it's not the same as saying it doesn't matter. >> do you refute any of the data that the report is using? >> i -- c.b.o. does excellent work. we cite c.b.o. all the time. i wouldn't say anything other than that about them. i would say no matter how excellent any organization's work is, number one, it's subject to the misinterpreted and a lot of what i've been talking about here is the way that this has been interpreted. but number two, analysis can only take into account so many things. this analysis by design looks at a set of labor market effects, it didn't look at another set of labor market effects and i talked about what those three effects were. i think in particular that slowdown in health costs is something that put in the language of c.b.o. would increase labor demand and be

quite an important factor. so that's the second point. the third point i'd make is c.b.o. themselves says there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty. a lot of the report stems from, as tax credits phase out, what does that do to people's incentives? there's a literature on the earned income tax credit that has generally found that the phase-out of the earned income tax credit doesn't affect labor supply. c.b.o. is assuming that in this context, people will have a much better understanding of these phase-outs and alter their behavior in response to it in a much greater degree than we've seen with the earned income tax credit. i expect c.b.o. would say there's uncertainty around that and expect that's one of the many assumptions that one could debate in this report. >> you don't dispute or do you dispute the conclusion, one of the main conclusions that we've talked about already, that some people would choose to go part time so as not to lose the subsidies that are a part of the

design of the a.c.a.? >> i think there is no dispute that the affordable care act provides people with new options and that people who today are doing a set of things because they don't have options and choices will be able to do new things that they would not have otherwise chosen to do. in many cases not have been able to do. there are puts and takes and this is describing the net effect of that put and take. in terms of whether this number is the most accurate net effect. again, there are other things you'd want to factor in, there's a lot of uncertainty you'd want to think about in that regard and ultimately you're not going to look at something, you know, and judge it entirely by the impact on labor supply, first of all, and second of all, if you want to judge it entirely by the impact on labor supply, you're going to want to take into

account a fuller analysis than just what was seen here and reflect also the uncertainty around that analysis. >> c.b.o. is a nonpartisan agency. do you see this report as partisan in any way? >> i think c.b.o. does consistently outstanding work and i think this report is, you know, mainstream economics, but i think like mainstream economics, it doesn't take into account -- it's subject to misinterpretation, doesn't take into account every factor and there's uncertainty and debate around it and one of the key debates is the responsiveness of that labor supply would have in context to this phase-out. >> you talked about the choice, you're using that word and when you're talking about a choice, it makes me think of a calculation that some families make where the mom or the dad decides they're not going to go back to work because they look

at child care costs, it becomes so expensive, it doesn't make sense financially for them to go to work. is it a choice or is it a calculation that some people are making where some people may actually want to work but the benefit they're receiving may discourage them from doing that? >> first of all, the word choice is -- i have been using that word a lot. a lot of my use that have word has also been in the quotes. so when you read appendix c, you'll see throughout it talks a lot about the labor workers choose to supply. \[inaudible] from medicaid, for example. there's some evidence that if you have just a single person, medicaid is not going to impact their choice about working. and that's because if you are the only bread winner in your family, because the you're the only person in your family, you're needing to have a job, you're going to need to work there.

have been studies that have found if two people are married and they get medicaid, that that might lead a spouse, who otherwise would have gotten a job, and worked really hard, to buy health care for the whole family, might not need to get a full-time job, might get a part-time job and have more time to spend with their children as a result of the new option they have for health care. that is one of the types of choices that people would have now that they wouldn't necessarily have had before and that's one of the choices in the types of studies that c.b.o.'s relying on in making this finding. >> when you talk about something, working 60 or 65 hours a week and they might now be able to work 35 hours a week and they'd have health insurance, just an example. so it's a good thing that they now have health care, maybe they didn't before. but isn't that man or woman going from 60 hours to 35 hours and making less money? >> i'm saying if they -- yeah.

if the main thing going on here was a change in labor demand, and labor demand, just to be clear, that is the decision that employers are making. so employers are cutting jobs because of the affordable care act, that would be a bad thing. because that means somebody who really wanted a job wouldn't be able to get one. you might see the unemployment rate go up as a result of that. for example. c.b.o. explicitly says that you're not going to see an increase in the unemployment rate, that when you see changes it will be that person who maybe didn't want to work those hours, they still have the option to. they still can. but in that case, maybe they'll decide they don't need to anymore and that in their case might be a better choice and a better option than what they had before. >> and they make that choice and they go from 60 to 35 hours, presumably that's thank family's going to have a lot less take-home pay and they're going to have less money to put back in the economy go. but we just described -- first of all, it's a hypothetical example. >> it was your hypothetical. >> that is completely fair.

again, it's a choice they're making. this doesn't -- they had something before which was a 65-hour job. and maybe no health care and no great health care options. you now give them a new option they didn't have. a brand new thing, option to buy in the marketplace, it is subsidies through that, maybe it's medicaid if their income is low enough. they still have everything they had before, labor demand hasn't changed, they still have that job, they can still go to that job, they can still do that, but you give them this extra new thing, you can't have made that person worse off. if they make a new choice, it's because they're optimizing subject to a new constraint. >> but work hours-wise, it might be better for the family to have health insurance but a lot less take-home pay. >> in my example -- >> are you making more money when you go from 60 to 30? >> some people may choose to -- i'm not going to sit here and give a list of 140 million

americans and tell you how many hours each of them should work. that's not what the affordable care act does, that may be your call. that's not what the affordable care act does. the affordable care act says, you can do just what you did before in this regard, with some puts and takes, but sort of you can basically do the same thing did you before, but now you have this new thing you didn't used to have. it's because of this new change you make a different choice than you used to, you are by definition not worse off. there's no way you have a set of stuff, you can make exactly the same choice you made before, and now i give you something else that you could be -- that you're worse off as a result of that. >> doesn't that incentivize some people to do less? all of a sudden there's an incentive to do less. you'll have subsidies from that benefit. >> for many people there's an

incentive to do more. there's an incentive for more entrepreneurship because they're not locked into a job. it's an incentive for employers to be able to hire more people because the cost of health care is lower. there's an incentive to hire workers who are going to be absentee less. i think there's a whole bunch of puts and takes here that we need to take -- >> job lock, isn't there? as a result of the job lock, you're stuck in a job, you're afraid to pursue other things because you need the job. >> that was the situation before the affordable care act. now that situation has been -- the affordable care act effectively solves that. and creates a situation where you can be more dynamic and can be more mobile. >> or be less dynamic, right? because if you do less and you

potentially have a lower salary and you get more government subsidies, then -- >> the basic premise here is that people have more choices. in the same way that social security and medicare give retirees more choices than they'd have today. and on net, as i said, there's a whole lot of puts and takes but this is an extra choice people have and that's not making somebody worse off, to give them an option they didn't have before. >> just want to be clear with your social security and medicare example. so, you're saying it may be a good thing if there are two million fewer workers. >> i'm not saying that i accepted that number. i think there's a whole range of factors that go into estimating that number. some of which were captured here. some of which weren't. some of which are subject to uncertainty, first of all. second of all, i think it is -- just step back here. how many articles have we read, how many people have gone out and said, the affordable care act is causing businesses to cut back on jobs? \[inaudible] the number of times republicans have said, you know, they are strangling the economy and regulation from the affordable care act, an employer

can't create jobs and it's killing jobs and employers can't add jobs. this directly goes against all of that. it raises a different set of issues around when you give people options, what choices they make with those options. >> you don't dispute there will be fewer people working full-time jobs? >> i've gone through that several times. c.b.o. itself says that they take into account some set of factors and analyze those, there's another set of factors they don't take into account, all of which go the other direction. and there's uncertainty around, in particular, the key question of the degree to which people will understand and respond to,

you know, a set of phase-outs in a way that we haven't seen elsewhere. i'm not accepting the numerical premise here. >> you don't dispute the idea that there will be fewer full-time workers, though? this was the whole point of your medicare and social security example, right? that some people will choose not to work because they are no longer locked into a job, to get health coverage. i thought that was part of your argument here. >> part of it is, even if the net result of this is a reduction in labor supply, to the degree that reduction in labor supply is voluntary and reflects the choices people are making, you're going to think about that very differently than if it was businesses cutting back on jobs. this isn't businesses cutting back on jobs, this is people having new choices they didn't used to have. those are two completely

different things in terms of the impact it has on people. first of all. second, if you ask the net effect on this, on, you know, overall labor in the economy, you would want to take into account that other set of factors, quantify them, put them into that analysis, c.b.o. hasn't done that. but economists, david cutler, he's one of the leading health economists in the country, when he did that, for example, he said that lower health costs would add 250,000 to 400,000 jobs per year towards the middle to end of this decade. and that's based on just the slowdown in health costs and what it would do to jobs. this is by way of saying there are a number of different things that you want to factor in here, that we haven't seen factored in in appendix c. >> just one more. you're saying that one of those choices is the choice not to be employed or the choice to be unemployed? >> somebody who used to be in a

job they didn't want to be in, just because that was the only way of getting health insurance for their family, may be able to be in a better job for them, maybe a spouse who wanted to be part-time so they could spend more time with their family, now is able to do that. somebody else who wanted to start a business and become an entrepreneur and was terrified of doing it because they'd lose their health insurance is now able to do that too. and switch and take a chance on creating jobs and growing the overall economy. so there's a lot of new choices that this will facilitate. >> \[inaudible] -- entrepreneurship and the other benefits that you were referencing. >> i don't have a particular plan on that at this point. >> i wanted to ask about the subsidies here. the subsidies were one of the main things that are causing workers to make these decisions. for example, the 60-hour workweek down to 40.

you've mentioned other factors too. what would be some of those other factors causing people to make these decisions? >> the c.b.o. incorporates a set of classical labor market factors in terms of looking at phase-out rates of credit schedules and pass-throughs and the like and those are classic, standard things to analyze. i've been a little bit repetitive about the things they didn't include. i think the three that are the most important are the slowdown in health costs, which in the long run it's passed on to workers in the form of higher wages. it shows in the short and medium run a slowdown in health costs will also reduce compensation for employers that will increase the demand for labor by employers, or that will create jobs. and that's the 250,000 to

400,000 that cutler found. number one. number two, reduced absenteeism and reduced disability. and you've seen some cross national studies that have looked at these type of factors. and the oregon health experiment, for example, has found reductions in depression associated with people getting medicaid. if that's going to be the case, people are going to show up at work and be more productive on the job and that will help the economy and then the final factor is this job lock or entrepreneurialism that you don't need to get stuck in a job just to have health insurance. and that's really important. because what matters for the economy is people who are going to the job that's best for them, that they're most productive in and that may be also choosing to be an entrepreneur and the affordable care act facilitates that.

>> at the top you said that the president's budget coming out march 4 would continue to propose deficit cuts. are you talking about net deficit cuts or are you talking about cutting some here and raising it here? >> i don't want to lift the curtain on the budget the president is going to put out. but every budget he's put out to date has on net over the medium and long-term reduced the deficits. >> and we should expect that will continue? >> i don't want to lift the curtain on any specifics. but -- and in the state of the union, in fact, he said something to the effect of we need to do more deficit reduction and do it in a balanced manner while making investments. >> you said we are now at 4.1% of g.d.p. with the deficit and heading toward 2.6%. what's the ideal considered in congress? >> the most important thing is that you're getting your debt down as a share of the economy. and that it's on a downward

path, that says you're fiscally sustainable. and deficits under about 3% of g.d.p. are generally consistent with getting that down. i want to be clear. c.b.o. finds that the debt as a share of the economy, after about 2017 or 2018, i can't remember the exact year, does start to rise as a share of the economy. so they are not saying we have solved our fiscal problems. they continue to confirm that we do have a medium and long run fiscal challenge. but they do find that deficit reduction in the last four years and that again in the near term or for the next couple of years, we're going to continue on a strong path. >> if you're already at 4.1% and you're heading to 2.6% and you've got 15 million americans out of work, why the fixation on more deficit cutting, why not an emphasis on more stimulus or more spending to boost the economy? >> if you looked at the state of the union, the president was

talking about things like more investment in infrastructure, about other fiscal policies that would help growth and help job creation. and in the past we've always shown how you can do that while also over the medium and long run dealing with the deficit. >> i have three quick questions. just a follow-up. o.m.b. doesn't have any plans to produce your own economic analysis of the a.c.a. related to the work that c.b.o. has concluded? >> there are no plans. we have done a very extensive analysis of the impact the affordable care act has had on the growth of health costs and that itself is an important economic input. but we don't -- there's no plan

to do this. >> the second question is, am i understanding what you're saying correctly, that the incentive for people is not a net drag on economic growth? >> i'm saying -- >> if 2 1/2 million people change their choice about working, that is not a net drag on the economy? >> i haven't accepted that. in there's a lot of factors that go into that number. not all of them in uncertainty. second of all, i'm saying that that whole analysis refutes the claim that this is about employers cutting back on jobs and increasing unemployment and that has been an argument against the affordable care act. instead this analysis itself, which isn't a complete analysis, but this analysis itself is about the choices that people make. and -- >> but you didn't answer my question. >> could you repeat that again?

>> you're talking about something different. you're talking about the choices that employers make. c.b.o. is talking about the choices that workers make. so i was asking you, if workers choose to take federal incentives and not work -- >> i guess partly i don't -- i think that -- i think once you think about -- i think the question, again, to use my social security and medicare example, i don't think that the right question is, would we increase people's choices about working by repealing social security and medicare. i don't think that's the right way to think about that. i think you want to think about that as to what does that do for workers, what does that do for retirees, what does that do for people with disabilities and what options does it give them? >> medicare and social security are aimed at primarily people of a certain age, seniors. so, when you talk about older

people, that's a whole separate equation that the a.c.a. this is a group of human beings who are in a program of all ages. >> first of all this number itself is a small percentage of the overall economy. second of all, this number itself purports dish mean, is about effectively choices of people. and, third, it doesn't reflect the full set of factors that go into it. so, again, i mean, our economic -- if you look at what some of the challenges we have in our economy, one of the challenges has been the growth rate of health costs. part of how you deal with the growth rate of health costs is dealing with some of the things that were causing that and some of that was the way in which however policies were constructed -- in which our policies were constructed, vis-a-vis the employers and

vis-a-vis the public provisions of health insurance. the a.c.a. is contributing to slower health cost growth. i think that's the number one thing i would look at in the affordable care act to ask about the overall economic impact. because if it is slowing the growth of health costs, then it gives you a set of better options than you had before all around. the federal government can save money, employers can save money, workers can save money, there can be more incentive to work, sort of net-net good. so in think being is the affordable care act helping the economy, i think that's the important question and in that regard, you know, i would answer the question yes. >> for those of who you are new to that in option trading, what the heck do you mean? >> i'm saying there's a lot of provisions in the affordable care act. a lot of them will create different incentives here and there. i'm not saying that no one

anywhere will have any -- no employer will have any new incentives to do anything. there will be some that will have incentives to increase something here, to decrease something there, to raise something, to do something different there. will be different, you know, incentives on net, though, that aggregates out to something that is, quote, slightly effect, unquote, is c.b.o.'s word, labor demand or what employers are doing. >> just to follow up on. this if you can't answer the question by saying no, how do you answer republicans who now have this big piece of evidence that they can wave so to say, aha, a.c.a. -- \[inaudible] >> you can't say this isn't 2 1/2 million fewer workers isn't a net drag, how do you counter what is the really convenient shorthand that they now can trumpet and say i told you so? >> i just thought y'all would be

interested in appendix c in case you hadn't noticed it. the affordable care act had three primary goals. one was related to coverage. one was related to quality. and one was related to cost. in so far as you are asking about the economic impact of the affordable care act, what it does to job creation, what it does to income, what it does to the overall economy, i think overwhelmingly the most important factor there is what does it do to the cost of health care? and i think the evidence is very clear that it is slowing the growth of the cost of health care and in that way is helping the overall economy and raising

income. that is the -- there's a lot of things one could analyze but in terms of the biggest and most important one, i think it's that. so i don't think there's any problem at all making -- i just made a very clear argument that the affordable care act is good for the economy. >> so you think -- \[inaudible] >> \[inaudible] >> you're saying it's a settled matter that the decrease we've seen in health care costs is due to the a.c.a.? >> there's obviously a debate around that proposition. i think, to me, i think the evidence is very clear. that that is the case. and i'll do the two-second version and we have the whole report on it. we're happy to follow up about that report. health costs are growing at the slowest pace they have in 50 years. that's measured in real per capita terms. i don't think the recession, many said that was the reason, i

don't think that is the main reason. and that's because we're now five years past the recession. we are seeing a slowdown in medicare which is not very affected by the overall economy. and we're seeing a big slowdown in health prices as measured by a couple of different price indexes and those also are affected by the recession as much as quantities are. that's ruling out that explanation or that as a total explanation. in terms of the affordable care act, we have c.b.o. said in this year it would reduce spending by 2/10. that's a decent amount in the health world. that's a direct effect of medicare. if you take into account spillovers from the private sector then it is 6/10 off the growth rate of health care prices.

and none that have takes into account things like -- that are coming online like the innovation center, like the benefits of reduced readmissions, 130,000 readmissions averted. and the whole range of things in the accountable care organizations that are designed to better integrate care. i think it's slowing the growth of health costs, slowing the growth of health costs, you know, most important economic variable here. >> slowing the growth of health care cost is going to balance out whatever the number is, c.b.o.'s or yours or someone else's, of the lost number people who will be earning money, contributing to the economy, helping their families, and paying taxes by virtue of less work, even if it's by choice? >> first of all, if you look at the fiscal impact of the affordable care act, that's also

positive and we know that's going to reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion. so, you went into some fiscal things in that set of argument. reduce the growth of health costs. i think that matters, i think job loss matters. i think productivity matters. i think all those factors matter and i think regardsless -- so, first of all, i think all those factors matter. and second of all, this at its core refutes the notion that businesses are not going to add jobs because of the affordable care act. >> you seem to be dismissing the effect, even if it's by choice, people not productively paying into the economy. paying, for example, social security tax toward a system that's increasingly based on fewer and fewer workers. >> there's a labor supply that's important. you look at something like immigration reform. it's a real motivation for immigration reform, to have more talented people contributing to our economy, creating jobs, adding to the overall strength of our economy.

i think that certainly matters. but i think, again, you have to factor in the way in which people make different choices, they have different options, and when health costs are lower, you know, we as a country have a better set of options than we would have otherwise had. >> jason, you said you disputed the totals. >> jason, you said you disputed the totals. so just from the individual perspective, when an individual works fewer hours every week, in order to access a subsidy, a subsidy that the government is paying them, a government that's now getting less taxes going to what mark was just saying, less taxes to social security, spending, all those other things. why is that good economic policy when they are intentionally working fewer hours to access a government subsidy? >> first of all, you know, you're asking the same question

so i'll give mostly the same answer. which is i think what's good economic policy is slowing the growth of health costs, what's good economic policy is encouraging entrepreneurship. what is good economic policy is having a work force that is suffering less from depression, that is suffering less from physical ailments and is able to more productively contribute to the economy. i think in all of those respects, the affordable care act is good for the overall economy. i think right now there are a lot of people who are making choices that may not be -- not right now, last year, the year before, before the affordable care act, there were people that were making choices that may not have been the best choices for them and for their families. this will give them new options and will make them better off as

a result and when you take all of these different economic effects into account, is part of an overall economic strategy, including that deficit reduction that we briefly mentioned. >> talking about lowered unemployment rates, will we see a duplication effect where people who are leaving the work force because of these disincentives through the a.c.a. are being replaced by people who are still looking for a job and trying to fill the worker hours that -- obviously there's no -- you're saying this doesn't affect net demand, labor demand. will we see an artificial dampening of the unemployment rate because of this? >> i think you're missing what was one of the main things in the report that i started to call attention to at the top which is if you're asking about, you know, the economy right now, in 2014, the economy in 2015, the economy in 2016, a really important impact to the affordable care act that c.b.o. analyzed in their report was

that the increase in demand will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase their employees' hours during that period. that is because you put more money in the pockets of families, you help them with medicaid, and that's going to help people be able to spend more, that's going to help the overall economy and so not only do we have the eight million jobs since the affordable care act was signed into law, private sector jobs signed into law, you also have that when you're thinking about the economy right now, when we talk about, you know, the jobs number for any given month, right now c.b.o. is saying a very important effect of the affordable care act or one of the essential effects it will have right now is increasing demand for goods and services, leading more employers to hire more workers or increase their employees' hours. every time there's a jobs number that is below what people expected, the number of people that go out and say that was because of the affordable care

act, precisely this is saying that aspect of the affordable care act goes in the opposite direction. it's helping jobs right now in the economy today. that's really important and i think people have largely missed out on that. in their reporting on appendix c. >> thanks, jason. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] douglas elmendorf is expected before the house budget committee. however coverage begins at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. on c-span 3, the irs commissioner will testify. we will get an update on some of

the ongoing unorthodox investigations. live coverage starts at 9:30 a.m. eastern. the director of the defense intelligence agency talked at the house intelligence committee of the damage caused by the leak of information by edward snowden. >> i have a lot more questions. i do one you get to the defense intelligence he agency report that was recently made available to that committee that i think was the first agency to complete its review of the stolen information of the -- by the nsa contractor. and your professional opinion, do you believe these leaks will cost american lives on the battlefield either now or in the future? >> i do. >> if it makes it harder to counter the threats by ied's

used by forces in afghanistan -- >> i believe you will face problems with the ied threat because of these leaks whether it is in afghanistan or some future filled. -- field. >> soda has an immediate threat to our military forces in the field today? -- so that has an immediate threat to our unitary forces in the deal today? are put at risk because of these leaks. if you had to alter any assignments as a result of this compromise material? >> let me just say for the purposes of our task force ,tudy, we assume that snowden everything that he touched, we assume that he took and sold. we assume the worst-case in how we are reviewing all of the

andnse department's actions events and exercises around the world. to cut to the chase of your question, i believe we will have to make judgments based on those assumptions that we make. >> what services have been impacted by the stolen material? ask all of our services. >> and so, there will be changes necessary to mitigate the effect of this material in order to maintain the security of operations and the safety of the u.s. military personnel. is that correct? >> i believe there will be. >> does this info give insight on how we track them and what their capabilities are and what might be some more abilities of the u.s. military? >> yes, they do. is i doo not want to do

not want to get too far in front of where this investigation is going on on this issue. >> i'm talking about the material stolen. would it give them some strategic advantage when it comes to our services around the world? >> it could. you can watch all of our programs on c-span.org. testifiedckefeller before a senate subcommittee on the safety of drinking water in his state. here is part of what he said. regulation is soft in west virginia. frankly when you put that

together with sequestration and government shutdown and then theology of don't cause anyone to do anything that this -- cause waters to be cleaner and all the rest of that. that is the story that i see right now. i am astounded, im astounded that -- i am astounded that you say this days before. anyway with this unusual bankruptcy. all i want -- they always say, someone else has to pay. the world is as it is. we accept the world as it is. you do not accept it as it is. you accepted as a should be and make it conform to that posture. angry, upset, shock,

embarrassed that this would happen to 300,000 wonderful mines --o work in coal don't even get me to that subject -- but, they are depending upon the fruit of the land wherever it may be for survival. barely. making it, but i think. there for my own good. stop therei will from a own good. >> visit c-span.org. in a moment, a white house official with the national drug control policy office testified about u.s. marijuana policy. michael botticelli to questions from a house oversight panel as

the number of states have decriminalized or legalize marijuana possession, a move that is at odds with current federal laws. this hearing is about an hour and 45 minutes. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> good afternoon. i would like to call the subcommittee hearing on government operations oversight and reform committee to order. welcome, everyone. sorry for a late start.

we will go ahead and proceed. let me cite first order of business. we will hear statements from members as they returned from votes or three unanimous consent, we will also include their statements on the record. we have one witness today, mr. michael botticelli from the office of national drug control policy. he is joining us. from him and members will be able to question the witness. chair that's a couple of extra minutes and introductory statements for launching the hearing. i won't that a started. we have other members joining us, i say. .- i will get that started

we have other members joining us, i see. ague from oregon -- without objection. i think we have several other members joining us. we will go through the members who sit on the committee and i will refer to you both in opening statements and in our questioning. returned, webers will begin that process. they chair of the full committee, he likes to remind people why we are here and why we do what we are doing with the oversight and reform committee. our mission statement is simple. we are here to oversee taxpayer dollars programs and how

.ongress appropriate sizes laws it is important. it keeps us focused on our responsibility. make sure programs work and the taxpayer dollar is widely spent in washington and the people who americanshard-working that do have accountability of their government. that is an important responsibility. is focus of today's hearing really going to focus on where we are in our federal drug laws .nd policies and enforcement as most of you know, there is a growing disparity between what our laws say at the federal level and with the laws at the local and state level.

caseste opposites in some . various officials from the president of the united states to administration officials going in different directions on the question of legalize nation legalization of marijuana. some have taken steps to make medical marijuana available for medical purposes. ad they've legalize their one of the state level for recreational use. the only problem with this is we do have conflicting federal statutes. i asked the staff to pull out the federal statutes. these are the federal statutes. title 21.

and itts up a schedule thesifies substances and s thatt level of narcotic are under federal jurisdiction and the responsibility of enforcement. this is the federal law. that is where we are at this point. what is taking place is that the states have taken action. excuse me. let me have a little drink here. it is something that comes with the cold weather. again, we have heard what the law is and seen what the states are doing.

unfortunately, there is chaos. we going and where what our policy is as far as what is allowed and what is legalized. in our society, we look to the leadershipor regardless of what party he is. the current president has made statements of late -- in fact, said, "iw days ago, he do not think it is more dangerous than out the hall -- referencing marijuana. he says it is important to go forward. we should not have a situation where a large portion of people have all at one time or another

broken the law and only a few select people that punished. that was the statement by the president of the united states in regard to legalization. it a schizophrenic approach to what is going on and where we are and where we may go. the president of the united executive, isief making that statement. i read an article in the washington post that the drug enforcement administration called the legalization of marijuana and state level reckless and irresponsible, warning the move to decriminalize the sale of marijuana will have severe consequences. interesting to see that path administration is also having.

this is another article i came across. the department of justice is now levelg at releasing low -- lower-level drug criminals. this article says, "in an unprecedented move, the attorney general asked defense lawyers on thursday to help the government locate prisoners and encourage .hem to apply for clemency clemency is to help deal with changes in the law." it is an approach that is very track shared between fragile, state, and local agency officials as you can hear from what i just said. the witness that we have before

the officelly under of national drug control policy. it was part of the white house policy ordinate national and drug abuse. of the prohibition on marijuana, the department of justice has issued a policy -- inndum that explicitly legal marijuana dispensaries in colorado and washington are facing the reality of operating outside the federal law and the department of justice will be issuing guidance that will allow federally regulated banks to serve these illegal businesses. the department of justice --

we're only going to hear from -- i do plan to try to have a continuum of dialogue on where we are going with this. we invited the department justice. if they want more time, we will give them the time. and otherve dea agencies. we also have those who have worked in the field to help the country and our citizens deal with illegal narcotics question. recall for the benefit of my colleagues of the from 1998-2001, they held a hearing on the subject of marijuana, saying that we would invite some of the

folk to participate in the discussion about where we are going. thing we have to $25ider today is about fiscal 2012 and a whole host of other act to the divided for 40% prevention and treatment programs. financial stake in some of these programs and where we are going. 50 federal agents have administered programs aimed at drug abuse and prevention despite illicit drug use. it is increasing with our adolescence.

marijuana accounts for 80% of thatist of drugs adolescents buy. the 2011 statistics show that adolescent use of marijuana was the highest it has been in eight years. the first time users of marijuana have unfortunately increased under this administration. it is a 10 year high. maybe that is not a good term to use here. their one is associated with increased drug dependence, marijuanactivity -- is associated with increased drug dependence and criminal activity. iq and possibly the genetic makeup of folks.

thatve a representative has consistently worked on evidence-based prevention method. the national drug control strategy -- the president's message to congress said and let "is becoming ever more apparent despite positive trends in other areas we continue to see elevated rates of marijuana use among young key role -- young people." that is what the official document that was sent to us that. given that recent statement that that meet in the past couple of weeks is explained that marijuana is no more dangerous president maythe

have been a major contributor now to the declines we see in the perception of risk and what we will see in the future. focus ourwe will major agency on dealing with this, the office of national drug control policy. we will hire statements and also some idea of where we are going. i have a number of questions from members on both sides of directle to find out the direction our administration and the federal laws are heading and the question of mena met -- marijuana use. welcome. terrific timing. we have the gentleman from virginia. you are recognized.

>> thank you. , i refer to the full ranking member if he has a statement. >> thank you, mr. connolly and mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. you are absolutely right. this is a very complex and difficult issue. say thank you for is a before the subcommittee. also a quickly changing issue. the position of conservatives and regresses alike are devolving. progressives alike are evolving.

a percentage of people favor the legalization of marijuana. over the past eight years, 20 states and the district of columbia have passed laws permitting the use of marijuana for medical use. in 2012, colorado washington chose to legalize and regulate marijuana for recreational use. i believe the purpose of today's hearing is worthwhile. he reviewed the possession of federal agencies with respect to states that are legalizing marijuana both for medicinal .urposes and recreational use office of national drug control policy serves as a critical role in balancing our nation's drug control efforts by coordinating government wide public health and safety initiatives that address drug use and the consequences in our communities.

in addition, the department of justice is encouraged with enforcing the federal controlled and a guidance for prosecutors. i am thankful that they are here today. i believe this hearing would have been more informative with sayjustice department to what offices work together to try to find a mutually acceptable date. your decision to move forward today seems to be one alone and it is not your prerogative. i hope we can continue to work together in a bipartisan way as we have in the past to get the viewpoint of the other agencies involved. personally, i share your concerns about the negative health effects of marijuana. particularly on the youth in my district and across the country. even when it is used for

medicinal purposes, people should understand very clearly that smoking marijuana is dangerous to your longs and your and your heart and leads to a wide range of health effects. there are serious questions about the desperate impact of the federal enforcement policy for the minority. i believe by reading the fbi crime reports at state databases, one article is found and i quote, "police arrest blacks despite the two races using marijuana at equal rates. similar of maryland is in terms of disparities. the american civil liberties

union arrested a -- released a report that police arrest blacks at higher rates than whites. this accounts for 58% of arrests for possession. these disparities have an impact on people's lives. arrests for even a small amount of marijuana can disqualify a person for public office, financial aid, or even employment for life three these are the opportunities that so many low income individuals need to lift themselves out of poverty. i think the president was right when he said, middle-class kids do not get locked up for smoking pot. poor kids do. latinosamericans and are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and support to avoid penalties.

that criminal reasons,- for these maryland has chosen to decrease penalties to 90 days for possession of marijuana in small amounts. considered courts to use as an affirmative defense. i previously served as the ranking member. there are various components to this debate. one thing that does concern me -- in some states, one can purchase marijuana. the people in my state and district are getting arrested and serving sentences. it seems to me that something is not right about that.

i hoping -- i am hoping you will adjust that. it is one thing when you have equal enforcement. peopleother when some are engaged in purchasing marijuana in the streets and other ones in the suites. purchasing marijuana in the streets and other ones in the suites. and so, what happens is that you have unequal enforcement and you have many african-american young men as you well know spending long sentences sitting in prison while others law enforcement don't even touch. so, those are the kinds of concerns that i have, mr. chairman. and i'm hoping that we'll get to some of that today. and with that i yield back. >> gentleman's time expired but

let's see. mr. turner, you had no opening statement. and we'll go back to mr. c connolly and before i do, ask unanimous that the gentleman from tennessee mr. cohen be allowed to participate on the panel. without objection, so ordered and joined by mr. davis to be identified after mr. connolly because he is on the committee and not the subcommittee and then alphabetical order and hear from them next. mr. connolly, you are up. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing to examine the federal response to state marijuana laws. i want to be clear from the outset. i'm not unsympathetic to the concerns raised by skeptics on decriminalization. as a child of the '60s, i witnessed firsthand the ravages of drug abuse on so many friends, so many idols my

generation had in both hollywood and in the music scene. i count myself, frankly, a skeptic. further, as a former senior professional staff member, one of my jobs was the authorization of the international narcotics matter bureau of the state department and traveled the world looking at production and distribution of illicit drugs and saw the damage caused. but it must also be noted simply ramping up criminal penalties through the narcotics control act of the 1950s did not prove effective in countering the very movement and the very ravages i just talked about in the 1960s. in addition, as a member of congress, it's been disappointing to visit countries such as afghanistan only to find that many of the current international narcotics control challenges are the very same ones i looked at in 1980s.

further despite my worriness of legalization, i'm alarmed by the figures contained in recent fbi report finding in 2011, 750,000 americans were arrested for marijuana law violation which amounts to 1 american every 42 seconds. and that rate outpaced the total number of arrests made for violent crimes that same year. in 2010 alone, even in the face of budget shortfalls, states spent an estimated $3.6 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws, total that represents a 30% increase compared to the amount spent a decade earlier and this in a time of extreme budget constraints at the state and local level. in aera of constrained budgets, the drastic increase raises the important question of how effective we are prioritizing limited law enforcement resources. it's troubling that despite four decades of federal efforts to

enforce the congressionalization of the manufacture, distribution, possession of marijuana, the united nations world drug report found that while global cannabis consumption stays fairly stable, marijuana use is increasing here in the united states. federal government's ineffectiveness in significantly reducing marijuana becomes even starker contrasting the nation's failure to stem rising marijuana use with the result of the country's anti-tobacco campaign which is actually pretty successful. without resorting to a policy prohibition of criminalization, we have tremendous resources to bare to reduce tobacco use especially among young people. our nation cut adult smoking in half from 42.4% in 1965 to 18% in 2012. employing driven data tactics states and municipalities refine the initiatives enacting policies to create smoke free

atmospheres and increasing the price of cigarettes. just today, there was a new campaign announced by the united states government aimed specifically at teenage smoking to deter it. these types of policies have led to impressive results. for example, in california, successfully lowered the adult smoking rate from 16.3% in 2000 to 12.7% 12 years later. and with respect to reducing frequent cigarette use of youth nationwide the cdc report it is decrease has been dramatic falling from 16.8% in 1999 to just 7.3% in 2009. our steady progress in reducing tobacco use serves as a valuable reminder that the best policies to reduce and prevent the use of harmful substances need not always be and perhaps shouldn't be total prohibition and criminalization. beyond questions of effectiveness, congress must also not negate the question of

equity and the distinguished ranking member eloquently pointed us to. research found in 2010 a black americans were nearly four times as likely as white americans to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession. even though both groups use marijuana in roughly equal percentages. worse, the data indicates that the racial disparities are greater when you dig down to the state level. black americans being eight times as likely as whites to be arrested in certain states. iowa, illinois and minnesota, for example. i cannot help but view all of the data through the prism in my time in local government where we prioritizes results over ideology and we allowed evidence to guide policy, particularly when addressing matters of public health and safety. i've long believed that the federal government governs best when it truly listens and learns from the states. which for decades have served as the laboratories of our

democracy. the citizens of the states across the country seem to have spoken loud and clear. they want their local governments to have the opportunity to innovate and even experiment with regulatory and enforcement frameworks governing marijuana use specifically. i believe it's in our national interest to let those ongoing laboratories of democracy proceed and while we learn from them. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back and i thank you for your indulgence. >> thank the gentleman. we'll hear from the gentleman of illinois, mr. davis. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i too, want to thank you for holding this hearing. i think many of us approach it with mixed feelings and mixed emotions. over the weekend, i've been involved in several conversations simply with friends and relatives, and i don't think in any of those did we reach any conclusions.

we all had different feelings, different thoughts, different ideas. i'd like to be associated with the comments relative to the disparities in arrest that the ranking member made, as well as mr. connolly. and quite frankly, i think that my state, the state of illinois, has a shameful record. there are a lot of things that i'm proud of my state about. but when it comes to this kind of disparity, it is hard to imagine that it actually does exist. and that it is continuing. mr. botticelli, i'd like to ask some questions relative to the role of ocdp as we explore this issue and as we talk about it and as we try and clarify what

the role of your office might be relative to the perspective legalization of marijuana. according to the national drug control policy reauthorization act of 1993, your office is not permitted to use any federal funds to conduct any study or contract relating to the legalization for a medical use or any other use of a substance listed in schedule 1 of section 202 of the control substance act, which includes marijuana. how does this congressional mandate restrict your ability to examine the spread and legalization of the medicinal marijuana in the alleged

benefits? yes. >> sorry. >> oh, we are doing -- oh. well, i'm delighted to continue in a -- >> it's a little hard to hear you, mr. davis. just a little bit closer. >> yeah. that's generally very unusual. i'm usually easy to hear. in a recent gallup poll for the first time, a majority of americans were in favor of legalized marijuana. in addition, there is a clearly growing tide of states that have moved to legalize medicinal marijuana and i, for one, have held the position for quite a while that it could and should be used for medicinal purposes.

however, i'm not sure about the whole question of promoting in any way, shape, form or fashion the usage for other reasons because i'm afraid that as i've seen with alcohol in the community where i live there are stores where individuals are lined up before 9:00 waiting for them to open. and i'm fearful that we might see the same thing with the dispensation of marijuana. so, mr. chairman, i thank you for this hearing and i yield back. >> thank you. we'll now hear from mr. blumen hardware, the gentleman from oregon. >> i appreciate your courtesy to

join in this with you and i think it's a timely and important hearing. i agree with the chair is federal government is not necessarily coordinated on this. agree that the committee has a responsibility to deal with the use of federal dollars and i think you referenced $25 billion spent on drug enforcement overall. and i certainly agree wholehartley with the dangers of adolescent use of marijuana. i think the question before us that we might be able to explore today and i hope we're under your leadership to move further is just how best are we going to address those issues? we have been engaged in an experiment of over 40 years of prohibition of marijuana which has failed spectacularly. 50 million people use it annually. about half the american public, adult population, has used it. as a couple of my colleagues have referenced, a majority of

americans now think it should be legal and if you ask that question differently, if you say, should the federal government respect the decisions of the states like we do with alcohol, that percentage goes up even higher. mr. chairman, i noted last week in your state almost 700,000 signatures were delivered that will require a vote in the fall on florida becoming the first southern state to approve medical marijuana and recent surveys indicate about two thirds of the population now says they support it. and i've seen one survey that's much higher than that. we have talked about the costs. i think if we shift from a prohibition enforcement incarcerate and instead deal to tax and regulate, it's going to

mean probably conservatively $100 billion of public dollars available over the next 10 years. it is outrageous that 8 million people have been arrested in the last decade and as several of my colleagues have mentioned it is outrageous that african-american youth primarily young men are almost four times as likely to be arrested as white youth even though, in fact, there's evidence that the white youth use marijuana as much or more than african-american. and i think it was mr. cummings who referenced some of the disparities in different regions. there's some areas in louisiana where that disparity is 11 times greater for african-american youth. and i do think the

administration needs to think through what a comprehensive approach should be. the president has acknowledged what most americans know. marijuana is, well, frankly, not as dangerous to your health as tobac tobacco. it is not as addictive. congress is also out of touch, i would suggest, because congress established these schedules that you referenced in your opening statement. according to what we have in statute, marijuana is schedule 1 which puts it on a par with lsd and heroin, has no medicinal properties and is more dangerous than coke and methamphetamines. and i don't think you will find any sheriff, any district attorney or any health expert who would remotely suggest that that is true. we are in a situation now where

there is nobody who checks the identification of an add les ept. they're not asked to prove their age. there's no license that a drug dealer loses. mr. connolly comments about the progress that we have made with tobacco which is highly addictive and still kills hundreds of thousands of people a year is significant. and i am hopeful that with this committee's leadership we can look at maybe how we rationalize this, we don't interfere with states where 146 million people live where it's perfectly legal to buy marijuana under state laws. most of it according to votes of the people. and there are little things that we can do to fix anomalies. federal law forces legitimate marijuana businesses to be entirely cash. they can't get a bank account. and delivering their tax

payments with shopping bags full of cash if you care about money laundering, if you care about tax evasion and theft, is crazy. it's just crazy. and we tax these legally authorized under state and local law businesses two and three times more heavily than we treat other businesses. i note mr. norquist, grover norquist joined me in a press conference on legislation i have to fix that. mr. chairman, i appreciate your dealing with this issue. i appreciate your courtesy allowing me to be with you and i hope you can help shine a light and we can have this important conversation. >> thank you for joining us. just one thing. i'll point out, i showed this schedule today and i'd heard the president say that congress was -- had to resolve this matter. the staff and their briefings to me said that, actually, they

have the authority to change that without congress. >> absolutely. >> so that's something i want to get into with mr. botticelli and where they intend to go on this. some good points. let me yield now to the gentleman -- also not part of the panel, but came to the hearing, thank you, mr. cohen from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. mica. first i want thank you for allowing me to participate and enjoyed serving you should you on transportation committee, and secondly, i'd like to incorporate a reference all of the things that have been said and politically correct on this issue as if i said them. and basically i agree with most of them. and i want to thank the president. i don't think the president has been schizophrenic. the president hasn't gone nearly as far as i would like to see him go on this issue because it's a freedom issue. but the president has gone somewhat in enlightening the public as to priority and as to

who we brandize in the laboratories of democracy and we're on the right path. i would submit with all due respect to my fellows on the other side that schizophrenia, which my father was a psychiatrist and taught me something about, could be a party that talks about saving money all the time and concerned with deficits and being totally driven by that but not being concerned on saving money when people are in jail for marijuana and mandatory minimums that judges said were awful and for nonviolent first-time offenders who are serving lifetime sentences in jail costing us $30,000 a year and to the population of jails has gone up 800% in the last 30 years. that's schizophrenia. you're concerned about cost and cutting costs but not when it's jailing a population. i think it's squits friend yeah when you offer state issues and priorities and giving power back to the states but not when it comes to them passing laus

concerning marijuana. then you're not for state initiatives and state priorities. and i think there's a certain c for a party that talks about civil liberties and but not when it comes to personal liberties on this subject. so sometimes politics makes strange bed fellows, whether they are in the same bed as mcfur fee or not is not issue to be discussed. i would -- your hands are tied on schedule one. but it is ludicrous, absurd, crazy, to have marijuana in the same level as heroin. ask the late philip seymour hoffman if you could, nobody dies from marijuana. people die from her o win.

and every second we spend trying to enforce marijuana laws is a second we're not forcing heroin laws and heroin and meth are ravaging our country and every death, including mr. hoffman's is partly the responsibility of the federal government's for not putting total emphasis on the drugs that kill and cause people to steal to support their habit and heroin and meth is where all of your priority should be. it's not just mr. hoffman, a brilliant actor at 46, who went to prescription drugs then came back to heroin. i had a young friend, son of a girl i dated, who dayed of a heroin overdose two years ago. i went to a party in memphis, not vermont, where the governor spent his entire state of the state hour address talking about the ravages of heroin in his

state but memphis, tennessee, where four women, give or take, my age, well, maybe 15 years younger sometimes i lose perspective, talked about heroin being a great problem among their children. and in the memphis community and another young man who died of heroin. heroin is getting into the arms of young people. and when we put marijuana on the same level as heroin and lsd and meth and crack and cocaine, we're telling young people not to listen to the adults about the ravages and problems and they don't listen because they know you're wrong. because as mr. micah said, we know a lot of young people smoke marijuana. they shouldn't. young people should be being young people. the most precious commodity in the world is time. young people have got lots of time. mr. micah and i don't have that much more time. that's just the realities. when you're young, enjoy being

young. playing ball, taking it easy, doing kids things and learning. shouldn't be doing drugs but they are. and we need them to make sure we keep them alive. we need to educate them. our efforts ought to be towards meth and heroin. it shouldn't be schedule one. anybody that goes to jail for marijuana is a crime when people for possession are taking liberties away, it's a waste of money and resources and it's a crime committed by our government. there is a cultural lag in this country and in this congress and leader. my time is expired. i thank the committee for allowing me to express myself. i'll participate in questioning and yield back the remainder of my time. >> i thank the gentleman and thank each of the members for their opening statements. we'll now turn to our witness at this hearing and the witness is mr. michael botticelli, the

director of the office of national drug control policy. it's the custom and practice of our committee and subcommittee as an investigative oversight panel in congress to swear in our witnesses. if you'll stand, please, raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this subcommittee of congress is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? the witness answered in the affirmative and we'll let the record reflect that. mr. bot chelly, you're the only witness today so we won't hold you too much to the five but we'll try to keep you within that. if you have additional information you would like to have submitted to the committee, the subcommittee, we would welcome that. through request of the chair. again, we thank you for your participation and we'll

recognize you now for your opening statement. >> chairman mica, ranking member connol connolly, thank you for this opportunity to address the public health and safety issues surrounding marijuana in the united states. my name is michael botticelli of the white house office of national drug control policy. before i was sworn into this position in november of 2012, i was the director of the bureau of substance abuse services in the massachusetts department of public health. i have over 20 years experience working in public health and served a variety of leadership positions and roles for the national association of state alcohol and drug abuse directors. in addition, i'm proud to say i'm one of 23 million americans who is also in long term recovery from addictive disorders. the office of national drug control policy was established by congress in 1988 with a principle purpose of reducing illicit drug use and

manufacturing and drug related crime and violence and drug related health consequences. >> we produce the national drug control strategy, which is the administration's primary blue print for drug policy. this strategy is a 21st century plan based on science and research. i'm here today to testify specifically about marijuana, the considerable public health consequences associated with the drug and the ongoing efforts to reduce and prevent its use in related consequences throughout the region. nearly 32 million americans, age 12 and older reported using the drug making it the most commonly used illicit drug in the united states. unfortunately although overall marijuana use rates in the united states are what they were in the late 1970s, they have increased in recent years. since 2007, current marijuana use among americans, 12 or older has increased from 12.8 too 7.3%

in 2012, a difference of over 4 million people. well national survey indicates that marijuana use rates among young people age 12 to 17 have decreased from 8% in 2002 to 7% in 2012. this masked recent increases in use among young people, particularly between 2008 and 2011. science tells us that youth perception of marijuana as youth perceptions of marijuana decline, the use of marijuana goes up. and from the 2013 monitoring future survey reveal the pur seefed harm of using marijuana regularly among eighth and tenth graders at its lowest point since the survey began collecting this information in 1991 and among high school seniors it's at the lowest since 1978. we also know that marijuana has considerable health and safety implications for users

themselves and in 2012, approximately 4.3 million americans met the diagnostic criteria for abusive dependance on marijuana. more than any other drug. marijuana use can have implications for learning and memory and long term use of marijuana begun during adole less ens is associated with a lower i.q. in life and we have concerned about the marijuana potency which tripled over the years. the consequences are particularly acute in our health care and substance abuse disorder system. in 2011, marijuana was involved in nearly 456,000 emergency department visits nationwide and in 2012, approximately 314,000 americans reported receiving treatment for marijuana use in the past year. more than any other illicit drug and trailing only alcohol and pain relievers.

these figures represent a sobering picture of the rereal and serious consequences. this administration has been consistent in its opposition to attempt to legalize marijuana and other drugs. this opposition is driven by what medical science and research tells us about the drugs. we know that calls for legalization often paint inaccurate and incomplete picture of marijuana significant health consequences. and while voters in colorado and washington voted to legalize the sale and distribution of marijuana in their states, it does not change the negative public health consequences of marijuana. even advocates of the law in these states acknowledge the negative public health effects and maintain under age use should not be permitted. as you indicated chairman in establishing the controlled substances act, congress determined that marijuana is a harmful drug and made the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana a serious crime. recent state laws have not changed the federal status of marijuana as a schedule one

controlled substance and the department of justice is responsibility to enforce the csa remains unchanged. as the department of justice has noted, federal drug enforcement priorities resources, prioritized and target serious crime dealing violent crime and trafficking. the department of justice has not historically devoted resources to prosecuting individual who's conduct is limited to possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use on private property. recent department of justice guidance is specific with this position and focuses on protecting public health and safety in states and communities, a goal shared by the entire administration. office of natural drug alcohol policy presented a large variety of programs to treat those with substance abuse disorders in order to avoid involvement with the criminal justice system and not to encourages criminal justice system reforms through

more hue manlily and effectively treat those with substance abuse disorders through health interventions. we have supported a variety of community prevention efforts, one such powerful tool is the drug free community support program, funded by the office of national drug control policy. the coalitions across the country identified marijuana as a significant problem in their communities. recent evaluation data indicate that where dfc dollars are invested and coalitions operate, substance use is lower. we're working with our congressional partners on reauthorization of this vital program. our above the influence media campaign being transitioned to the partnership at drugfree.org is another important national tool for farming and inspiring young people to reject illicit drugs, including marijuana. we also know that there is significant treatment gap in the united states, only one in ten people who meet diagnostic

criteria get care for this disorder and often it's because of lack of insurance status. we recognize we need to provide treatment for those dealing with consequences of drug use. affordable care act will expand coverage for substance use disorder treatment. an estimated 27 million people previously uninsured americans will have coverage that includes substance abuse disorder benefit. and in addition, on d.c. p identified reducing drunk driving as a national priority. data from the department of transportation show that in 2009, use was reported among 25% of fatally injured drivers tested for the presence of drugs. in conclusion, they continue to work with our partners to reduce the public health effects of substance abuse, including marijuana. we know there are ways to prevent and reduce substance use in america and we look forward to working with congress on this

objective. thank you. >> thank you. we'll turn to questions and i'm going to yield first for another obligation. >> i appreciate that. i do have another obligation. in your statement, taken by the sentence it says, the administration continues to oppose attempts to legalize marijuana and other drugs. a natural question to you is, has the office of the national drug control policy been asked to weigh in on marijuana legalization battles going on in the states? yes? what advice have you given and do you plan to proactively weigh in on future legislative initiatives if you continue to oppose it, what have you done? >> our role in terms of legalization efforts has been to provide constituents at both national state level and community level with accurate information as it relates particularly to the health -- >> how do you do that? what constituents?

>> do you post it on your website or actively get in touch with the decision makers? do you engage in the dialogue that's occurring during these debates? >> we do it through our website by putting information -- >> that's what i thought. my next question, despite the implementation of legal -- excuse me, of what allegedly are legal dispensaries, the dea has found illegal operations and has raided several dispensaries in colorado. how confident are you that 100% of the drug trade in colorado is free from influence of drug cartels? >> sir, unfortunately i'm the only representative at this hearing. i would ask that you defer those questions to either department of justice or dea. >> we'll do that. the only reason i ask this question, when you stated in your written testimony what your role was, you said it was let's see, we are established by

congress the principle purpose of reducing and see the line here, drug related crime and violence and health consequences and trafficking. so i you would have a statement with regard to drug cartels. third question, what are you doing to ensure marijuana will not be exported from legal states to illegal states? again, seeing that from your written statement, that is certainly parlt of what you were tasked with by congress, what do you see there, sir? >> as you're aware in that august department of justice memo, they set out eight criteria for any state moving towards legalization in terms of state's responsibility in implementing legalization efforts in terms of marijuana. clearly one of the criteria the department of justice is looking at is preventing the state's responsibility and preventing the transportation of marijuana in states where it's legal to where it's not. it's incumbent upon the states to ensure that that does not happen.

our role in terms of office of national drug control policy is to monitor, not only the public safety, that criteria they've laid out but other public health and safety criteria to determine what is the impact of legalization in those states as it affects those criteria. >> do you have concerns as to what you're seeing from the monitoring? >> at this point we're still gathering data and i think it is premature to speculate in terms of those criteria and what the impact is. >> looking back to what you described as your own charter, there's an expectation on behalf of congress that there would be an active role you play. we'll look forward to your conclusions. mr. chairman, thank you. >>. >> thank you, mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would yield to the distinguished ranking member if he wishes to -- >> thank you very much.

>> thank you, gentleman for yielding. i want to discuss what a conviction for marijuana, possession, no matter how small means for most individuals across the country with a conviction a person loses a right to vote, financial, federal financial aid and public housing assistance and conviction in employment opportunities and future earning potential. i can tell you i live in a neighborhood where the wire was filmed. and so i see a lot of young men who have basically been sentenced to a life term of not being able to move as a normal citizen would in this society. deputy director, let me ask you, isn't it true that convictions for even minor nonviolence drug position have a significant negative effect on an individual

that families and -- in the nation, would you agree with that? >> i would, sir. by way of context, when director ku la could you xi took this position, he clearly articulated that we cannot arrest our way out of the problem. that what we need toe do is really have a robust strategy, reflecting a prevention intervention and treatment. and series of criminal justice reforms that does everything we can to divert people from the criminal justice problem. i can tell you, i was in massachusetts at the time as the director and it really signaled to me an important shift in drug policy, away from a war on drugs approach and really looking at this as a public health related issue, particularly as it relates to the racial and ethnic disparities we see as it relates to drug use. part of the role of our office is to also look at what are the i am pediments for those people

in recovery like me who often do have criminal records and what does that impairment mean in terms of the ability to have a vibrant life and seek meaningful employment and meaningful housing. to that end we have been focusing on actions to diminish those barriers. so clearly those issues are important for us. i think he wul find they are reflected in the strategy in making sure we are not dealing with this just as a public safety issue but how we think about prevention and again, looking at the smart criminal justice reforms to make sure we are not incarcerating people for low level nonviolent offenders, the department of justice has been supporting many efforts and are clearly understanding both from an economic per spekive and humane perspective, we can't continue to incarcerate our way out of this. >> how do you all interact --

with the justice department? with regard to when you've got some states saying recreational drugs, can purchase them and most states saying, you go to jail. i mean, how do you all -- and i think that's what i think what this hearing was trying to get to, where are we going with that? because it just seems so incredibly unfair that you would have a situation -- like i said, i see people affected by these laws every day and on the other hand, i'm also concerned very much so and mr. mica remember when he and i were involved in the criminal justice subcommittee, we were both concerned about the effects of marijuana. how do you all try to strike

that balance? >> i would say, representative, that's the entire position of our strategy, it's not a war on drugs, arrest people, send them to jail on one hand and quite honestly legalize the silver bullet to our problem, that we believe in a balanced and middle of the road approach that deals with this as the public health related issue. the primary way we do that is by setting the administration's national drug control strategy and obviously that transmitted to congress and big portion of that is really about smart criminal justice and innovative criminal justice reforms that look at nonincarcerating people and not arresting people for their -- for low level violent use and making sure folks have access to a wide variety of public health interventions. >> i want to make sure you're clear, it's just not the incarceration, you're right. when a person gets a record, a

record, they are doomed for life. so not just incarceration, my time is up, thank you. >> would you yield? >> of course. >> you and i worked together on problems involving the ability of people to cast a vote. to your very last point, mr. cummings, isn't it true that among the things that affect them for life, it also affects -- >> yes. >> mr. botticelli, you were the national director and that office is under the white house. >> right. >> when the president said i don't think -- referring to marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol, what was your reaction? >> i think the administration's policy has been consistent as it relates -- >> he's the -- he is the chief

executive and the office that you're in, it was set up under the white house to report to the president, he just got through saying it is dangerous, we continue to spend resources to try to stop children and others. you also said since the beginning of 2007 to most recent statistics we've seen an increase in use and abuse. then the president said it's important that we go forward speaking of legalization because it's -- it's important for society not to have a situation where people have one time broken the law and only second few are punished. this is in conflict with what you were using taxpayer dollars to try to avoid. you just got through also

testifying that 314,000. is that in treatment for marijuana, which is only surpassed by alcohol and abuse, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so it -- we have more youth -- which, i don't -- there anybody here that wants to legalize this for adole less sents. >> i don't think so but we're getting more hooked. and the president comes out with this statement. i'm afraid too, we've gone from just say no and then we had i didn't inhale and then now it's just say maybe or just go ahead. and it does concern me because our youth are the most impressionable. i was asking our staff, when i was there, i remember turning to political consultant, little bit controversy, but one of the best in the business, dick morris and

i worked on some campaigns with him. dick morris, i believe lost his brother to drug substance abuse. and dick was convinced that the way to change public opinion was with ads and you can change public opinions in that regard. that's where we launched some of our ads. we originally were trying to get the media, which is about as slack as you can get in putting up ads even though we control air waves and they are supposed to be free. then i think the deal we kept with clinton was to have half paid and half donated time. are we still doing those ads? >> our -- >> to influence public opinion in young people, i mean, you have ads and now we have e-mails and we have twitter and texting and whole host of social media. are we paying taxpayer moneys to

use those techniques which are supposed to be the most effective to try to curtail, again, i think we'd start with adole less sents. adults are one thing. >> our office has been administrating above the influence campaign which uses a wide variety of largely social media techniques. >> have we dropped going after marijuana? >> so -- have we dropped going after marijuana? ? do we have any ads -- we've done a great job on to bako particularly in the last few years. but what about marijuana? >> so, i've been doing prevention work for a long time. for a wide variety of areas. actually in massachusetts, tobacco control was under my authority as well as substance use. i think what we know in terms of prevention signs is that often we have to focus on providing youth with resiliency skills to resist a wide variety of substances. >> but you're not answering my

question. is the united states of america under the office of national drug control policy or any of the programs -- do we have any programs you're aware of that are advertising to change the behavior of adolescents? >> we are. >> maybe you can give -- provide us with copies. i would like to see what we're doing because the law is going in a different way in some of the states. we haven't gotten into the conflict using law enforcement resourgss and mr. turner talked about them coming in and raiding federal authorities in states which have now taken measures in other people have taken advantage of. but i'm concerned again, the trend with young people. i'm not sure where we're going with this whole thing. i have my own opinions, i was talking to mr. connolly and he has his. there's the medical marijuana use issues and recreational use,

there's the legalization use. but i think we're -- we have the most schizophrenic policy i've ever seen as far as dealing with social issues and again, with laws that are in conflict with public spending, which is in great conflict. >> one of the things i can say both in terms of public information campaign that we've been running as well as our drug free communities programs that both have had independent evaluations in their success, that any -- with our drug free coalitions and through independent evaluation of our above the influence campaign, that we've been able to make significant progress, that we have evidence of effectiveness of a wide variety of our prevention programs and i agree, many of those strategies were adapted from tobacco campaign programs, in terms of how you provide those messages. >> the successes but we -- i don't know exactly how much money we've been spending. we'll find that out for the

record and you'll provide it to the committee. you just testified actually increased in those categories and large number in treatment. then the icing on the cake by the way, our new health care will cover you, don't worry, you're covered for treatment. once you get to treatment, you're pretty bad off. mr. cummings and i chaired the subcommittee and everyone who came before us said marijuana is a gateway drug. most people would go to the other harder drugs end up -- start up with marijuana. is that system the case or has that changed? >> let me respond to it a number of questions that you've raised here. so first and foremost, if you look at the wide variety of drug use indicators in the united states, we have made significant progress in many areas. we've seen reductions in youth

use of alcohol. we've seen reductions in cocaine. we've seen recent reductions in prescription drug use. so i think we've seen that where we -- and those are direct areas of focus for our national drug control policy. >> that was a local police officer -- last week for breakfast, they told me two things, they said it's not getting any better. it looks like some of the deaths have dropped, but they said that's only because they've got better treatment they are catching them. but the incidents were up and they shift from drugs, it's now -- because of this, there isn't much risk, it's socially acceptable, go to marijuana, but the kids are also -- the adult population too is shifting to back to methamphetamines and prescription drugs as you know issue with them spiraled out of control. >> your point in terms of

increase in terms of marijuana use is particularly important. if you talk to the doctor who is the director of the national drug abuse and the preeminent researcher in this area, we support most of the world's major purchase as it relates to drug and drug related issues. she will tell you that prevention science tells us that when people see things as less risky, think of yourself in your own behavior, that you're more likely to do it. one of the reasons we've had success with tobacco is kids see it as risky. kids no longer see the vast majority of kids no longer see it as risky. it's no surprise that we -- >> the president's statement when he said it's no different than alcohol. would you kindly -- again, you have -- i'm only reciting what others have said that dea chief, one of their chiefs said that he

viewed wednesday, last wednesday, i guess it was called the legalization of marijuana at the state level, reckless and irresponsible, warning that the movement to decriminal size the sale of pot in the united states will have serious consequences. do you agree or disagree? >> the administration position has not changed -- >> you agree with what he says? >> that the president has indicated that this is a public health challenge and we need to deal with it as a public health challenge. >> again, the president may -- i didn't start this. the president made his comments and now you have different agencies including yourself under the president saying something different than what we're hearing in some quarters. so with that, let me go with mr. -- you haven't gone yet. mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

welcome. >> thank you. i've enjoyed your thinkings for many years, we're honored -- >> i couldn't resist. >> are you from massachusetts? >> i am from massachusetts, lived outside of boston in molden. >> i talk like that if i have to. >> my first apartment was oncom avenue. >> to this point about the president's advance, whether he should or shouldn't have made it or what he intended from it, how many people die from marijuana overdoses every year? >> i don't know that. i know it's very rare for someone -- >> very rare. >> just contrast that. prescription drugs, prescription drugs, unintentional deaths from prescription drugs, one dies every 19 minutes. nothing comparable to marijuana, is that correct? >> correct.

>> alcohol, hundreds and thousands of people die every year from alcohol related deaths. automobiles, liver disease, ee sopha geel poisoning, too much toxicity from alcohol? >> i think the way you have to look at this, the totality of harm associated with the substance, to basically say that because marijuana doesn't have the overdose potential that heroin or alcohol does, diminishes i think the significant health consequences associated with the drug. >> i think -- i guess i'm sticking with the president, the ahead of the administration, who is making a different point. and he was making a point that is true, that a norm tif statement that marijuana is good or bad but he was contrasting it with contralcohol and he's corr is he not?

>> the point is that the administration's position has not changed -- >> i'm not asking that question. >> when you look at alcohol and substance use, that we have to look -- or marijuana, that we have to look at this as a public health related issue. you know, i have to say this morning -- >> mr. botticelli, i'm asking the questions and i'm asking you -- directing you to answer them. if you want to add your opinion, fine. but is it not a scientific fact that there's nothing comparable with marijuana -- and i'm not saying it's good or bad, when we look at deaths and illnesses, alcohol and other hard drugs, are certainly -- even prescription drugs, are a threat to public health in a way that isolated and marijuana is not. isn't that a scientific fact? >> no, i don't dispute that. may i continue? >> just a second -- i hear being

thrown at the president as if he did something reckless. my view is he was trying to put this in perspective because there are states that have decided to go down a different path. and my friends on the other side of the aisle are all for states rights when it comes to guns on gay marriage or other things, but aparntdly in this case, states have no business getting in the drug business. and yet i look at the war on drugs and let me ask you this question, it looks to me like public opinion has shifted profoundly. 20 states in the district of columbia now allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes and two states by law just voted to legalize and regulate tax to recreational use of marijuana. that's almost half the country. it seems to me -- if you look at drk you look at 1969 when the war on drugs began, richard

nixon, only 12% of the population supported legalizing marijuana. that same percentage today is 52%. that's a huge change in public opinion. given all of the efforts, just say no under nancy reagan and all kinds of pszas and trying to make sure we highlight the dangerous drug use of any kind could be, why do you think public opinion drifted so dramatically on the issue of marijuana? >> from my standpoint, i'm not sure the public is getting a fair and accurate view, particularly as it relates to the public health consequences of marijuana. i think that it's been portrayed as 'benign substance, i don't think they fully understand or have gotten information to really understand the magnitude of the issue. so, you know, i think that

that's part of the issue. when clearly and we've seen this with other substances, we've seen this with prescription drug abuse, that when people see something that is legal, when they see it, it's often prescribed by a physician, people see it as benign and not harmful. it's not -- it's not a surprise for me to see that change in public perception. >> all right, let me pick up on the point you're making, first of all, this whole issue is is it a gate way drug, is there evidence that in fact it is a gate way drug? can we empirically correlate the use of marijuana to go on to other dangerous substances? >> we know the earlier someone uses marijuana, the more likely they are to develop a dependence and go on to more significant issues. so and if you look