creates a public
dashboard consisting of comprehensive information and data on
nationwide efforts to combat the opioid crisis. Establishing a
one-stop-shop makes it easier for individuals to access and
analyze data that could lead to real solutions and save lives.
We are committed to the communities and families confronting
this challenge on a daily basis and will continue investigating
key areas that contribute to the crisis.
Thank you again for being here and I look forward to your
testimony. I yield to Ranking Member, the gentlelady from
Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am happy that we are holding this hearing today on
drugged driving. Today's hearing really comes down to one
question: What is NHTSA doing in order to combat all impaired
driving?
``Impaired driving'' is a term used to describe driving
while affected by alcohol or legal or illegal drugs. Impaired
driving risks the lives not only of the impaired driver but
everyone else as well. Everyone else is on the road. And those
substances have no place in our society. It is illegal in every
state.
The Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility funded
a report in 2015 that found that drugs were found in the system
of 43 percent of fatally injured drivers among those who were
tested. While this statistic of course raises concern, I have
questions and concerns about the methodology and accuracy of
the statement and share many of the safety advocates' concerns
that this could divert attention and resources from efforts to
curb drunk driving.
Alcohol continues to cause more deaths than drugs. In 2016,
according to a report from January of this year issued by the
National Academies, more than 10,000 people were killed in
crashes involving a drunk driver.
This issue is a complicated one because there are hundreds
of drugs, whether they be prescription, over-the-counter, or
illegal, that can and do impair driving. Complicating matters
further, drugs of all kinds affect individuals differently. And
data on drug presence, like put forth by the Foundation for
Advancing Alcohol Responsibility, is often misleading.
Further complicating matters, there is no national accepted
method for testing the drug impairment of a driver. Positive
drug tests do not necessarily yield accurate results, as trace
amounts of many drugs can linger in a person's system for
weeks, meaning that the driver may not necessarily be impaired,
even when testing positive for some drugs.
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration,
NHTSA, conducted a study in 2016 that found ``alcohol was the
largest contributor to crash risks,'' and that ``there was no
indication that any drug significantly contributed to crash
risks.'' And yet, in 2018, NHTSA launched a National Drug-
Impaired Driving Initiative, and, in March, NHTSA held a Drug-
Impaired Driving Summit to engage on this issue.
In Carol Stream, Illinois, local law enforcement is
experimenting with a new swab test in order to test for a
number of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines,
methamphetamines, and opioids like heroin. The potential for
such a test is undoubtedly promising, but I would urge caution,
as such a test is unlikely to be admissible in court for some
time. And, again, this may take precious resources away from
preventing drunk driving.
On the Federal level, I hope that NHTSA is working with
state and local enforcement and transportation agencies to
ensure that they are widely deploying resources to protect
public safety. If NHTSA is going to prioritize drugged-driving
enforcement and prevention and turns attention away from other
risks, it is critical to ensure that we have accurate data to
suggest that shifting their focus away is justified and,
importantly, must ensure that they have accurate testing to
ensure enforcement action is effective and accurate.
I also hope that NHTSA continues to fulfill its mission of
reducing death, injuries, and economic losses from motor
vehicle crashes; that it works with other agencies to ensure
that substance abuse treatment is also available for those who
suffer from addiction. We, as a society and as Federal
Representatives, must take a whole approach to curbing drunk
and drugged driving, and that must include treating the
underlying causes.
I am trying to look at time. What do I have left? Twenty-
two seconds. Let me see.
I don't want to leave the impression that I don't think
drugged driving is a problem. I do. And I think we need to do
everything we can to make sure that we have the proper data to
justify its importance. We do know about drunk driving, and we
want to make sure that that effort to stop it continues.
And I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
The gentlelady yield back, and the chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Oregon, the chairman of the full committee, for
5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, and I want to thank our witnesses for
participating in today's hearing. We value your testimony.
Sadly, we have all known too many lives cut short because
of the reckless decision of some to get behind the wheel when
impaired. About 1 in 4 traffic fatalities each year--that is
roughly 10,000 lives lost--involves an alcohol-impaired driver.
Now, part of the problem for those trying to detect and
prevent drug-impaired driving is the lack of statistics
available. Even with all the advances in vehicle safety and
crash avoidance systems in recent years, they are not enough to
stop the fatal consequences of driving while impaired, whether
by alcohol, marijuana, opioids, or a deadly combination. It is
a real issue in Oregon, both for employers and others, is
trying to find something that detects appropriately marijuana
consumption in those who are at work or on the road.
According to one recent study by the Governors Highway
Safety Association, in 2016, about 20 percent of fatally
injured drivers who had drugs in their system tested positive
for opioids, 20 percent, compared to 17 percent in 2006. So we
are seeing an upward trend here in the presence of opioids and
fatally injured drivers on the rise over the last 10 years.
The Energy and Commerce Committee is all too familiar with
the lethal effects of the opioid crisis, and drug-impaired
driving is yet another fact of combating this national scourge.
More than 50 bills from this committee were included in
H.R. 6--that is the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act--
to address various aspects of this crisis, including
prevention, treatment, and support for both those battling
addiction as well as their families.
This is a crisis we have been working to combat over
multiple Congresses in a bipartisan way, and we will continue
in our efforts to legislate and evaluate and legislate as we go
forward.
Drug-impaired driving creates unique challenges for law
enforcement. Whereas nearly every law enforcement agency in
America has the resources to test for driving under the
influence of alcohol, similar resources are often lacking when
it comes to illegal narcotics. The lack of scientifically
confirmable evidence of drug-impaired driving can make it
difficult for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to keep
impaired drivers off our roads.
However, statistics provided by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration make it clear this danger is on
the rise.
So I look forward to the testimony you are going to give to
the committee and your answers to our questions. You are on the
front lines in this battle, and I know you have the expertise
to help us understand how better to deal with it.
I also want to mention that this month marks the 1-year
anniversary of when this committee unanimously passed the SELF
DRIVE Act. I know Ms. Schakowsky played a huge role in that,
and Mr. Pallone and others on the committee. It is a national
Federal framework to ensure safe and innovative testing,
development, and deployment of self-driving cars. Getting safe
self-driving cars on the road would go a long way to preventing
a lot of highway fatalities, the more than 100 Americans who
die every day behind the wheel.
But we are waiting for the Senate. So, we need them to act.
Then we can get a bill down to the President's desk and America
can lead in the effort on creating self-driving vehicles and
safer highways.
So, Mr. Chairman, thanks for your great leadership on that
effort, as well, and Ms. Dingell and others who have put so
much time and energy into our SELF DRIVE Act. We need to pull
out all the stops to find agreement, get the Senate to move,
get agreement, get that down to the President.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for appearing
before us today to participate in our hearing on drug-impaired
driving.
Sadly, we have all known too many lives cut short because
of the reckless decision of some to get behind the wheel
impaired. About 1 in 4 traffic fatalities each year, that's
roughly 10,000 lives lost, involves an alcohol- impaired
driver. Part of the problem for those trying to detect and
prevent drug- impaired driving is the lack of statistics
available. Even with all of the advances in vehicle safety and
crash avoidance systems in recent years, they are not enough to
stop the fatal consequences of driving while impaired, whether
by alcohol, marijuana, opioids, or a deadly combination.
According to one recent study by the Governors Highway
Safety Association, in 2016, about 20 percent of fatally-
injured drivers who had drugs in their system tested positive
for opioids. Compared to 17% in 2006, we're seeing a stark
trend here with the presence of opioids in fatally-injured
drivers on the rise over the past decade.
The Energy and Commerce Committee is all too familiar with
the lethal effects of the opioid crisis, and drug-impaired
driving is yet another facet of combating this national
scourge. More than 50 bills from this committee were included
in H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act to
address various aspects of this crisis, including prevention,
treatment, and support both for the those battling addiction,
as well as their families. This is a crisis we have been
working to combat over multiple Congresses, and we will
continue our efforts until we stem the tide.
Drug-impaired driving creates unique challenges for law
enforcement. Whereas nearly every law enforcement agency in
America has the resources to test for driving under the
influence of alcohol, similar resources are often lacking when
it comes to illegal narcotics. The lack of scientifically
confirmable evidence of drug-impaired driving can make it
difficult for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to keep
impaired drivers off of our roads. However, statistics provided
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
make it clear that this danger is on the rise.
Today, I look forward to hearing from you, our witnesses,
about what Congress can and should be doing to help those on
the front lines detect and prevent drugged driving. I know your
expertise will provide this committee a better understanding of
the size and scope of the problem, as well as the obstacles to
better detecting impaired drivers.
I also want to mention that this month marks the 1-year
anniversary of when this committee unanimously passed the SELF
DRIVE Act, providing the first federal framework to ensure the
safe and innovative testing, development, and deployment of
self-driving cars. Getting safe self-driving cars on the road
would go a long way to preventing the deaths of more than 100
Americans who die every day behind the wheel.
But until that day, we must do everything we can to prevent
senseless and avoidable tragedies caused by drug-impaired
driving. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The
chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking
member of the full committee, for an opening statement for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing explores the complex topic of drugged
driving. We know that driving under the influence of some drugs
presents dangers to everyone on the road, and these drugs can
impair judgment, slow reaction time, or distort perception. At
the same time, there are many unknowns about the correlation of
drugs and car crashes, and I expect we will address some of
them today.
Hundreds of different drugs, including prescription, over-
the-counter, and illicit drugs, can affect a person's driving.
Unfortunately, the relationship between a specific drug's
effect on driving ability is still not well understood.
Different substances affect different people in different ways.
Drugs are frequently used together. Often, illicit drugs are
used in the presence of alcohol. And the combined effects of
multiple drugs on driving performance requires more
consideration.
The scope of the drugged-driving problem is also unclear.
Today, there is no nationally accepted method for testing
whether a driver is impaired by drugs. Because trace amounts of
certain drugs can linger in a person's system for weeks, a
positive drug test result does not necessarily mean that the
driver was impaired while driving. Moreover, the reporting of
data of accidents involving drivers with drugs in their systems
is inconsistent across jurisdictions, and nationwide data are
incomplete.
So we should take the issue of drugged driving seriously so
that we can adequately address the problem, but because we must
appropriately allocate resources, our review should be of
impaired driving more broadly. We should not neglect the causes
of impaired driving, especially alcohol-impaired driving, which
remains the leading cause of traffic fatalities.
The statistics for drunk driving are alarming. Every 2
minutes a person is injured, every 51 minutes a person is
killed in a drunk driving crash. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention reported that, in 2016, more than 10,000
people were killed in alcohol-impaired crashes. And drunk
driving accounts for about 28 percent of all traffic-related
deaths.
And, as reported just last week, one-third of pedestrians
killed in car crashes in 2016 were found to be over the legal
alcohol limit. Of course, we should not blame the victims who
try to do the right thing and not get behind the wheel when
they have been drinking, but perhaps policies that encourage us
to stay away from our cars also should consider that more
people will be walking.
While the number of deaths linked to drugged driving is
less clear than other causes of impaired driving, no one should
drive impaired. If you are unable to function normally or
safely when operating a motor vehicle, you should not get
behind the wheel. Even common over-the-counter medicines can
have adverse effects on driving performance.
And recent studies show that drowsy driving can be just as
dangerous as drunk driving. In fact, my home State of New
Jersey has a law that prohibits driving while drowsy. Under the
law, a driver who goes without sleep for more than 24
consecutive hours and causes a fatal crash can be charged with
vehicular homicide and face up to 10 years in prison and a
$100,000 fine.
So impaired driving takes on many forms, but the wreckage
left behind is the same. It has devastating consequences to
family, friends, neighborhoods, and communities across the
country. And I hope we continue to work together to fight
impaired driving.
I don't know if anyone wants any of my time, but, if not, I
will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
The gentleman does yield back the balance of his time, and
that will conclude opening statements from our members.
And, also, the chair reminds members that all of their
statements will be included in the record.
Again, we want to thank our panel for being with us today
to testify before the subcommittee.
Today's witnesses will have the opportunity to give a 5-
minute opening statement, followed by a round of questions from
the members.
Our witness panel for today's hearing will include Dr.
Robert L. DuPont, the President of the Institute for Behavior
and Health; Ms. Jennifer Harmon, the Assistant Director of
Forensic Chemistry at Orange County Crime Lab; Ms. Colleen
Sheehey-Church, the national President of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving; and Ms. Erin Holmes, the Director of the traffic
safety programs and technical writer at responsibility.org.
And, again, we appreciate your being here to give us your
testimony.
And, Mr. DuPont, you will be recognized first, and you are
recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement. Thank you
very much.
STATEMENTS OF ROBERT L. DUPONT, M.D., PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR
BEHAVIOR AND HEALTH; JENNIFER HARMON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY, ORANGE COUNTY CRIME LAB; COLLEEN SHEEHEY-
CHURCH, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING; AND
ERIN HOLMES, DIRECTOR, TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS, TECHNICAL
WRITER, FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCING ALCOHOL RESPONSIBILITY
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. DUPONT, M.D.
Dr. DuPont. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am President of the Institute for Behavior and Health, a
nonprofit organization committed to understanding the modern
drug epidemic and to develop policies to reverse that, to turn
it back.
I am a graduate of the Harvard Medical School, a physician.
I did my training at Harvard and also at NIH. And I have been
working on the problem of drugged driving for four decades,
including as the Director of the National Institute on Drug
Abuse, the first Director. And I also served as the White House
Drug Czar for two Presidents, Nixon and Ford, and have been
active in that field all of my professional life.
Two trends I want to bring to everybody's attention in all
the numbers we talk about. One is the fact that the highway
deaths have gone up for the first time in a long time, and they
have gone up by a significant number. That is very important to
notice. The second trend is the increasing presence of drugs in
drivers tested, whether in fatal crashes or in the National
Roadside Survey.
I want to focus on four ideas that I hope will be useful.
The first is thinking about alcohol as a model for
understanding impaired driving. This is very useful in many
ways, but there is one area where it has catastrophic effects,
and that is the search for a point equivalent to a .08 BAC.
That will never happen with marijuana and other drugs. It
cannot happen, because there is no fixed relationship between
the blood level and impairment for other drugs. Alcohol is the
exception, not marijuana, in this. And we are going to have
exactly that problem with every single drug, and it cannot be
fixed by additional research. That is number one.
Number two, the drug problem and alcohol problem are not
just a drug like marijuana or alcohol, because what is dominant
now is polydrug use. Many of the people who are arrested for
alcohol have drugs present in them. Many of the people with
drugs have alcohol. And so we are talking about a polydrug. To
look at this drugged-driving problem as this drug and that drug
misses what is happening to the drug epidemic in the United
States. It is a polydrug epidemic.
The third point is that they are talking about metabolites
that are present and misleading. Let me assure you that there
are no metabolites present when the parent drug is not in the
brain. If the metabolite of marijuana is in the urine, at that
time THC is in the brain. The metabolites are quickly
eliminated. It is the THC that stays, not the metabolite.
The fourth point is a thought experiment. We have for
decades--and I was part of this--had safety-sensitive jobs be
drug-tested, with a zero-tolerance standard. The prototype is
commercial airline pilots. We have a zero tolerance for that
because of safety.
Now, I want you to think about the question of whether it
makes sense to do that. Is that a good idea or a bad idea? And
the reality is the pilots are professional at their job; the
people driving in the cars are amateurs. Last year, we had zero
deaths from commercial airlines and we had 40,000 deaths from
the highway.
Why in the world do we have a lower standard for drivers of
cars than we have for pilots? And if you don't think it is
needed, why don't you stop doing it for pilots? I think if you
think about that a little bit, some thoughts will come clear
about what is needed here.
Now, I have, quickly running along, several points to get
at.
First of all, we need local and national data. The problem
is deficient in having data. That is really important.
We need to test every driver arrested for impairment. And I
emphasize the testing comes after the arrest for impairment,
not before. In the discussion, it acts as if we are just
testing all drivers. No, we are testing drivers who have been
judged to be impaired for the drugs. That is really important
to understand.
Third, we want to test every driver under 21, a zero
tolerance for marijuana and other drug use. It is zero
tolerance for alcohol under 21. You don't have to be .08 if you
are under 21; any alcohol is a violation. It should be the same
for marijuana. That would be a big step forward.
We need to use administrative license revocation, which has
been very helpful for the alcohol area, for the drug area as
well.
We need to test all drivers involved in fatalities and
serious injury crashes for drugs and alcohol, not just for
alcohol. And when you get one positive for alcohol, you don't
stop testing, because you want to know about the drugs too.
That is really important conceptually.
And because it is a polydrug problem, we need to have
penalties, additional penalties, for people who have multiple
drugs. It is a different situation, and it requires a different
response.
NHTSA needs to organize the FARS data and publish those
results annually as it now does with alcohol. It doesn't do it
for drugs. It needs to do that. And NHTSA needs to establish
guidelines for what drugs to test for and what the cutoff
levels are.
Finally, we need sentinel sites around the country that
report on a real-time basis. I favor the shock trauma units,
which are easy to get access to. And half a dozen of those
around the country could give you real-time data, highly
sophisticated results about traffic injuries, serious injuries,
and monitor the problem on a real-time basis and not wait 5
years for the answer.
I think that the opportunity is immense right now, and this
committee has a tremendously important positive role for it. I
am very optimistic that we will move forward with it. But the
idea that we are going to find the magic bullet that is going
to solve this problem is completely wrong. And that idea that
``look for the .08 equivalent for marijuana and other drugs and
we will act when we get that'' is completely contrary to the
public interest and public safety. We need to move now. We have
lots of good ideas. They need to be implemented.
And the idea that they are going to stop our interest in
alcohol is completely wrong. These things go together. They are
not two sides of a teeter-totter. Enhancing one enhances the
other. And you see that in the behavior of what is going on. So
to pose this as just--that is completely wrong.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. DuPont follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
And, Ms. Harmon, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER HARMON
Ms. Harmon. Thank you. And thank you again for having us
here.
Drug-impaired driving is not a new problem on our roadways.
However, it is an ever-increasing one. That is certainly the
case in Orange County. We are the sixth most populous county in
the United States.
My name is Jennifer Harmon. I am an assistant director with
the Orange County Crime Lab. We are located in Santa Ana,
California. Our laboratory offers comprehensive forensic
testing to the county and all law enforcement entities
contained within, which is over 30 municipal, State, and
Federal agencies, including the district attorney's office and
the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Division.
For over 8 years, our laboratory has worked collaboratively
with law enforcement, prosecutorial, and public health
partners, as well as traffic safety advocates, to better
toxicological testing, research, and training on drug-impaired
driving in our county and the State of California.
We utilize state-of-the-art technology, comprehensively
testing apprehended DUI suspect blood samples. These are post-
arrest samples. For nearly a year, we have been testing every
driver, regardless of their blood alcohol level. This is a
practice that has been advocated for for more than 10 years by
the National Safety Council but is still not routine practice
in public crime labs.
Every sample is initially analyzed for alcohol, inhalants,
and seven classifications of drugs, a total of about 50 drugs
currently. And we report 72 different compound blood
concentrations when we test for those compounds.
Beginning in August of this year, every traffic-safety-
related case, living or deceased, will be tested for over 300
drugs, to include illicit substances, prescriptions, over-the-
counter medications, and new synthetic and designer drugs.
Our chemical testing methods in Orange County are a
mechanism to assist in populating the scientific research and a
means to collaborate with public health partners on drug-
impaired-driving solutions and impacts.
As a laboratory, we test drug stability, impacts on
collection methods, new technology options, including roadside
saliva testing, and the correlation of drug levels on observed
field impairments. Our testing schemes allow us to collect
comprehensive countywide data on DUI suspects and fatally
injured drivers.
Our current countywide data suggests that 45 percent of our
apprehended DUI drivers test positive for at least one drug
other than alcohol. Twenty-nine percent of our drivers who have
blood alcohol levels greater than the per se level of a .08 are
positive for at least one other drug.
Fifty-six percent of our fatally injured drivers test
positive for at least one drug, nearly half of those alcohol
and/or THC, the psychoactive drug found in marijuana. What is
additionally alarming is that our non-alcohol-involved traffic-
related cases that are drug-positive, 40 percent of them test
for three or more drugs.
The success of the Orange County model over the last
several years has been due to our collaborative efforts with
stakeholders. We cross-train our dedicated toxicologists with
traffic safety law enforcement, prosecutors, and public and
private defense. Our experts attend law enforcement training
and provide reciprocal training as well.
Our team routinely interacts with law enforcement certified
drug recognition experts, also known as DREs, ensuring that
their expertise on drug impairments, metabolism, trends, and
poly-pharmacy are a marrying of field observation and
scientific theory. It ensures that our law enforcement partners
are able to maintain their certifications; validate their in-
field, at-roadside impairment observations; and stay current on
emerging drug trends.
Law enforcement and toxicology expertise is critical to
successful prosecutions of the drug-impaired in Orange County,
as we have a 95-plus-percent conviction rate on DUID cases that
are tried. The county also houses the statewide Traffic Safety
Resource Prosecutor Program, which allows for information
sharing in the criminal justice system at a statewide level.
Crime labs, in general, are severely underfunded,
especially in the area of forensic toxicology. Our laboratory
alone in the last 8 years has seen a 60-percent increase in the
number of exams conducted on our toxicology samples and an over
100-percent increase in the number of DUID cases processed,
with a 25-percent reduction in staffing.
However, our county has made a conscious effort to utilize
resources as efficiently as possible and ensure high-quality
testing on every case, regardless of the charge or the presence
of the most commonly encountered substances, like alcohol.
To understand the scope of the drug-impaired-driving
problem, comprehensive testing must be obligated by all
laboratories conducting toxicology and traffic safety-related
cases. Orange County's overall goal has been to share
information, collaboratively train all stakeholders in the
traffic safety system, and to collect data for overall better
outcomes and educated traffic safety policy.
Knowing the prevalence of the problem will result in better
preventative health measures, safer roadways, and improved
treatment for the drug-impaired. It also aids in improving
forensic drug testing for all types of crimes beyond traffic
safety, including drug-facilitated sexual assault, death
investigation, and overdose.
For those of us who work in America's crime labs, no day
passes without seeing clear evidence that confirms the fact
that our nation is in the grips of a drug epidemic. As
discussed in my testimony, drugs impact the safety of
motorists, but, of course, the impact goes far beyond our
roadways.
My colleagues and I appreciate the work Congress has done
and continues to do in addressing this problem. Those of us at
the local level remain committed to joining you in this
worthwhile effort.
I appreciate the opportunity to share.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Harmon follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
And, Ms. Sheehey-Church, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF COLLEEN SHEEHEY-CHURCH
Ms. Sheehey-Church. Thank you so much.
Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and the members
of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today before your subcommittee on the issue of drug-
impaired driving.
My name is Colleen Sheehey-Church, and I serve as the
national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD.
Drugged driving is a serious issue and one that is gaining
attention across our country. I look forward to sharing with
the committee MADD's thoughts on how best to address this
problem.
I am uniquely qualified to testify today. My son, Dustin
Church, was killed by a drunk and drugged driver on July 10,
2004. At only 18 years old, Dustin had graduated from high
school and had his whole life ahead of him. That night in July,
Dustin had not been drinking. He was doing what most kids like
to do and he was hanging out with friends when they decided to
go grab a pizza.
My husband, Skip, and I had told both of our sons about not
drinking until age 21 and never drinking and driving. We also
talked to them about the dangers of riding in a car with a
drunk driver. I will never know why Dustin got into that car
that night, but I am sure, because tests showed, that he was
sober and had buckled his seatbelt.
Unfortunately, the driver had been drinking and had illicit
drugs in her system. That pizza run turned tragic when the
driver lost control of her car, careened off the road, went
over a cliff and into a river. The driver and passenger
escaped, but not Dustin.
Early in the morning, Skip and I got that knock on the door
that no parent should ever receive. The pain of losing someone
so senselessly to a preventable crime never goes away. That is
why we must work harder than ever to eliminate drunk and
drugged driving.
In 2015, MADD updated our mission statement to include
``help fight drugged driving.'' We want victims of drugged
driving to know that we are here to serve their needs. We also
know that the legalization of recreational and medicinal
marijuana, the national opioid crisis, and the prevalence of
prescription drugs in our society can only lead to more drug-
impaired driving on our roadways.
What we don't know, however, is the role of drugs as causal
factors in traffic crashes. This is why more research is
needed. MADD is committed to a research- and data-driven
agenda.
I would like to call your attention to a report released
earlier this year from the National Academy of Sciences which
states that alcohol-impaired driving remains the deadliest and
costliest danger on the U.S. roads today. Every day in the
United States, 29 people die in an alcohol-impaired-driving
crash--1 death every 49 minutes--making it a persistent public
health and safety problem.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, also known as
IIHS, reports that, out of all drugs, alcohol is the biggest
threat on the roads. IIHS states that the battle against
alcohol-impaired driving is not won and that states and
localities should keep channeling resources into proven
countermeasures to deter impaired driving, such as sobriety
checkpoints.
The NAS and IIHS reports are important because recent
headlines would lead you to believe that drug-impaired driving
has overtaken drunk driving in terms of highway deaths. That is
simply not true. The truth is that we do not know how many
people are killed each year due to drug-impaired driving.
There are two major obstacles to determining the scope of
the problem. First, we lack impairment standards for drugs.
According to the 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey, marijuana
is the second most commonly found impairing drug after alcohol.
Yet marijuana has no impairment equivalent to a .08 for
alcohol. For prescription drugs, there are also no impairment
levels for drugs legally prescribed by one doctor.
With alcohol impairment, we know what works. MADD's
Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving in 2006 has created a
national blueprint to eliminate drunk driving in our country.
The campaign is based on proven strategy and supports law
enforcement, all-offender ignition lock laws, advanced vehicle
technology, and asks the public to help us support these
initiatives. Congress has fully endorsed the campaign by
funding its initiatives as part of both MAP-21 and the FAST
Act.
Mr. Chairman, MADD believes that the best way to move
forward on drug-impaired driving is to do more work on drunk
driving. MADD has long supported our heroes in law enforcement
because we know that they are the men and women who actually
get drunk and drugged drivers off the roads. Law enforcement is
under enormous pressure, and nationwide arrests are down. This
is a trend and must be reversed. And this is an area we
encourage this committee to further explore. We must encourage
law enforcement agencies all across the country to make traffic
enforcement a priority. Sobriety checkpoints and saturation
patrols catch and deter drunk and drugged driving.
We also support proper training for law enforcement which
helps them detect drugged drivers. Every law enforcement
officer should receive the Standard Field Sobriety Testing
Training. We also believe Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving
Enforcement, ARIDE, training and the DRE, drug recognition
expert, are important for law enforcement to be able to make
drugged-driving arrests.
In the mid to long term, we need to focus on further
research and data to understand the scope of the drugged-
driving problem. One important piece of research that we urge
Congress to reinstate and fully fund is the National Roadside
Survey. This study is conducted roughly every 10 years, and the
last Roadside Survey was last conducted 2013-2014. It is a
critical tool that gives policymakers like yourselves important
information about drivers who are using alcohol and then
driving on the roadways.
With the prevalence of marijuana legalization, both
recreational and medicinal, it is critical that more work be
done to understand impairment. We agree with the recent AAA
study which states a .08 equivalent may not be possible with
marijuana, but we still must better understand how marijuana
impairment influences driving behaviors.
In closing, I encourage the Congress to look at near-term
solutions to stop recent increases in traffic fatalities. The
National Academy of Sciences report made clear that alcohol is
the leading killer on the roadways. Therefore, drunk driving
should be a major focus in crash prevention. The good news is
that doing more to prevent drunk driving will result in fewer
drugged-driving deaths too.
Law enforcement is the best defense against drugged and
drunk drivers. We urge the committee to work with law
enforcement leaders to make sure that traffic enforcement is a
priority.
And, finally, it is critical that we have the research and
data to better understand this problem, to include impairment.
Mr. Chairman, I am here because of my son, Dustin. He was
killed by a drunk and drugged driver. It is my hope that the
recommendations I am making on behalf of MADD will help to make
progress on drunk driving and drugged driving and prevent
others from the same tragedy that has devastated my family.
Thank you again for the testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sheehey-Church follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. And thank you very much for your testimony
today. And on behalf of the committee and the subcommittee we
mourn your loss, because what we are here for is to make sure
that other families don't suffer the same loss that you have
suffered, the loss of your son. So we appreciate your testimony
today.
Ms. Holmes, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIN HOLMES
Ms. Holmes. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify on the issue of drug-impaired
driving.
My name is Erin Holmes, and I am the Director of Traffic
Safety at the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility.
Responsibility.org is a national not-for-profit organization
and a leader in the fight to eliminate drunk driving and
underage drinking. We are funded by leading distilled spirits
companies, including Bacardi U.S.A., Beam Suntory, Brown-
Forman, Constellation Brands, DIAGEO, Edrington, Mast-
Jagermeister US, and Pernod Ricard USA.
I would first like to begin by expressing my gratitude.
Leadership is needed to address impaired driving in all of its
forms, and I applaud the committee for recognizing the
seriousness of this problem and the need to push for solutions
to save lives.
I also would like to acknowledge the efforts of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under the
leadership of Deputy Administrator Heidi King. NHTSA has made
drug-impaired driving a priority and is actively engaged in
identifying countermeasures that work, furthering research, and
increasing public awareness.
While not a new issue, drug-impaired driving has come into
greater focus in recent years due to the increasing number of
states that have legalized marijuana and the spread of the
opioid and heroin epidemic.
Let me be clear: Drug-impaired driving is a serious public
safety concern. In 2016, the most recent year for which we have
data available, drugs were present in 43.6 percent of fatally
injured drivers with a known drug test result.
Further complicating the issue is the realization that it
is not uncommon for drivers to have more than one substance in
their system. Research has continually shown that drugs used in
combination or with alcohol can produce greater impairment than
substances used on their own. In 2016, 50.5 percent of fatally
injured drug-positive drivers were positive for two or more
drugs, and 40.7 percent were found to have alcohol in their
system as well.
Unfortunately, polysubstance-impaired drivers are often not
identified if they have a blood alcohol concentration above the
illegal limit of .08, which then, of course, has implications
for supervision and treatment decisions.
So what can be done to address this problem? To effectively
reduce drug-impaired driving and save lives, a comprehensive
approach must be employed. Drug-impaired driving is more
complex than alcohol-impaired driving, and we have heard some
of those explanations here already today as to why that is so.
Therefore, different policy approaches are needed to address
certain aspects of the problem. However, it is constructive to
examine the policies and programs that have been effective in
reducing alcohol-impaired driving and replicate these tactics
when feasible. Some examples may include administrative license
suspension, zero-tolerance laws for individuals under 21, and
enhanced penalties for polysubstance use.
I encourage Congress to take a multifaceted approach that
involves a combination of education, policy, and enforcement
initiatives, which are outlined in detail in my written
submission.
First and foremost, ongoing support and funding is needed
to increase the number of law enforcement officers trained in
Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement, or ARIDE, and
certified as drug recognition experts. Understanding that more
resources are needed at the state level to accomplish this
goal, responsibility.org partnered with the Governors Highway
Safety Association to offer grants, which is now in its third
year. Since that began, that program has resulted in more than
1,500 officers receiving drug-impaired-driving training in 13
different states.
We also recommend supporting NHTSA in expediting oral fluid
testing research and exploring the creation of minimum
standards for these devices, like with breath testing or
ignition interlocks. Oral fluid screening devices test for the
presence of the most common categories of drugs. They are quick
and easy to use and minimally invasive. These devices could be
another tool for law enforcement to use as part of a DUI
investigation.
But identification of impaired drivers is only the first
step. To improve outcomes, assessment must guide decisionmaking
in the justice system. The screening and assessment of impaired
drivers, whether drunk, drugged, or polyusers, for both
substance use and mental health disorders is imperative to
determine individual risk level and treatment needs. Congress
should continue to support and make appropriations for
assessment and treatment interventions and evidence-based
criminal justice programs, such as DUI and treatment courts.
Other important recommendations to consider include
supporting the creation of national minimum standards for
toxicological investigations, allocating additional highway
safety funds to improve the capabilities of state labs,
monitoring NHTSA's progress in creating large-scale education
campaigns and providing appropriations to expand those should
they be deemed effective, continuing to invest in research
initiatives to better understand drug impairment and identify
effective countermeasures.
Congress, NHTSA, state highway safety offices, and traffic
safety organizations must continue to work collaboratively to
prevent the occurrence of this behavior, improve the
administration of justice, and further knowledge in the field.
Thank you so much, and we look forward to working
collaboratively with you on these issues.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Holmes follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
And we appreciate all your testimony given to the
subcommittee today.
And I just want to let members know that they did just call
votes. So, if we could, I will try to get my first questions in
first before we have to run down to vote.
But if I could start, Ms. Holmes, with you, just following
up on what you were talking about on what states are doing out
there to address the drug-impaired driving, are there any
Sstates that can be models for others? And why do you believe
that some states are at the forefront in addressing this issue?
Ms. Holmes. I think there are a number of different things
that are being done well, depending on the area. Each state has
individual and unique challenges and can be constrained by
their laws.
I would look to Colorado as a leader and example on public
education and information campaigns. I believe they have done a
phenomenal job, and they have worked towards expanding their
messaging.
They were put in a difficult position when Amendment 64
became law back in 2012. They weren't prepared and had to put
together a campaign relatively quickly. But since that time,
their ``Drive High, Get a DUI'' campaign has expanded in its
messaging, first from focusing and educating the public in
Colorado that, while, yes, it is now legal to use marijuana, it
is not legal to use and drive, because you can, in fact, get a
DUI.
They have also focused on increasing messaging around crash
risk associated with marijuana-impaired driving. And they have
also looked at different aspects of the problem, like consuming
edibles and driving. And now they are implementing a new
campaign called The Cannabis Conversation, where they reach out
to communities of users.
Other states, like Washington, have done a very good job
with data collection. They have been able to go back and do a
lot of analysis on fatally injured drivers to get a better
sense of what the data is telling them: not only what
percentage of fatally injured drivers over a lengthy period of
time are testing positive for marijuana, but also who is
testing positive for the active psychoactive component--that is
the Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol--versus the inactive
metabolites. They have also focused on being able to identify
which drivers tested above or below their per se limit of 5
nanograms.
I would also commend California for the work that they have
done on laboratory testing and investing in lab capabilities.
They have also looked to establish a blueprint to be able to
guide decisionmaking in the future.
What I would always encourage all states to do is to look
at this issue irrespective of what challenges they are facing
with drug policy and with drug use in their states. The sooner
you can start to plan ahead, the better prepared you will be.
And states that have not gone down that road or have not been
extremely hard-hit by either legalization or by the opioid
epidemic, they are in the best position to learn the lessons
from other jurisdictions and implement them or plan for the
future.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Ms. Harmon, given your unique perspective on this issue,
just talking about California, from the local level, what are
some of the day-to-day obstacles in combating drug-impaired
driving that you have seen?
Ms. Harmon. Certainly, I think one of the largest obstacles
that we continue to have in California is the relationship that
our public has with law enforcement. Law enforcement is key to
dealing with drug-impaired driving. Their impairment models
that they are using, we have published research that we believe
that they are effective even with drugs like marijuana.
The other issue is the resources that the system as a whole
has in addressing the type of testing that really needs to be
done at a comprehensive level. Almost every jurisdiction, with
the exception of two, only tests drivers above a .08 percent.
In the last few years, we have been able to convince coroners'
offices and medical examiner offices that marijuana or the
active drug, THC, is an important drug to be testing. So we do
now have our fatally injured drivers tested for marijuana.
But the scope of testing that is done in our state is
limited because of the resources that the laboratories have and
the access they have in improving the technology, as well as
the staffing resources that they need in order to deal with the
problem.
The other issue is that we are dealing with a vast number
of drugs. Our five most prevalent drugs in our jurisdiction
involve both illicit and prescription drugs. And the drugs are
all tested slightly differently. And so you have to have state-
of-the-art technology in order to effectively do that and to be
able to test for all of the drugs in a timeframe that is
reasonable. Because drugs break down not just in a person's
system but also in the samples. So if the samples are sitting
for extended periods of time and not getting tested or only
being screened and then at a later time being tested, you are
affecting the quality of that evidence for a prosecution.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
And my time is about ready to expire. And, as I said, we
can go run down and vote. Would that be all right?
Ms. Schakowsky. Right now?
Mr. Latta. Right. We will recess?
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
Mr. Latta. Yep. And we will vote and come right back.
Thank you.
We will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Walters [presiding]. All right. We are going to
reconvene with questions and I am going to recognize Ranking
Member Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much.
So here we are again, and I appreciate your waiting. I know
it's kind of a drag, but that's our schedule. So I wanted to
start by asking or actually just saying to Ms. Sheehy-Church I
just appreciate you so much and, certainly, my heart goes out
to you and the fact that you have made this a mission of yours
I think is so incredibly important.
Moms Against Drunk Driving, as you pointed out in your
testimony, has really changed the face--we are not at zero,
that's for sure, but the 21 years old, the zero tolerance, the
.08--those are really attributed to the kind of grassroots
activism often of coming out of tragedy.
So I just want to say that. I am so grateful to you.
So I am just wondering, would actually going further and
lowering the legal blood alcohol level help reduce deaths from
drunk driving? Is that even on the table or realistic?
Ms. Sheehy-Church. Well, obviously, heard from NTSB that
they were recommending .05. But the reality is once the
recommendation comes in they kind of walk away and leave us to
do the work and others--advocacy groups--to do the work to try
to go to you all to try to see if there is an appetite and a
willingness to do that.
We are not there yet, and I think if we stick to the
campaign that we currently have right now, which is really
supporting law enforcement, we will save more lives faster than
taking a look at that down the road.
Impairment is impairment, and when we look at someone who
has been arrested or accused of a DUI the fact is they are
impaired no matter what it is.
So I think spending that time right now maybe down the
road. But I think right now, more research is needed but, more
importantly, we need to stop what's happening on the roads.
I hear a lot about the fatalities and the blood draws and
everything on fatalities. We need to do something that's in
advance. We have got to stop something now.
We need a silver bullet now, and right now the only thing
we have now is law enforcement--their ability to be boots on
the ground and make sure that we do something before tragedy
occurs.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Let me acknowledge, by the way, we have dueling hearings,
which is why I was not here for most of your--I heard your
testimony. But so let me apologize if I repeat things that have
already been said.
I am just wondering if I could ask any of you, what else
should be done to help stop drunk or impaired driving that can
be done at the federal level?
Any suggestions for us? And can I start with Dr. DuPont?
Dr. DuPont. Yes, that was a point of my testimony. I gave a
list of eight things that I thought were very important.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. I can go back to that, but maybe it
bears repeating.
Dr. DuPont. No. No. We need data, I think, is the most
important thing of the nature and extent of the problem, and I
think as we have that, it drives everything else.
So that's the most important thing. For example, getting
the FARS data--the fatally injured drivers--having all those
drivers tested for drugs and alcohol and having----
Ms. Schakowsky. So not just drunk drivers over .08 that get
tested for other----
Dr. DuPont. Every fatally injured driver----
Ms. Schakowsky. Got it.
Dr. DuPont [continuing]. Should be tested for drugs and
alcohol. That's what I am thinking, and that NHTSA can
establish guidelines for how to do that. Right now, it's hit or
miss. One state will do one thing, another another.
If NHTSA had a standard package--here's what we recommend
for testing for fatally injured drivers--that would be a very
helpful thing to--for us to do, for example.
The simple thing to me is encourage laws for under the age
of 21 to have zero tolerance. Marijuana is illegal in every
state in the country under 21.
If a 20-year-old driver has alcohol at below .08, it's
still a violation, and we can do that with marijuana. And doing
that with younger drivers--that's the 16 to 20--that makes a
difference.
That would be a step that would make things better, I
think, that would be.
The poly drug problem we talked about, it's where you are
now and it's where we are going, into more and more of that. We
need to have additional penalties for people who are using
multiple----
Ms. Schakowsky. I am looking at the clock. I guess I just
ran out of how fast 5 minutes goes. I apologize.
I will definitely look at all of your testimony and I think
this is a bipartisan issue. I don't think there is any question
about it, and if there are things that we should do.
But I think data--does everybody agree--is really important
for us to do.
Thank you.
Mrs. Walters. The chair will recognize the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Bucshon.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Chairman.
I was a surgeon before I was in Congress so I have had
trauma patients who have been in car crashes and other things
and seen some of the results of impaired driving, from that
perspective.
I also had another hearing in the Health Subcommittee so I
am sorry I wasn't here for your testimony. But I've read
through your testimony.
One of the things as a physician that concerns me is across
the country we are legalizing marijuana for recreational use. I
personally oppose that based on medical grounds.
Evidence has shown that in the developing brain, which
would be a young person all the way up through their mid to
late 20s that there is substantial evidence of permanent long-
term cognitive changes and that I think we are going to find
later on are going to be substantial.
That said, the other thing I am concerned about is in the
short term, putting in legal sustainable ways to determine how
impaired people are when they are driving when they are using
marijuana exclusively, it's easier if they have alcohol at a
high level or something.
But I think you're going to start seeing more of that.
You're going to start seeing more impaired driving.
We had a case in my district where a young lady, a
teenager, was sledding and unfortunately, was hit by an
impaired driver.
It's complicated, but the gist of it is the impaired driver
didn't have any alcohol in their system.
But, clearly, in the field, the officer felt that they were
impaired and then, of course, when you go to court there is no
substantial legal evidence that they were impaired at the time
other than the word of the officer, because, as you know, THC
doesn't stay in the bloodstream very long.
Someone pointed that out in their testimony. It gets
distributed into your body. It can stay in your hair and your
fat for a long time. But in the short term, you can't
determine, at least at this point, legally what determines
impairment.
So the question I have--and anyone could start to address
this--is how do we begin to get a national legal standard for
impairment?
Ultimately, the states will do it but, how we did with the
.08--we have ways of having the states adopt a national
standard.
How do we get to that point? Because I am pretty concerned
about it. Indiana, honestly, it's not a partisan issue. Indiana
is pretty red, but the legislators are talking about legalizing
recreational use in our state.
So we will start with Dr. DuPont and how can we get to a
legal standard for impairment with marijuana use that will hold
up in court?
Dr. DuPont. Well, I think we do have tests for impairment.
We have the field sobriety test and the ARIDE test. Those are
tests for impairment.
People are not drug tested unless they fail those tests.
When they fail those tests and they have drugs present, that
should be sufficient for the penalty, right there, and once you
start to try to find a tissue level for any other drug, you're
lost, and I use a simple example to make this point involving
drug treatment and methadone is a treatment for drugs.
Mr. Bucshon. Right.
Dr. DuPont. And if you take a methadone dose of 40
milligrams, that's lethal to a nontolerant person.
Mr. Bucshon. All right.
Dr. DuPont. A single dose. OK. For a methadone maintained
patient, they typically take 100 milligrams a day and have no
impairment--no impairment. I want you to hear that--no
impairment.
Mr. Bucshon. Oh, yes.
Dr. DuPont. So if you have a tissue level for methadone,
you can't say this one's impaired and that one isn't. The
ultimate impairment is death.
We don't have to have a scientific study. If they are dead,
they are impaired, and that's at 40 milligrams. But at 100
milligrams, there is no impairment. That's tolerance.
Mr. Bucshon. Right.
Dr. DuPont. And that's true for these other drugs. It's
true for marijuana.
Mr. Bucshon. So we got a ways to go to try to determine--
for example, in this----
Dr. DuPont. You can't do it with a tissue----
Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. In this particular case, this
person's attorney is arguing that they were not impaired and
there is no evidence that they were impaired other than the
field sobriety tests and the opinion of the officer.
Dr. DuPont. And we need to take that seriously along with
the positive finding.
Mr. Bucshon. Right.
Dr. DuPont. That's what that----
Mr. Bucshon. Anyone else have any comments?
Ms. Holmes, I see you want to comment.
Ms. Holmes. Yes, sir. I would really just emphasize what
Dr. DuPont just said and that's why I think everybody in the
traffic safety field emphasizes training officers in both ARIDE
or certifying them as DREs so that they can confidently
identify the signs and symptoms of drug impairment and then be
able to articulate that in court in a convincing manner, and
that becomes a training issue.
So more appropriations for that type of law enforcement
training is key.
Mr. Bucshon. Makes sense. Thanks. My time is up. I yield
back.
Mrs. Walters. The gentleman yields, and the chair
recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I may be asking
questions that have already been asked. We have had a series of
hearings today and I apologize for not being at this hearing
for all of its aspects.
I am from New Jersey and the new governor of New Jersey,
Philip Murphy, wants to legalize recreational marijuana by the
end of the year. This would occur through legislation at the
state level in Trenton, our state capital.
I am open to expanding access for medicinal use of
marijuana but I strongly oppose legalization for recreational
purposes.
I am especially worried about the legalization of
recreational marijuana's effects on our roadways. New Jersey is
the most densely populated state in the Nation.
As has been previously stated, the number of American
drivers killed in automobile accidents in which drugs have been
detected, that number has surpassed those killed in accidents
where only alcohol was found. At least that's my understanding
of the situation.
Several states, of course, have already legalized marijuana
for recreational use. To the distinguished and to each of you,
could you please comment on trends or data that have been
produced from the states that have legalized recreational
marijuana as it relates to impaired driving?
And I will start with you, Dr. DuPont.
Dr. DuPont. I don't have the data for comparing the states.
So somebody else will have to answer that.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
Anybody on the panel who would like to respond to my
question? Yes.
Ms. Harmon. I can speak to what we have seen in California.
We legalized in 2016 but recreational sales did not go
officially online until January of this year.
Currently, in our fatally injured drivers, we are in the
range of 17 to 20 percent that are testing positive for the
active drug found in marijuana, THC.
We do know that both Colorado and Washington, once they
legalized, saw almost a doubling of their fatally injured
drivers originally from the pre-legalization to post-
legalization.
We are not sure yet what California is going to look like
because that data is as of 2017. We do expect the numbers to
increase in 2018 and 2019. But, again, we are waiting because
the full access didn't go online until this year.
That being said, California had decriminalized marijuana
since 1996 so our numbers may not be as substantial as Colorado
and Washington.
Mr. Lance. And, of course, there is a difference between
decriminalization and legalization, as I understand it, and
this debate is now occurring in New Jersey.
But without final figures, it's your view, at least in
California, that, unfortunately, tragically, the number of
fatalities will increase or have increased as a result of this
change in legislation?
Ms. Harmon. Yes, and we are seeing an increase in drug-
involved fatalities.
Mr. Lance. Others on the panel?
Ms. Sheehy-Church. I would say that, in terms of the
statement marijuana being ahead of alcohol is not true.
Mr. Lance. Yes.
Ms. Sheehy-Church. But what I would agree with is that we
are seeing a rise. I have my own opinion relative to marijuana,
whether it's medicinal or that it's not.
Mr. Lance. I seek your opinion. That's why you're on the
panel.
Ms. Sheehy-Church. Yes, I won't----
Mr. Lance. And that's why I've asked everybody on the panel
to comment.
Ms. Sheehy-Church. I still think, though, that, speaking
for MADD, that what we have to do is stick with our model that
does work----
Mr. Lance. Yes.
Ms. Sheehy- Church [continuing]. And what works is exactly
what Ms. Harmon says that we--and Ms. Holmes says is really
looking at our--is our law enforcement being the first step, as
putting the tools in the toolbox that they need so that they
can better understand and stop the fatalities.
These are accidents, by the way. These are crashes, because
a crash is something that is done that could have been 100
percent preventable.
Mr. Lance. I see. My staff used the word crash. I changed
it to accidents. So that's my fault, not the fault of my very
competent staff.
Ms. Sheehy-Church. It's OK.
Mr. Lance. Ms. Holmes.
Ms. Holmes. I'll very briefly speak to Washington State.
Mr. Lance. Yes.
Ms. Holmes. AAA FTS did a study that looked at trends both
pre- and post-legalization for drivers testing positive for
active THC and they found an increase from 8 to 17 percent.
Mr. Lance. So that's double.
Ms. Holmes. Washington Traffic Safety Commission has also
done a lot of data analysis and the recent data shows that the
number-one impairing substance in their fatal crashes is
actually poly use, so either a combination of alcohol and drugs
or multiple drugs on board, which is what we are primarily
concerned about.
Mr. Lance. I thank you and I thank the distinguished panel.
And let me reiterate that it is my considered judgment, and
I was the minority leader in the state senate in New Jersey
before coming here, that it is not good policy, at least for
our state, to legalize recreational marijuana.
I thank the chair.
Mrs. Walters. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
appreciate it very much.
Ditto what the gentleman from New Jersey says as far as
recreational marijuana as well. Yes, what's the--I have some
questions here and I want to go through it.
But what is the drug that--besides alcohol and maybe
marijuana too that is--impairs the individual the most? Can you
point to one particular drug with regard to driving?
Ms. Sheehy-Church. I cannot answer that question if there
is one over another. Impairment is impairment and different
drugs, whether they are prescription or illicit, will react to
an individual differently all the time.
So I don't know whether anybody else has the data.
Dr. DuPont. I don't think you'd find one drug that would
stand out. Those are the two that are most prevalent. But there
are lots of other drugs--methamphetamine, for example, cocaine,
and all the new synthetic drugs.
So it's an incredibly long list, and all of them are
impairing. There aren't any drugs that aren't impairing.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, and also, if you take the drugs
legally--the prescribed--they could interact with each other
and that's very important that we get the word out.
How do you propose getting the word out besides the doctors
telling the patients, look, you absolutely should not drive
when you're under the influence, even though it's legally
prescribed, for example, pain medication or what have you?
Do you all have any suggestions on that?
Ms. Holmes. I think in addition to physicians, also
pharmacists. I think one of the things that we would certainly
recommend to safeguard against opioid-impaired driving,
particularly when we are talking about prescriptions used
according to therapeutic doses, is to really make sure that at
that point of contact where the patient is prescribed a new
medication with impairing side effects that both the physician
and pharmacists are having a conversation with that patient
that very clearly outlines that they should not be operating
heavy machinery and that a vehicle constitutes having
machinery. We are not just talking about crane operators.
Mr. Bilirakis. That's right.
Ms. Holmes. But I think sometimes that doesn't occur and
sometimes that fine print warning label is simply not sending a
strong enough message.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. I agree. I agree.
Anyone else want to comment on that?
Dr. DuPont. I think one of the things that's striking is
that people often don't know they are impaired.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Dr. DuPont. When people do know they are impaired, that's,
clearly, a sign to say if you feel impaired--if you feel high,
don't drive. That's clear.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Dr. DuPont. The problem is that a lot of people feel just
fine or even feel they are driving better when they are
impaired and I think that makes it very difficult to say you're
going to educate them about it.
I think the answer is really to not drive after you use
drugs.
Mr. Bilirakis. Exactly.
Dr. DuPont. But with respect to prescription drugs, I often
prescribe myself medicines that are potentially impairing. When
you start with a drug that is potentially impairing you want to
be very concerned with that with a patient.
Once they are on a stable dose, usually it's not a problem
unless they add something else to it.
Mr. Bilirakis. And that's the thing. The mixture of alcohol
and a drug, whether it's marijuana or what have you.
Dr. DuPont. To be sure, it can be very disturbing. But it
becomes difficult to communicate that because the same drug as
I use in my methadone example--the same dose of the drug, which
is nonimpairing for a person who's used to it is very impairing
to a person who isn't, and that makes it difficult to broaden
these bright lines that people want to have.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, I know. We got to get the message out.
But you're right, everybody's different.
So earlier this year, there was an article in our local
newspaper in Pasco County, Florida--the Laker/Lutz News--that
shared a tragic story of a constituent, a couple whose daughter
and family were, sadly, killed by a drug-impaired driver.
I'd like to insert that the article in the record, Madam
Chair, please. I'd like to insert that into the record.
Mrs. Walters. So without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
These parents have since become strong advocates for
raising awareness and education about drugged driving and I
personally met with them and heard their heartbreaking stories.
It highlights the urgency that we have today to address
this issue and reverse the trends we have been seeing over the
past few years.
And, again, I have one other question here. Dr. DuPont,
your testimony talks about the essential element of public
education to help reduce drug-impaired driving.
We are all aware of the don't drink and drive messaging
that has been effective over the years. You say we should have
an equivalent don't use drugs and drive messaging as well and
that it should be backed by clear policies and enforcement.
What should these policies look like at the Federal level
to help with an education initiative? And I did see something
the other day on TV, and I am not exactly sure what this means
because I am 55 years old, but don't be baked and drive.
So but anyway, if you could answer that question for me I'd
appreciate it.
Dr. DuPont. The don't be high and drive is what people in
the marijuana field talk about and I think that's good advice
not to be high and drive.
I think that that's good. But I like the don't use drugs
and drive, to be clear, and I think once you get past that, you
get into very murky waters about safety.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. You also mentioned the additional
concern regarding prescription drugs. I don't have time.
All right. Well, I'll enter it into the record and I
appreciate it, Madam Chair. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Walters. The gentleman yields.
I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes. As we have
heard in Ms. Harmon's testimony, my home of Orange County,
California, is a national leader in the fight against drug-
impaired driving.
The alarming statistic that more Americans are killed in
crashes in which drugs are detected compared to those which
alcohol was found are reflected in the fact that Orange County
saw a 40 percent increase in drug-impaired driving submissions
to the crime lab from 2015 to 2016.
In response, the OC crime lab and DA have developed a
multi-agency drug-impaired driving initiative focusing on
investigation, prosecution, and toxicology examination.
The OC model serves as the foundation for California
statewide drug-impaired driving model and the district attorney
coordinates training for all of southern California.
These local and state initiatives must be in collaboration
with Federal efforts and I am assured knowing that former
Orange County resident Deputy Administrator Heidi King is
executing NHTSA's drugged driving initiative.
Last Congress, we enacted the FAST Act, which included
language I championed that required NHTSA to study marijuana-
impaired driving and how it affects individuals while driving,
and I would like to submit the report for the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Walters. The state also authorized NHTSA to work
toward a roadside test for impairment.
Ms. Harmon, you mentioned the OC crime lab studies,
roadside saliva testing, and other field test options. Can you
further describe the challenges in developing an effective
field test and the progress made toward that goal?
Ms. Harmon. So we have done a couple of studies. We have
published in 2016 and 2018 of this year where we looked at--we
went back and looked at drivers with active THC in their system
and looked at the current field work that's being done by law
enforcement--the standardized field sobriety tests and the drug
recognition expert program--and our studies concluded that
although you can't correlate to a level of impairment, the
current tools that law enforcement is using are very effective
of finding THC-impaired drivers.
Of the additional work that we have done, we did a pilot
study with the Fullerton Police Department, looking at roadside
saliva testing and the effectiveness of that testing versus our
blood collection model that we have had in our county.
We have contract phlebotomy for over 30 years, which allows
us to reduce the time frame in which the blood is actually
collected and how it's submitted to the laboratory and tested,
and what we found is that the roadside saliva model testing is
effective for illicit drugs--methamphetamine, heroin.
It was OK for marijuana and it was not effective for
prescription drugs. In Orange County, we have our third most
prevalent drug--with the exception of including alcohol--is
benzodiazepine, which is Xanax, which this would exclude many
of those cases if we went to a roadside saliva model.
So we continue to advocate that if we can get effective
blood collection that it is a matrix that we can work with and
that we already have literature that supports what levels are
therapeutic, what levels are toxic, and what levels are fatal,
which we can provide during testimony in drug-impaired driving
cases.
Mrs. Walters. What can Congress do to help develop an
effective field test?
Ms. Harmon. I think what's really needed is that we have
effective tests and so what we really need from Congress is
support in doing that.
The standardized field sobriety tests model that law
enforcement is using is not mandated in police academies.
The California Highway Patrol mandates that this class--
it's 40 hours of training for every one of their officers. They
also mandate the 16-hour ARIDE, which Ms. Sheehy-Church had
mentioned before.
They also mandate that 16-hour class as well. And, again,
these are classes that are not mandated of all folks who are in
law enforcement now.
The additional thing is that the testing component needs to
be available. The toxicology labs need to have the resources.
Much like what the Federal level has done for DNA, they
need to do that for toxicology, and it will enhance any type of
case work that involves drugs if those models are used, and
ensuring that the laboratories actually have the resources they
need to test all drivers and to test decedent drivers for the
drugs that may be in their system.
Mrs. Walters. OK. And you said according to the DA
marijuana and prescription drugs that count for the majority of
drug-impaired driving cases in Orange County and you mentioned
the crime lab will soon begin testing for over 300 drugs in
every traffic safety related case.
Can you explain what factors led the crime lab to expand
the types of drugs tested?
Ms. Harmon. We expanded the testing because this is what we
are seeing. We did a proof of concept research project a couple
of years ago and saw that over 30 percent of drugs were being
missed in our cases.
So we have led efforts over the last several years to
become more comprehensive in the testing that we do because
many of our cases are, as already reflected by this panel, poly
pharmacy cases.
As I mentioned, over 40 percent of our nonalcohol DUIs have
three or more drugs in their system. We want to be able to give
a comprehensive picture on the data that's being provided.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you, and I am out of time.
Ms. Schakowsky. Can I ask one more?
Mrs. Walters. Sure. I'll yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate
it.
So I am trying to--what you said, Dr. DuPont, about
different people having different levels of tolerance.
Now, we set .08. I am assuming that someone like me, who's
a horrible drinker--probably one little glass of wine and I
might be impaired--I don't know--but yes, we set a firm level.
What you were saying, can we set levels that are just for
everyone for these other drugs, for these other--for marijuana,
et cetera, because I would think that otherwise it's impossible
to define what's impaired and what isn't.
So I don't know. Whoever wants to answer that but----
Dr. DuPont. Well, I think the answer is no, you can't do
that, and let me just mention about with alcohol. It's not as
clear cut as you may think that somebody who's under .08 is not
impaired and somebody who is over .08 is. That's called a per
se standard.
There are many people who are alcoholics who are above .08
and they pass the field sobriety tests. There are other people
who are under .08 who fail the field sobriety tests. And you
can see this very easily from some of the field sobriety data
that when people--if you look at the people who fail on
alcohol, the average level is not .09.
The average level is .15, because many people who are heavy
drinkers can pass the field sobriety tests.
So what I am saying is this is a political decision what
the number is. It's not a science decision, and----
Ms. Schakowsky. But there is a practicality about it, too.
Dr. DuPont. It's very important. It's a wonderful thing.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
Dr. DuPont. I am in support of it. But not to understand
the science behind it leads you to want to find that for other
drugs and I am telling you you can't do it--what's happening
now, which is tragic, is that the search for that tissue level
for other drugs is stopping us from doing the things we can do
right now.
We say we have got to wait for that. We have got to have
new research. That is very destructive to say that sure, let's
have more research.
But let's do the things we can do now--there is lots of
things to do, and the field sobriety test is a wonderful test.
It does detect the impairment very well.
Ms. Harmon was talking to me--when they fail the field
sobriety tests, 96 percent of the people have drugs or alcohol
present. That tells you that field sobriety test is a very good
test. You don't need another test. That test is good.
Let's use it right now. Yes, do more research. But use what
we have got now because what we have got now is good, and
what's happening in Orange County is a model for the country.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Is there any difference of opinion to
weigh in at all? OK. Did you want to?
Ms. Sheehy- Church. There is no difference of opinion. I
absolutely agree with the doctor.
Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Holmes as well?
Ms. Holmes. Yes, and to that, I would add that we already
have impairment-based laws in every single state, which is why
that somebody who's impaired with below .08 can be prosecuted
for a DUI--similarly, for drugs.
So the emphasis really then should be making sure officers
are, again, trained to be able to----
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
Ms. Sheehy-Church [continuing]. Identify and articulate
signs of impairment.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. And Ms. Harmon, you're on board with
that too? Yes?
Ms. Harmon. I agree completely.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Great. Thank you. That's helpful.
Mrs. Walters. Thank you. Seeing that there are no further
members wishing to ask questions, I'd like to thank all of our
witnesses for being here today and thank you for being patient
with us while we had to go vote.
Before we conclude, I would like to include the following
documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent:
an article from the Heritage Foundation, a policymakers
checklist from responsibility.org, a report from the governor's
Highway Safety Association, a report from the Institute for
Behavioral Health, an article from the Police Chief magazine,
and an article from Impaired Driving Update.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Walters. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members
that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions
for the record and I ask that witnesses submit their response
with 10 business days upon receipt of the questions.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]