on thursday, a house subcommittee looked at marijuana use, its legalization in some states and its relation to transportation safety.

issues included the ability to operate vehicles, testing for marijuana use, and the challenges in-in creating a federal standard for donald rumsfeld -- driving under the influence of so-called recreational drugs. witnesses include a representative of the center for substance abuse prevention. this is an hour and 40 minutes. it's chaired by florida congressman john micah. good morning. i'd like to welcome everyone to the committee on government oversight and reform and our subcommittee hearing this morning. this is the subcommittee on government operations. welcome our ranking member, mr. connolly, and other who is may join us this morning.

the title of today's hearing is planes, trains, and automobiles -- operating while stoned. this, i believe, is our fifth hearing on the subject of the impact of changing laws on increasing use of marijuana in our society. and our subcommittee in particular has jurisdiction and part of our charter is the difference between federal and state laws and the relationships and whole host of issues that deal with, again, federal/state issues. and certainly in our most recent history there's probably been nothing that has provided a greater difference in, say, current federal statutes and

changing state and local statutes than the marijuana issue, so it's an important matter and we try to approach it and look at all of the aspects and impacts. the order of business this morning will be opening statements. i'll start with mine. yield to mr. connolly. i see we have mr. fleming. i don't believe mr. fleming is a member of the committee, but ask unanimous consent that -- and without objection that he be permitted to participate in today's proceedings. and other member who is may join us. right now there are a number of conferences going on around the hill. with that, after the opening statement, i see we have four witnesses, we heerl from them. we'll withhold questions until we've heard from all our panelists and get to introduce you and swear you in after the opening statements. so with that, let me begin.

again, i have an important responsibility to look at changing laws. this subcommittee has, in fact, been investigating the federal response to state and local government, legalization and change of laws relating to marijuana and examining the administration's sometimes chaotic and inconsistent policies on marijuana. in fact, most of our proceedings since the beginning of the year have been based on a statement that the president made, and he said that marijuana was no -- not much different than alcohol. and i think one of our first hearing was to bring in the office of national drug control policy who differed with the president's statement. we looked at that issue. then we heard from the law enforcement agencies, dea, they

disagreed with that statement. then we saw the conflict in colorado and other states, department of justice had issued some guidelines and statements relating to enforcement. as i recall from the u.s. attorney from colorado who testified about some of the problems, we heard from dea and other agencies, as we are doing one other hearing, the district of columbia changed its law, possession, tampering down the fine to $25 for one ounce of marijuana. and i illustrated by holding up a fake joint. some people thought that was entertaining, but it was also designed to illustrate you could have 28 of those joints now in the district and that would be the results on the $25 fine.

then i held up in the other hand a list of 26 federal agencies that were charged with enforcing conflicting federal law, and it does create a serious dilemma and situation. and again, i think today is very important because, having chaired transportation, and you see the results of the devastation just, for example, on our highways, probably in the last dozen years we've had a quarter of a million americans slaughtered on the highways. think about that. over quarter of a million. we've gotten it down -- it was down in the 30-some thousand, but it was running in the almost mid-40,000, and that's

fatalities. and half of those fatalities are related to people who are impaired through alcohol or drugs. and as we embark on this new era with many more people exposed to what is now still a schedule one narcotic and more potent, as we heard from some of the scientific folks, we are going to have a lot more people stoned on the highway, and there will be consequences. we do have federal agencies, and we'll hear from the department of transportation, to see how they're going to deal with both vehicles, both passenger vehi e vehicles, with commercial vehicles, and then also -- and i don't know if we could put up some of those charts to see some of the devastation, but -- or the photos -- aviation is another area. maybe you could put some of those up there.

we haven't gotten into commercial, and we'll talk about that, but these are civil aircraft. just keep flipping them. every one of these were involved with people impaired. and the way we find out right now if they were impaired was, in fact, by testing the corpse, the blood, and this is some of the results we see. the worst train incident that we've had, probably, in recent memory -- keep flipping that -- this is the metro link. look at that. 25 people killed, and the engineer was impaired with marijuana. and then automobiles, again, i think we have one on -- i just showed one on automobile.

but there are thousands of accidents that involve some just marijuana, some a deadly combination of marijuana and other drugs taking lives. so there are consequences to what's being done in our society. today i want to -- want to also focus on the aspect of not only the number of crash victims but also those who are the most e vulnerable in this whole process. right now, listen to this, from 1999 to 2010, the number of crash victims with marijuana in their system has jumped from 4% to over 12%. and that's actually as some of this has been kicking in. furthermore, the influence of both alcohol and marijuana they

say is now 24 times more likely to cause an accident than a sober person. and i can cite some of these studies in a study. 20% of the drivers seriously injured tested positive for marijuana. again, one of my major concerns is the impact on the most vulnerable in our society, and the trend is most troubling for our young drivers. most recently, one eighth grade school senior admitted driving after smoking -- 1 in 8, i'm sorry, high school seniors admitted to driving after smoking marijuana, and nearly 28% of the high school seniors admit to getting into the car of a driver who recently had used marijuana or other illicit drugs. at night, 16% of the drivers under age 21 tested positive for drugs whereas only 7% of the

same drivers tested positive for alcohol. half of the drivers injured fatally in car accidents are under the age of 25. that slaughter i talked about on the highways is impacting no other group as much as our young people and those particularly our teenagers and those under 25. as much as 14% of fatal or sustained injury drivers pested positive for thc in 2012. however, we don't have to have data to understand the full scope of the problem. data collection policies are set up by states and generally testing only occurs unfortunately with drivers with fatalities.

drivers who have used marijuana do not exhibit the same intoxication e effects as drivers who have used alcohol and traditional field testing is not always effective to identify and remove intoxicated drivers from the road. in fact, we have no standard test for marijuana for drivers. there is no standard test. we don't have federal standards of limits of thc since right now at the federal level any level of thc is illegal. it is a schedule one narcotic. and supposedly zero tolerance. but we have no way of testing that. currently, there is no roadside breathalyzer for marijuana. but technology is advancing, and some countries have started to use a roadside oral test.

now, this is -- this is one of those testing machines, and this is used actually in europe. and as i understand it, it takes a swab. i was going to have our -- swab the panelists, but i thought i wouldn't do that today. but you can take a swab with this and it can tell you if anyone has used marijuana within four hours. but, again, we have no standard, we have no acceptable test, and we have no way of tell eing if people are impaired. most of the data we're getting right now is from, again, fatalities. you have to take -- you i they are have to take an individual to a hospital for a blood or urine test or, again, the worst situation is to the morgue where

we test their blood. in the past ten years, marijuana was a factor in nearly 50 aviation accidents. i shared some of the civil aviation. we haven't even begun to think of what can happen in the commercial market as more people are exposed to marijuana. we now have 23 states with medical use and two states who have knocked down most of the barriers, and more people will have, again, exposure to use of marijuana and very little means of testing them. the national transportation safety board has investigated different accidents and found, again, the use of thc in a number of these accidents.

but, again, all of their testing is done after the fact, and usually where a fatality is involved. the witnesses today will tell us what, if anything, the federal government is doing to combat drug-impaired operation of any transportation mode. and, again, we have a whole host of modes that the federal government takes responsibility over e vehicular simple passenger cars, commercial vehicles, cargo, of course rail, both passenger and cargo, and of course aviation, civil and commercial aviation. wheeler from christopher hart from the national transportation safety board, jeff michael from the national highway

administration, patrice kelly from the office of drug and alcohol policy compliance, and mr. ronald -- what is it, flagel? mr. flagel of the substance abuse and health administration. i look forward to today's further and continuing discussions on this issue that has a great impact on all of us and yield now to the ranking member, mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks for holding today's hearing to examine the effects of marijuana on the ability to operate plane, train, and automobiles. i'm going to particularly focus in on the automobile but not to the exclusion of everything else. this hearing addresses an aspect of marijuana policy where i believe there's general agreement over the desired outcome -- reducing the incidence of vehicle accidents resulting from driving while under the influence of any

drugs. across the political spectrum there's widespread opposition to allowing driving under the influence of any drug that impairs an individual's ability to operate a vehicle safely. where differences merge are over the most effective policy to achieve this widely shared outcome, which i think we can all agree remains a national challenge. according to the national survey on drug and health use -- drug use and health, excuse me, approximately 10.3 million people have admitted to driving under the influence of illicit drugs in the past year. the centers for disease control and prevention report that in 201010,228 people were killed in alcohol-impyred driving crash, accounting for 31% of all traffic-related deaths in the united states. these statistics are alarming and unacceptable. our nation must continue reducing the incidence of any drug-impaired driving death. a key component of this

long-standing effort will be improving our knowledge base through better data and research. with respect to the focus of today's hearing, there's been very limited research actually conducted by the federal government addressing the relationship between marijuana usage and driving safety. reports from the national highway traffic safety administration include the thc, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, has dose-related impeering effects on driving performance. for example, as previously reported, quote, the impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road. but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. yet nhtsa also found intoxication is shortly lived. peak acute effects are typically achieved within 10 to 30 minutes

with the effects dissipating quickly after about an hour. according to nhtsa, drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. as a consequence, thc's adverse e effects on driving performance appear relatively small, unquote. meanwhile, the national transportation safety board held a public forum to discuss the most effective data-driven science-based actions to reduce accidents results in subs-impaired driving. in may 2013 it reelised a safety report entitled "reaching zero -- actions to eliminate alcohol-impaired driving" in which it reiterated a recommendation for nhtsa to develop a common standard of practice for drug toxicology testing. scientific analysis and technological advancements have standardized the use of a breathalyzer to determine

alcohol intoxication. however, states beginning to implement marijuana decriminalization, and there are now the 22 of them plus the district of columbia, must act swiftly to address the fact that there really is no legal limit set for driving under the influence of marijuana as there is with alcohol. for instance, field sobriety test es may be accurate and effective at dee texting marijuana impairment. a study of the uk examining the accuracy of field sobriety tests in gaining the amount of marijuana participants had consumed concluded that there is, quote, a strong correlation between cannabis dose received and whether impairment was judged to be present, unquote. of course anecdote must not substitute for rigorous scientific data. that's why i believe we must support further research in this field to inform the development of effective public safety policies regulating marijuana. and my friend dr. fleming and i had a discussion of one of our

hearings on this very matter, and i think we agree that that has to be the basis for moving forward. it's got to be based in science, and we need more of it. my concerns over the utter ineffectiveness of our nation's existing federal policy of absolute marijuana prohibition is no more of an endorsement of its recreational purposes use than opposing prohibition of alcohol is an endorsement for drunk driving. our nation proved with respect to policies regulating the use of other potentially harmful substances, the discouraging the inappropriate use of drugs need not, perhaps should not involve total prohibition and criminalization. i've long believed that the federal government governs best when it listens and learns from our states which are the laboratories of democracy. right now those states are undergoing a great experiment with respect to this subject, and we need to learn from their experience and hopefully emulate them in regulations of policies in the future that address both

use, appropriate use, medicinal purpose, and of course the issue of criminalization. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the sxwlagentleman and recognize mr. fleming if you have an opening comment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank chairman michael and other members of the government operation subcommittee for allowing me to participate in today's hearing. i would allegso like to thank t chairman for holding this series of hearings that are so vitally important. you know, it took us centuries of alcohol in our culture, and it took a new organization, then a new organization, mothers against drunk driving, to realize that we were losing americans wholesale by the tens of thousands as a result of driving under the influence of alcohol. it took us approximately 400 years to figure out that tobacco

was similarly killing tens of thousands of americans every year. in fact, as early as -- or as recently azzs the early 1960s there were commercials in which doctors were actually recommending certain types of cigarettes, saying that it was good for your throat. i worry that we're not in fact in the same situation in this case when it comes to marijuana. drunk drivingi inin ining is a problem according to the statistics compiled by the national survey on drug use and health, about 10.3 million people 12 and over reported driving while under the influence of an illegal drug. marijuana's active ingredient, thc, is the most common drug found in drivers and crash victims alike. staud studies indicate between 4% and 14% of drivers involved in

accidents, fatal or otherwise, had thc in their system. marijuana decreases a driver's response time, awareness, and perception of time and speed, all of which are necessary for safe driving. another concern of mine is the combination of drugs and alcohol. you see, whenever you hear this debate, you often hear that marijuana is innocuous to begin with and, number two, it's either/or. either someone smokes marijuana or they drink alcohol. that's not the way it works. individuals who are driving under the influence of marijuana will have little inhicbitions fr drinking beer and alcohol and other substances as well, smoking a joint behind the wheel or whatever it takes to get high or feel good. the rocky mountain high intensity drug trafficking area which works closely with the white house's national drug-controlled strategy, is collecting data on the impact of colorado's legalization of

marijuana. an august 2013 report indicated that in 2006 colorado drooimps testing positive for marijuana were involved in 28% of fatal drug-related vehicle crashes. that number increased to 56% by 2011. and understand that in states that are decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana and certainly we know as marijuana is destigmatized, as the threat to use is reduced, that use goes up, it finds its way into homes, into candy, into cookies and baked goods, and once it gets there, it finds its way into the brains of teens. and we know from statistics that marijuana has a 9% addiction

rig rate among adults. but those who start as teen, that rate doubles to 1 in 6 so, it's very important what's happening in these states who are legalizing and even decriminalizing or medicinalizing marijuana. this year rocky mountain report on 2012 data is also very alarming. using data from the national highway safety administration fatality analysis reporting system, fars, this year report due out in october will show between 2007 and 2012, while colorado's overall traffic fatalities decreased by 15%, over that same time marijuana-related fatalities increased 100%. earlier this year, the university of colorado released a study confirming that colorado drooimps are testing positive for marijuana and involved in fatal accidents is on the rise. there is no hard and fast way to

determine whether an individual is driving under the influence and there's yet to be established a uniform amount of marijuana which constitutes drunk drive, and that is very important because you see in the case of alcohol, when you arrest someone for -- if they've not been in an accident, you just caught them driving under the influence, with so many episodes of that arrest, that person loses their license, they're taken off the road. that's not happening with marijuana. we don't have a way to do that yet. while driving under the influence is unquestionably a problem, it is also concerning that pot smoking american youth may also have trouble finding a job. this is especially true in the transportation arena. the u.s. department of transportation requires mandatory drug testing on pilots, air-traffic controllers, railroad employees, and commercial drivers. and that can include buses, it can include 18-wheelers, anything that requires a cdl

license. these individuals are responsible for numerous lives and it is critical that they are and remain drug free. marijuana will also become more pervasive as states continue to embrace permissible laws on medical marijuana and the recreational use of marijuana and kids in youth will have easier access to a dangerous addictive drug. and again, back to the medicinal marijuana, there's no reason why we can't use components of marijuana for disease treatment. right now we already have a schedule three which can be used under the monitoring and observation of physician, closely monitored the dosage precisely prescribed, and can be done safely just like hydrocodone. it has the same activity and benefit that the plant marijuana

has. it is the synthetic thc. we have that already. there is some claim that there are extracts, oil extracts of cannabis that can be used to treat certain rare seizures in children. well, it has little or no thc activity. there's no reason why that -- and it's under fast-track fda approval right now -- there's no reason why that can't be taken out as well. but there's no reason to deschedule or to make legal marijuana which is now schedule one for those purposes. all these thicks can be done without reducing the schedule or legalize the marijuana plant itself. mr. chairman, it's no surprise to you or to anyone here that i'm opposed to the legalization of marijuana. what is surprising, however, is "the new york times" editorial board is fully supportive of the leaguization of marijuana. mr. chairman, i have two response pieces to "the new york

times" that i would like to submit for the record, one from the white house office of national drug policy, and another opinion piece by peter weern published in "the wall street journal" on tuesday. legalization is not the answer, nor is it a prudent decision for america. marijuana remains a dangerous highly addictive drug. even science will tell you that. >> without objection, both of those articles, statements will be made part of the record. there being no further opening statements, members may have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. now let me proceed and recognize our first panel. the first panel consists of christopher a. hart, and he's the acting chairman of the national transportation safety board. mr. jeff michael is the associate administrator for

research and program development at the national highway traffic safety administration. miss patrice kelly is acting director for the office of drug and alcohol policy and compliance at the department of transportation. and mr. ron flagel is the director for the division of workplace programs at the center for substance abuse prevention at the substance abuse and mental health administration. welcome all of your panelists. this is an investigative and oversight subcommittee of congress. we do swear in all of our witnesses. if you' stall stand, please, ra your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this subcommittee of congress is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> i do. >> all of the witnesses, the record will reflect, answered in the affirmative.

a gave a misinformation on a statistic and i didn't realize it until after i said it and i want to clarify that for the record. i said nearly a quarter of a million people had been killed in the last dozen years on our highway. nirtsly a half a million people, a half a million people. think about that. and half of those people died. that's nearly a quarter of a million with they are alcohol or some substance in their system. i'll get the exact numbers and we'll put them in the record, but i didn't give rest of the story, as paul harvey would say. with that correction for the record, let me first welcome and recognize mr. hardy.

welcome and you're recognized, sir. >> good morning, chairman michael, ranking member connolly, and members of the subcommittee. thanks for inviting the ntsb to testify today. the focus on marijuana policies affecting transportation is timely. we've been working tensionively for many years to address alcohol used by drivers, but that still kills almost 10,000 people every year on our highways. now we're becoming more concerned that our investigations also illustrate the problems of marijuana use in transportation operations. among the more egregious drug-involved accidents listed in my written testimony are a recreational boating accident in florida that killed five, a daycare van driver in memphis, tennessee, who was high and crashed, causing five deaths, and a railroad accident in chase, maryland, that killed 16 that's already been referred to. but we don't have a good idea of the number of drug-related fall

fatalities. we're not surprised by the increased this drug use by pilots and others give than many states have authorized medical marijuana programs and two states have decriminalized recreational use of the drug. recent news reports have noted pressure to decriminalize march at the federal level as well. perhaps most disturbing is evidence that marijuana use among teenage drivers is increasing and their perceived risk of marijuana risk is decreasing. in 2013, wecompleted a yearlong review of substance-impaired driving including drug use and concluded there is not enough data on drunk driving. consistently, we asked nhtsa to conduct this study. we understand that nhtsa is working on this recommendation. lack of data about drug impairment is not only a problem in highway accidents but other transportation modes. in general yaichgs, our investigators sometimes see

evidence of drug use by pilots involved in accidents. so we decided it was time to look at this issue in greater detail. in september we will meet to discuss drug use in general aviation, examining toxicology testing results conducted on fatally injured general aviation pilots. we will look at over-the-counter prescription and illicit drugs in pilots. we're missing important data on the role of illegal drugs and not only that but the public is pretty much unaware of important information about how legal drugs may also affect their performance. we will also examine drug use in general aviation pilots as compared to trends observed in the u.s. population in general. information that we obtain in this september meet willing help us evaluate whether there is a need for additional recommendations or other advocacy efforts on our part. fortunately, shifting state laws have not resulted in changes in illegal drug use policies for commercial operators. you'll hear on this panel today that the department of transportation has stated that it continues to have a zero-tolerance policy for drug

use -- illegal drug use by commercial operators and the ntsb fully supports that policy. what is clear is that operator impairment places the public in jeopardy. impaired drivers share the roadways with other roadways. impaired pilots share the air space with other pilots. impaired mariners share the seas with other mariners. across all modes many operators have passengers that may be placed at risk. too many people die on our roadways from alcohol-impaired driving before strong action was taken that has reduced fatal days but there are still too many alcohol-related deaths and every one of them is entirely preventable. hopefully we will not wait for more people to die from drug-induced transportation accidents before we take strong and decisive action. hearings like this one will help effective laws be crafted and robust education efforts can be accomplished in all modes of transportation and we look forward to working with you to draw more attention to this

issue. again, thank you for inviting me to testify. i look forward to responding to your questions. >> thank you, and we will withhold questions until we've heard from everyone. now let me recognize jeff michael with the national highway traffic safety administration. you're recognized. >> good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member connolly, and members of the subcommittee. i appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today on the national highway traffic administration's research on drunk driving. nhtsa takes tremendous pride in our 40 year record of protecting americans by partnering with states to enforce strong highway safety laws and by working to make vehicles safer. since 1970 highway fatalities have declined by 36%. traffic deaths have fallen by 22% in the past decade. but with more than 30,000 fat fatalities on america's roadways each year, we must continue looking at new and innovative ways to save lives. working with our state partners and other safety organizations we've made substantial progress

with critical safety behaviors including drunk driving and seat belt use and have applied the same successful approaches to emerging concerns such as distracted driving. the legalization of marijuana under state laws poses new concerns, and we are actively working from our foundation of experience to understand these risks and develop appropriate countermeasures. available evidence indicates that alcohol is the most common source of drive impairment. in 2012, more than 30% of all traffic deaths involved a driver with a blood-alcohol level at or above the legal limit. with more than 40 years of research, several decades of data collection, and a well-established criminal justice process, traffic safety professionals have a good understanding of the scale and the nature of the drunk driving problem. much more research is needed to gain a good understanding of the e effects of drugs other than alcohol on safe driving. in 2007, we obtained the first nationally representative information on the plechbs of drug use by drivers by including drug testing in our national

roadside survey. although this survey had been used to track driver alcohol use for several decades, this was the first time that information on drug use was collected. this survey, baseeds on information from voluntary and anonymous participants, found that about 12% of weekend drivers were alcohol positive and about 9% were marijuana positive. we repeated the national roadside survey in 2013 and are in the process of analyzing those data. to understand how state-level lesionization might e affect the prevalence of marijuana by driver, we partnered with the state of washington at their invitation this spring to conduct a similar roadside survey. that is two-phased study that will assess the change in marijuana use by drivers before and following the date at which the state allowed retail sale of the drug. in addition to plechbs research, we also need information on the degree of risk associated with drug use. we are in the process of completing a new study which

compares the crash risk of drivers using drugs to those with no drugs in their system. this is the first such investigation of drug crash risk in the united states and more research of various types will be needed to get a full understanding of the role of drugs in crashes. as we prepare to release these results of this new study, we plan to reach out to stake holders including committee staff to inform them of the findings. strong laws and law enforcement are cornerstones of our efforts to address alcohol-impaired driving, and we are looking to the same solutions for drug driving. we work closely with experts across the nation. these trained officers can significantly facilitate the successful prosecution of drug driving cases. we are also looking closely at procedural barriers to effective drug driving law enforcement and recognize the challenges presented by drug testing methods. while the prosecution of

impaired -- alcohol-impaired driving cases is complex, evidential testing for alcohol can typically be done at the jurisdiction by local officials with a moderate amount of training. testing for drug presence among suspected impaired drivers is often far less convenient, requiring that a blood sample be drawn, sent to a remote lab for analysis by highly trained personnel. the cost and delay of such testing can be a disincentive for criminal justice officials to pursue a drug driving charge. in conclusion, nhtsa is committed to reducing both alcohol- and drug-impaired driving. we e support the development of effective education and development programs based on sound research. much progress has been made. however, impaired driving still claim mrs. than 10,000 lives per e year. thank you again for invite megatoe testify before your committee, and i'm happy to take any questions you may have. >> thank you. we'll now hear from miss patrice kelly, and she's acting director

of the office of drug and alcohol policy at the department of compliance at the department of transportation. welcome and you're recognized. >> thank you, chairman michael, ranking member connolly, members of the subcommittee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the potential impacts on commercial transportation of recent state and local legislation that allow recreational and medicinal marijuana use. the transportation industry drug and alcohol testing program for commercial operations is a critical element of the department of transportation safety mission. airline pilots, truck drivers, subway operate or thes, mariners, pipeline operators, airline mechanics, locomotive engineers, motor coach drooiive and school bus drivers among others have a tremendous responsibility to the public and we cannot let their performance be compromised by drugs or

alcohol. todayly provide you with a brief history of our program, the scope of its application and finally an explanation of our policy regarding the use of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes by individual who is work in federally regulated testing -- transportation industries. the alcohol driving program was first established in 1988 following the department of health and human services drug and alcohol testing for federal employees. the d.o.t. program was initiated in response to transportation industry fatal accidents that occurred due to illegal drug use. in 1991, congress enacted the omnibus transportation employee testing act, oteta, which required the d.o.t. to expand the application of its program to include mass transit to address the statutory requirements. the d.o.t. program always has required transportation industry

employers to have drug and alcohol testing programs that require their employees to be removed from performing safety-sensitive duties immediately if they have drug or alcohol violations. throughout the history of our program and consistent with congress' direction in oteta, we have relied on hhs for its technical and scientific expertise for determining the types of drugs which we test, the testing methodology we must use in our program, and the integrity of the hhs certified laboratories in testing the specimens and reporting the results. we are limited to testing for the controlled substances included in the hhs mandatory guidelines. currently, those substances include schedule one illegal drugs and schedule two legally prescribed drugs. the drugs and classes of drugs for which we test are cocainoca opiates, amphetamines, and marijuana. if an employee tests positive for any of those substances the employer must take immediate

action to remove employee from performing safety-sensitive duties until that employee successfully completes treatment and additional testing. there are 5 million d.o.t. safety-sensitive employees subject to our alcohol and drug testing program. the department's policy on the use of schedule one controlled substances has remain unchanged since our program began in 1988. there is no legitimate explanation, medical or otherwise, for the presence of a schedule one controlled substance such as marijuana in an employee's system. in december 2009, following the department of justice's issuance of guidance for federal prosecutors and states that enacted laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana, we issued a reminder to our regulated entities that under the d.o.t. testing program, medical marijuana use authorized under state or local law is not a valid medical explanation for

transportation employees' positive drug test result. although there has been recent movement by some states to allow recreational use of marijuana by their citizens, the d.o.t. program does not and will not authorize the use of schedule one controlled substances, including marijuana, for any reason by any individual conducting safety-sensitive duties in the transportation industry. in december of 2012, we issued a notice explaining that state and local government initiatives allowing the use of recreational marijuana will have no bearing on the department of transportation's drug testing program nor any individual subject to testing. it remains unacceptable for any safety-sensitive employee subject to the d.o.t.'s drug testing regulations to use marijuana and continue to perform safety-sensitive duties in the federally regulated transportation industries. chairman michael, this continue clulds my testimony. i would be happy to answer any questions you or your colleagues

have. >> thank you. and we'll hold questions. ron flage slshgs the director for the division of workplace programs at the center for substance abuse prevention, substance abuse and mental health administration. welcome and you're recognized. >> thank you. good morning, chairman micah, ranking member connolly, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. my name is ron flegel. i work at an agency of the department of health and human services. i am pleased to speak with you this morning about our role as it pertains to the issue of drug testing for marijuana, particularly as it relates to drug driving. our mission is to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental illness on america's communities. we strive create awareness that behavior health is sennial for health, sprengs works, treatment is effective, and people recover from mental and substance abuse

disorders. driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. the administration has focused on four key areas to reduce drug driving -- increased public awareness, enhancing legal reforms to get drug drivers off the road, advancing technology for drug tests and data collection, and increasing law enforcement's ability to identify drug drivers. these efforts ree main the administration's focus for the upcoming year. samsa has several roles as it pertains to the issue of drug driving. we conduct surveillance through the national survey on drug use and health. we provide funding for drug driving efforts, offer technical assistance, and evaluate focused efforts on the program. we administer the federal drug-free workplace program, which inclulds the random testing of national security, public health, and public safety positions within the executive branch agencies.

currently, nine states are focused on drug driving prevention efforts using our grant funds. we also provides technical assistance, science, and training to states and communities and addresses drug driving if states and communities choose to make this a focus of their efforts or if the data suggests that drug driving is an issue in their state or community. our division of workplace program has a unique and nationally important regulatory role and technical assistance role and responsibility for federal and nonfederal workplaces with respect to their drug-free workplace policies and programs. dwp has oversight responsibility of the hhs certified laboratories operating under the mandatory guidelines for federal workplace testing program requirements. the hhs certified laboratories conduct forensic drug testing for federal agencies under executive order 12564 in the

federal drug-free workplace program issued by president reagan in 1986. and the supplemental appropriations act of 1987 public law 100-71 as well as specific federally regulated industries. the federal drug-free workplace program was established as a deterrent program incorporating detection as well as referrals for treatment as needed for federal employees in safety-sensitive positions while protecting national security and public safety. public law 100-71 directs hhs to publish mandatory guidelines using the best available technology to ensure the reliability and accuracy of drug tests and to specify the drugs for which federal employees may be tested. established the scientific and technical guidelines for federal drug testing programs and establish standards for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing for federal agencies and the regulations industries. currently 157 federal agencies

are affected by the guidelines based on public law and executive order. the executive order covers approximately 2.2 million executive branch employees and job applicants. the department of transportation and nuclear regulatory commission use the samsa guidelines in their regulatory testing programs requiring testing in over 5 million safety sensitive employees and applicants in d.o.t. regulated transportation related industries nationally and in additional 2 million employees and applicants in the nuclear industry. in the private nonregulated sectors, it is -- we have approximately 20 to 50 million americans that are tested as applicants or employees using some aspect of samsa's guidelines. currently urine is the only specimen a federal agency may collect under the guidelines for its workplace drug testing program. a federal agency must ensure that each specimen is test forward marijuana, cocaine, and is authorized to test each specimen for opiates and amphetamine.

the guidelines are specific to testing of federal employees for the purpose of workplace vettings and do not directly govern issues related to drunk driving. however, the revised guidelines may impact testing for drunk driving through the provisions of scientific standards for oral fluid testing. the proposed revisions, the mandatory guidelines are still being finalized and will be posted in the federal register for public comment once completed. as i stated at the opening of my testimony, the issue of drunk driving continues to be a priority for samsa and the administration. samsa along with other federal agencies continue to collaborate with state and local governments, nongovernmental organizations and federal partners to raise awareness of the dangers of drunk driving and meet the president's goal of reducing drunk driving in america. the administration continues to advance the work an this important issue and we look forward to continuing work with congress on these efforts. chairman mica, thank you for this opportunity. i welcome any questions from you or your colleagues. >> thank you.

thank each of our witnesses. and we'll start a little round of questions. just again to give folks the most accurate information on the number of highway fatalities from 2001 to 2012, and this doesn't include 2013 but during those dozen years that i spoke of, 468,743 highway fatalities. that's nearly 500,000 people and i'm sure if we include 2013, we would top that. that's just a phenomenal devastation. and that's fatalities. that's not injuries, property damage and everything that -- everyone in this room can probably name someone who has died or a family member in an automobile fatality.

and again, with the changing laws, there are significant consequences. so mr. hart, again, where do you see us going as far as reaching some positive steps and one containing the issue and also adjusting our federal laws, our regulations, adopting standards for tests. the whole spectrum of addressing these changing laws. maybe you can comment generally. >> thank you for the question. at the accident investigators when we investigate accidents and see indication of impairment, and as we have in every mode, then we are very concerned about the need for strong and decisive action. typically that will mean as you've heard from the other panelists, strong legislation, strong enforcement and good

education and in addition, technology to help us with the detection. so we see that -- >> some of that has to be based on data. some of what we have is really not that up to date. and i think mr. michael testified, they started collecting some data as recently as 2007. and than you said 2013 data we had collected which we're going to do a comparison of. but that has not been calculated. and when do you expect us to have that data? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. we have collected information in 2007 about the presence of drugs and specifically marijuana among drivers an the roadway. and we repeated that same data collection during 2013. we are now analyzing that, and it will be compared. >> my question was, when will we

see that completed? >> we expect to have that information by the end of the year. >> well, if you could check even closer and advise the committee and maybe we could ask that question. i'd like to find out when we'll have that data. the next thing that comes to mind, most of the 23 states, my state may follow. florida has a initiative referendum coming in. and other entities, state entities that may change their laws. do you plan or will there be a plan to check some of these states? now florida will change the law possibly and others have already changed the law. some have changed the law for some time. i am getting back reports on california that are -- a news reporter told me he went out and

he said, it's a whole different world. again, much more dramatic than you would expect. it's not just medical marijuana use but it's spread. and he was telling me just the societal change in behavior change. so it's having impact. but i think we need to look at doing testing. those are the medical marijuana states. and each one of the languages may be a little bit different allowing more latitude. but then you have colorado, which we have had some experience to date. but i think we ought to go in and look at colorado. washington is more recent. but where you have a change in law, if it's medical marijuana and again, change is brought about by that law. and then you have a much more

lax use or legalization, as you have in colorado. do you have plans to go in and do some testing there? >> yes, sir. we are working with the state of washington currently. and using the same roadside data collection process that we've used across the country. looking specifically at washington before and after their legalizing the sale of marijuana to assess what affect that may have with the levels of use on the roadway. >> again, i think we need accurate data. and than we need to adopt our federal regs and get to ms. kelly now. you have a whole host of areas in which we do some testing, but most of the testing is periodic, is it not, for marijuana use? >> our program covers pre-employment testing to start with. before someone enters the --

>> right, but then -- >> and then random. and then there is reasonable cause testing. there is post-accident testing. and then if someone is being positive -- >> the other thing again, too, in some of these states. and the marijuana medical use, there's again different language. and it's allowed more latitude than some states. people have taken advantage of that. are you going in and doing more testing, say in colorado or washington? for example, pilots would be more exposed. commercial drivers would be more exposed. it's states where you have, again, the possibility of -- with liberalization of the law, are we taking some steps to try to ensure the safety of the public? and again, the transportation -- an airline pilot, a commercial one can be taking a couple hundred people in the air.

a passenger rail. we didn't get into, in our headline here, pipeline safety or maritime or others, but they all pose different risk. tell us where you are going with these modes that put public safety at risk. >> we feel our program is effective. and the way our program is structured through the -- >> could i ask you to put that microphone closer to you? thank you. >> yes, sir. under the regulations, our program is administered through the individual employers. >> it's historic. it's been developed, but it was -- and it's applied, but you're mostly talking in terms of how things have been in the past or -- but not how things are most recently and where we're going with this. >> we don't conduct the testing ourselves. we require the employers to conduct it.