>> admiral, as you know, the air force has had their own issues, been conducting their own reviews with cheating of nuclear missileers. has the navy been doing its own review of its program because of what's been going on in the air force? i know the secretary of defense had a meeting here at the pentagon to talk about the broader program. what had the navy already been doing as a result of this? >> the answer to that is yes, the navy has done a review of the -- what i'll call the nuclear enterprise. the -- the nuclear weapon enterprise involves two services, obviously, the navy and the air force. we have our element, the ssbm force and all of its supporting entities. we've been directed to look primarily at the personnel element of that. the qualification people of all those that organized training, and equip those that do handle or employ or field direct operations of nuclear weapons. the certification they're in and of course the personnel reliability program.

and so that is in progress. what -- what we do already, craig, is every two years, we have a three star flag officer review, if you will, the program, coordinated with our director of our strategic systems program, ssp. that strategic systems program are responsible for all operations, if you will, handling of -- of our nuclear weapons themselves. so, that has been going on. there's a drum beat of that, as admiral richardson said, in his program. we have a similar drum beat. now, we are going to take the results of our most recent, which is months old, we are going to take the results of the schlesinger report, you remember that from a few years ago. we're going to take the results of the admiral donald report, if you remember that also was a few years ago, look and see what was directed in that, review that, did we do what it said, how are we doing on that, and then we're going to do an internal assessment coordinated with that.

so, what has been looked at before? how is that going? is it still effective, and where are we now? all of that is underway, and we're due to report in what is now about 45 days. we were assigned this a few weeks ago. phil stewart? >> i just want to get a sense about the -- the timing of the person who came forward. was that person indicating that there was a -- that this is a new problem, this is a fresh, one-off incident, or did the evidence suggest this might be going back awhile, this cheating might have been more -- more systemic or -- a pattern of cheating. and also, your -- your reticence to put a finger on the number, is that because you believe it's going to get much higher? >> well, that is indicative of the fact that we are just getting started, and so any number that i give you, i don't know where that's gonna go, ray, we're just getting the -- started. and so, i'm reluctant to give you a number, because it could change. it may be bound. we just don't know. and so, i don't want to put something out there that -- that may be accurate, but we may find more, right? so we're in the very early

stages of this. and then, i'm sorry, what was the other part of your question? >> was this a new, a single -- >> so, again, part of investigation, we know that when he was confronted, you know, we learned about this yesterday. and so, in terms of the time frame, we'll get a sense for that in the investigation. >> this individual came forward. he was not asked, right? >> no, no. he came forward of his own accord. and this just happened in the last 24 hours. and so, we wanted to get to you very early on, to let you know about this. >> was this just in a pattern that has been going on for a long time, or was it -- it's just in this one-off incident that -- >> it's to be determined. we'll be back to you when we learn that. >> bryan bender with the boston globe. a couple of just points of clarification. so, to be clear, this test, in particular, is one of a series of a tests which you must perform before you're qualified. >> exactly. >> and then the only -- the other question was, was this test to qualify or to re-qualify someone? in other words, are they already qualified to operate the reactor

and they're being retested? or this is for a new person who's never done it, taking the test to see if they're qualified? >> so, because these, the folks that we're talking about, are on the staff, they have already completed their initial qualifications as students through this same program. they have then gone out and requalified again at sea on whether -- on the carrier or submarine that they were assigned. and now they are coming back, and there's an additional requalification process back at those training reactors. so this will be about the third time that they will have been through this qualification sequence. over the top of all that, there is a continuous training program that in addition to the qualification, it is a program of lectures and clinics and education, with exams and validation along that. so it fits into a pretty thorough network of education, qualification and validation. to vanden brook?

>> sir, i have a question about, these were senior enlisted folks who were the instructors, for -- >> correct. >> and they were giving the answers to, or offering to give answers to trainees? >> no. our understanding to date is they were giving them staff to staff. so this is so that the staff could qualify the position to operate the training reactor. you have to -- he'd have to qualify to operate that. and then additionally, you're training students. but we see no evidence of compromises for the students at this point. >> but was there anything offered in exchange for these answers? >> no. gordon lubold? >> just to clarify, run off-- question, admiral, you described what was underway, in terms of reviews and all that. i just want to see, does this incident then trigger potentially a broader investigation, not just of this incident that you've been describing, but a broader kind

of wake-up call kind of investigation of the navy's nuclear force? you see what i'm saying? >> right. we will certainly in this process of bounding the problem we will take everything that we've -- that we learned from this incident, and we will apply that to the broader force. that's just our nature, right? we use these as -- these problems as opportunities to check across the force. and so, that is part and parcel -- that's par for our course. we will do that. >> gordon, i think i should add, as i described to craig, we're doing this 60-day look, involving our nuclear enterprise. we share across enterprises, the nuclear propulsion enterprise, again, the foundation is integrity, the principles are all there. our people serve on nuclear-powered ssdns. and so, those elements have to be shared. so there's a lot involved in this, across, if you will. >> yes, could there be any

operational impact with these -- those involved with the cheating, possibly suspended? the air force had to suspend or restrict about 120 missileers. is there any -- and people are pulling extra shifts. do you foresee any type of similar operational impact? >> i could possibly foresee an impact in charleston. we'll see if that is broader. >> what -- of impact would that be, sir? >> the same sort of thing. so there's those folks that are implicated are gonna be removed from those responsibilities. and other folks will have to possibly pick up those duties. additionally, there will be a certification process before i allow any kind of operation of those plants as well. >> admiral richardson, you said the only thing comparable involved is submarine crew. were you talking about the memphis? >> that is it, right. >> ok, why is it comparable?

you're talking about something that happened in a training atmosphere, and the other one is talking -- you're talking about something that happened on an attack submarine. >> right. the elements that concern me are not so much the, you know, where it happens, but the nature of the incident, which is both on memphis and, in this case, we have one, a violation of integrity, one of our core principles. two, you have some kind of an, you know, collusion amongst particularly senior people. and so that -- when we -- you know, on those rare occasions that we find those two things, it's of particular concern to us. and that's why i draw parallels between those two incidents. louis martinez? >> going to go back to your under 1 percent reference, is that to mean that's how many individuals you're looking at who might be implicated? because i did some fuzzy math and that comes out to like under 160 personnel. >> right. that's kind of my initial

bounding of the problem, and so, you know, pending further investigation that's kind of where i see it right now. >> in terms of what? in terms of what? in terms of -- >> personnel that will be implicated. >> sorry, she asked before -- >> sixteen thousand personnel in the plant. and so, used to -- i mean, one percent of 16,000 i think is 160, but in terms of the ballpark figure, you know, it's -- it's well less than that. so when you said 16, that's i think -- yeah, you're gonna be closer. again, it's hard to say. i just am very reluctant to declare a number at this time, because as i said -- >> certified, that's what i'm having a problem with, because you don't want to give a number. it's between 16 and 160, but if you actually de-certify people, there would be a number.

>> and i just -- in terms of the number de-certified, it's, you know, part of this entire program. so i just am reluctant to -- you know, to get a sense for where we stand right now in an ongoing investigation. >> follow up. how many of these teams are there? i mean, you're talking about an 11 person team. how many teams are there in this unit? >> there are five different shifts that operate. so -- so there are five of those teams that operate in shift work, and you know, we essentially do 24-7 training there on -- on a shift work basis. >> this is the universe that you're looking at? >> well, we're looking across the entire program. so we'll start there. that's where our concern is most acute right now. we'll make sure that we have taken a look at the entire program to ensure we bound this. >> admiral, thank you. and if there's any follow up questions just please press the navy news desk or e-mail me. thank you, very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] coming up on c-span, e-house panel examines the u.s. marijuana policy.

we will continue the conversation on marijuana on "washington journal." we will talk about first responder training and technology. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern. congressional budget office director will be on capitol hill this morning to talk about the latest cbo report. he is expected to take questions on the federal deficit and the effect the health care law could have on the number of full-time workers. live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. you can also join the question on facebook and twitter. 3, the irs commissioner will testify before congress for the first time since taking office. an update on some of the ongoing irs investigations. live coverage starts at 9:30 eastern.

>> the new c-span.org website makes it easy for you to find and watch all of c-span's official coverage of washington. look for it on our homepage. you will find comprehensive coverage of house and senate debates, committee hearings, events with the president and members of his kong -- cabinet. plus selected supreme court oral arguments and appearance by the justices. watch live or on your own schedule. ,ederal focus on c-span.org making it easy to keep tabs on what is happening in congress, the white house, and the courts. moment, a white house official with the national drug policy office testifies about

the marijuana policy. this hearing is about one hour and 45 minutes. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. mittee on government operations of the government oversight reform committee to

order. welcome, everyone. sorry for our late start. we did have votes that delayed the beginning of this hearing but we will go ahead and proceed and let me just cite first the order of business as we'll hear from statements from members as they return from votes or through unanimous consent. we will also include their statements in the record. we will -- we have one witness today, mr. obamichael botticellf national drug control policy who's joining us. we'll hear from that witness and then members will be able to question the witness. so, usually the chair gets a couple of extra minutes and introductory statements for launching the hearing and i'll

go ahead and get started as we have other members join us. i see our ranking member of the full committee joined us. i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that our colleague from oregon be permitted to participate and without objection so ordered. and our normal procedure -- i think we have several other members joining us. we'll ask unanimous consent to have them join us, too. we'll go through the committee members and then defer to you both in the opening statements and questioning. so again as members return we'll begin that process. mr. issa likes us to remind folks why we are here, why we do what we do and our mission statement which is simple. taxpayers sent us here to

oversee taxpayer dollars, programs, how they're expended. congress both authorizes and appropriates laws but it's the oversight function is extremely important and it keeps us focused on our responsibility to making certain that programs work, that taxpayer dollars are wisely spent, that washington and the people who represent the hard working americans who do have, again, accountability of their government, so it's an important responsibility. today, the focus of today's hearing is really going to focus on where we are on some of our federal drug laws, policy and enforcement. as most of you know, there's a growing disparity between what our laws say at the federal

level, now our laws at the local and state level, complete opposites in some cases. and various officials from the president of the united states to administration officials going in different direction on the question of legalization of marijuana. as most of you also know, 20 states, the district of columbia, have taken steps to legalize marijuana for medical purposes and 2012 colorado and washington legalized marijuana at 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 federal statutes and these are

actually the federal statutes title 21 and that sets up a schedule and it classifies substances and sets really the highest level of narcotics that are under federal jurisdiction and the responsibility of enforcement. so, this is the federal law and that's where we are at this point. what's taken place is, again, these states have taken actions and localities -- excuse me. this washington crud is -- let me have a little drink here. is something that comes with the cold weather. but again, we've heard what the

law is. we have seen what states are doing. and unfortunately, there's chaos as it -- as it relates to where we're going and what our policy is as far as what's allowed, what's legalized and now enforcement's going to react. to compound this, in our society, we all look to the president for leadership, regardless of what party he is, and the current president has made some statements of late. in fact, just a few days ago, president obama said, i'll quote. i don't think it's more dangerous than alcohol, referring to marijuana. and then he said, it's important that -- it's important for it to go forward because it's

important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have all at one time or another broken the law and only a few select people get punished. that was a statement by the president of the united states in regard to legalization. so, again, you have growing -- i call it schizophrenic approach to what's going on and where we are and where we may go. same time, the president of the united states, our chief executive is making that statement. you have -- i have an article from "washington post" and the dea operations chief of the drug enforcement administration called the legalization of marijuana at the state level reckless and irresponsible and will have severe consequences.

and then it's also interesting to see the path that the administration is also heading down. this is another article i just came across and it said that the department of justice is now looking at releasing low level -- lower level drug criminals who were sentenced under tough laws. in fact, this article and i'll quote it. it says, in an unprecedented move the deputy attorney general james c. cole asked defense lawyers on thursday to help the government locate prisoners and encouraged them to apply for clemency. clemency is part of the obama administration to deal with changes, again, in law. and again, we have an approach that is very fractured between federal, state and local agencies and officials as you can hear from what i just said.

the witness that we have before us is actually under the office of national drug control policy. it was set there some years ago as part of the white house to help coordinate, again, national policy on drug use and abuse. and in spite of the federal prohibitions on marijuana, the department of justice has issued a policy memorandum that explicitly declines to enforce marijuana laws in state that is have legalized it for recreational use. in fact, illegal marijuana dispensaries in colorado and washington are facing the realities of operating outside the federal law and the department of justice recently announced they'll be issuing guidance that will allow federally regulated banks to

serve these illegal businesses. the department of justice and let me say, too, today we are only going to hear from ondcp but i plan to try to have a continuum of dialogue on where we are going with this with -- we invited the department of justice. they declined. wanted a little bit more time. we'll give them the time and then have them in. i'd like to also have dea and other agencies and then hear from some of those that have worked in the field of trying to help both the country and our citizens and youth deal with the illegal narcotics questions so we'll get representatives of some various groups and might recall for the benefit of my colleagues, i chaired the criminal justice drug policy subcommittee from i think it was '98 to 2001, and held a very first hearings ever held in

congress on the subject of marijuana and saying that we'd also invite i think it's normal and some of the other folks to participate in the discussions of where we're going. so, the other thing that we have to consider today is that about $25 billion was provided for drug control programs, that's $25 billion in fiscal 2012 enforcement and the whole host of other activities. 10.1 billion or about 40% was provided for prevention and treatment programs. so we have a big financial stake in some of these programs and where we are going. in fact, 15 federal agencies administer 76 programs aimed at drug abuse and prevention. despite the illicit drug use, despite all that, illicit drug

use is, in fact, increasing with our adolescents and marijuana currently accounts for 80% of illicit drug use by our adolescents. i think these are probably the most recent statistics, usually some of these fall more than a year behind. but the 2011, the latest statistics we have, show that adolescent use of marijuana was the highest it's been in eight years. and first time users of marijuana have, unfortunately, increased under this administration hitting also in 2011 most recent data a ten-year high. maybe that's not a good term to use on this but add les ept uol of marijuana is associated with increased drug dependence, criminal activity and even, again, the more potent marijuana that we have on the market today

with affecting the iq and also possibly the genetic makeup of folks. ondcp and we'll have a representative to speak for themselves today in that department today is consistently worked to reduce the prevalence of marijuana use and focus on evidence based prevention messaging. and in 2013, the national drug control strategy, the president's message to congress, and he gives us a message with that title every year said and let me yoet from it. the importance of prevention is becoming ever more apparent despite positive trends in other areas, we continue to see elevated rates of marijuana use among young people, likely driven by declines in perception of risk. that's what the document, the official document that was sent to us said. so given the recent statements

to the media in the past couple of weeks claiming marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, it appears, unfortunately, the president may, in fact, be a major contributor now to some of the declines we see in the perception of risk and what we're going to see in the future. so, again, our hearing today will focus on our major agency dealing with this. the office of drug control policy. hearing statements and hopefully some idea of where we're going. i have a number of questions and we have a lot of -- we have a lot of interest from members on both sides of the aisle to find out what direction the administration and our federal laws are heading in the future on the question of marijuana use and legalization. with that, i'm pleased to welcome with perfect timing our -- and we do have the full committee ranking member but our

ranking member of the subcommittee is mr. connolly, gentleman from virginia. you are recognized in whatever order you wish to proceed. >> mr. chairman, thank you. but certainly as a courtesy, i defer to mr. cummings, the ranking member of the full committee if he has a statement. >> thank you very much, mr. connolly and to you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you both for holding this hearing. and you're absolutely right, mr. chairman. this is a very complex and difficult issue. i want to also thank deputy director botticelli for testifying before the subcommittee. this is also quickly changing issue. and the positions of conservatives and progressives alike are evolving as we learn from experiences of states with legalization initiatives.

according to a gallup poll taken in october, 58% of the american 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 conditions. and in 2012, colorado and washington chose to legalize, tax and regulate limited amounts of marijuana for recreational use. i believe the purpose of today's hearing is worthwhile. to review the position of federal agencies with respect to state that is are legalizing marijuana, both for medicinal purposes and recreational uses. the office of national drug control policy serves at a very critical role in balancing our nation's drug control efforts by koord natding government-wide

initiatives that address drug use and its consequences in our communities. in addition, the department of justice is charged with enforcing the federal controlled substances act and at issue, guidance to prosecutors in august on marijuana enforcement. mr. chairman, i'm thankful that ondcp is here today but as you know i believe this hearing would have been more informative with the justice department at the table. i know our office has worked together to try to find a mutually acceptable date and your decision to move forward today with ondcp today alone is not your prerogative. i hope we can continue to work together in a bipartisan way as we have in the past to get viewpoints 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 their lungs and their hearts and it results in a wide range of negative health effects. apart from health concerns, however, i also have serious questions about the dispart impact of the federal government's enforcement policies on minorities. after reviewing the fbi uniform crime reports, and state databases on -- one article found, and i quote, police arrest blacks for marijuana possession at a higher rate than whites in every state and nearly every city and county despite the two races using marijuana at equal rates. my home state of maryland has

similar disparities in enforcement. in october, the american civil liberties union issued a report finding that, and i quote, police arrest blacks for marijuana possession at higher rates than whites in every county in maryland. end of quote. accounting for 58% of arrests for marijuana possession. these disparities have a real impact on people's lives, their families and their communities. and arrests for even a smallest amount of marijuana can disqual fay person from public housing, education and employment for life. these are the exact opportunities that so many low-income individuals need to lift themselves out of poverty. i think the president was exactly right when he said last week, middle class kids don't get locked up for smoking pot. poor kids do. african-american kids and latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the

resources and support to avoid unduly harsh penalties and i would add to that records, criminal records that remain with them for lifetime. for these reasons, maryland has chosen to decrease penalties to 90 days for possession of marijuana in small amounts. it also required course of defendant's use of medical marijuana as an affirmative defense and it permitted research on medical marijuana. but sherman, i previously served as ranking member of committee and i understand that there are various components to this debate. one thing does concern me greatly. how in some states one can purchase marijuana and the people in my state and in my district are getting arrested and serving sentences and it

just seems to me there's something not right about that. i hope you will address that, mr. botticelli. it's serious consequences. one thing when you have equal enforcement but it's another thing when some people are engaged in 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 at those

folks who have an oepiate disorder, they will often tell you and you will see they started with early tobacco, early alcohol and early marijuana use. >> but mr. botticelli, that's a logical fallacy, that's true but that begs the question that millions of americans, 4 50 million, have used marijuana and didn't go on to other drugs. we have to desegregate the addictive personality from the recreational occasional user. i mean nothing norm tif by this. i said in my opening statement, i'm a child of the '60s and leery of legalizing any drugs. i've seen the damage. but i want us to be basing fact on the matter is the war of drugs doesn't look like it work very well in public opinion and demand.

whereas other campaigns that are voluntary. actually have worked. so maybe we could learn something from that as opposed to incarcerating, especially minority populations in this country and that doesn't seem to work either and doesn't seem to reduce demand. >> representative connolly, i think just focusing on marijuana as a gate way drug, obviates the total harms associated with substance -- we know many people have used alcohol and get into problems and don't have an aaddictive disorder. the same is true with marijuana, we know about one in nine people who use marijuana go on to develop a dependency, but we also know there are health consequences associated with marijuana use in general and particularly with young adults. again, national institute of drug abuse has shown that youth brain is in development up until 25 years of age.

and that regular substance use, including marijuana use, can have significant long-term effects. we're not talking about folks at gate way to other drugs, but we're talking about just marijuana use in general. i think you really have to look at not just those people who go on to develop addictive disorders, yes we need to be concerned about that, but you have to look at the totality of harm and think about the number of people who use marijuana and get in fatal car accidents. they may not have an addictive disorder but their marijuana use had significant health consequences for them. >> my time is long up, i thank the chairperson, i would just say though, the problem with that logic is it takes us exactly where we are today. it fills up our prisons and even when it's really a small amount of possession and where the effect is treats somebody no different if they did a violent crime. those inequities in the prison system are the consequence of

treating marijuana the way you just described today. >> under this administration we've really tried to move away from the war on drugs and arresting and incarcerating. this is where we believe tlsz a third -- there's a balanced approach here, not legalization that has the attendant health consequences to it and not a war on drugs approach, but looking at dealing with this as a public health related issue and utilizing criminal justice reforms to make sure we're not arresting and incarcerating. our policy really, our position really focuses on that middle ground in terms of both innovative criminal justice reforms in dealing with this as a public health related issue. >> wish mr. cummings -- let me yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. >> thank you very much, director. i think you've partially

answered questions because as we continue this discussion could you refresh for me just what the purpose and mission of the office of drug control policy is? >> sure. again, we established by congress in 1988. with the authority of really setting at administration's national drug control strategy, we produced that strategy and sent it to congress every year. and it really is a blue print, interagency blue print for how, one, the administration is going to handle the drug related issues and really looking at this whole of government approach to how we're dealing. each agency has a role to play as well as looking at their budgets and making sure that they are aligning their budgets with those drug control strategy. so it sets the administration's drug control policy and looks at strategic priorities and looks at interagency cooperation and interagency action as it relates

to how they are going to implement those drug control strategies. >> do you make recommendations to agencies and to congress and to the public in general? >> the express purpose of our strategy is really to look at how the federal government is going to respond and what is our policy. what is our policy related and how other agencies align their work with those policies. >> we've just heard a great deal of discussion relative to disparities among population groups relative to arrests and the judicial process. would the -- would the agency have any position on any of that

or would it have any recommendations based upon what we've just heard about disparities and arrests and judicial process? >> sure, you know, when you look at our strategy and this was set in the original 2009 obama administration strategy, again, it really focuses on a wide variety of criminal justice reforms to look at that, about how we make sure that we're diverting people from the criminal justice system. one of the things that we've been really promoting again with the bureau of justice assistance is the expansion of drug courts in the united states. so we now have 2700 drug courts in the united states that are diverting people away from incarceration and giving them treatment along with the accountability of those issues. we have also been focusing on things like diminishing the barriers for people to get jobs. we've also been focusing on

smart probation efforts. we have been trying to implement a wide variety of innovative criminal justice programs that really look at moving people away from the criminal justice system. the other piece is looking at the public health strategies of prevention and early intervention. the goal of those is to not only intervene early but really minimize the chances that people are going to intersect with the criminal justice system. you know, often we have not dealt with these issues early and so we want to make sure we're preventing those issues from happening. that's been part of our policy position in terms of how do we come up with alternatives to incarceration, particularly for folks with substance use disorders. >> would you see legalization perhaps as an asset in terms of reduction of drug courts?

>> again, i don't see that. we don't see that as an effect when we look at legalization. again, i think that our concerns around legalization is that we'll see an increase in problematic use and might neat more drug courts if we move down the legalization pathway to do that. i don't think it diminishes the need for those kind of services and might have actually an opposite effect in terms of greater impact and need both within the treatment system and our criminal justice programs like drug courts. >> thank you very much, i yield back. >> let me yield now to mr. blumenauer. >> i found the discussion to be very useful, you're highlighting a wide range of issues on people's mind. how many marijuana overdose

deaths were there in the most recent year we've had available? >> to my knowledge i don't no if there have been instances of specific overdose. >> you talked about marijuana deaths, i want to be clear, not trying to trap you, how many marijuana deaths have there been in the last five years? >> so if you're referring to overdoses, and i'm not sure of those numbers. if you're referring -- >> i would like to have you supply us with how many overdose deaths there were because i have heard from experts that judgment i respect, that they don't know of any. that would be really important to provide at least to me, if not the committee. >> what is more dangerous and addictive, meth a.m. met means and cocaine or marijuana? >> you know, i don't think anyone would dispute the fact

that there's relative toxicity related to those drugs. >> i asked what's more dangerous and what is more addictive. >> cocaine and meth or marijuana? pretty simple. >> i think that conversation minimizes the harm -- >> i'm not trying to minimize the harm. i want to know which is more dangerous and addictive? >> you know, again, i go back -- >> you don't know. >> as public health person, one of the things that we look at is not what's the relative risk of one drug -- >> let me just say that i think that you're ee quif indication right there, being unable to answer something clearly and definitively when there is unquestioned evidence to the contrary is why young people don't believe the propaganda, why they think it's benign.

if a professional like you cannot answer clearly that meth is more dangerous than marijuana, have every kid on the street knows, which every parent knows, if you can't answer that, maybe that's why we're failing to educate people about the dangers. i don't want kids smoking marijuana, i agree with the chairman. but if the deputy director of the office of drug policy can't answer that question, how do you expect high school kids to take you seriously? >> so representative, i don't mind to be disrespectful and did mean to indicate that there is no -- there is not different degrees of toxicity associated with -- i. >> asked what was more dangerous and you couldn't answer it. i want to say that, you, sir, represent what's part of the problem. let me go further. >> that's exact lip not what i'm

saying. >> what kills more people, tobacco or marijuana? >> you know, there's been a fair amount of tobacco associated deaths. my challenge and reason i'm hesitating in answering the questions as it relates to relative risk, many times that conversation gets distorted and that there's no risk -- >> i'm not trying to trap you -- >> no, this is why i don't want to be disrespectful. >> let me suggest that your inability to answer whether tobacco or marijuana is more dangerous, again, is part of the problem. mr. connolly documented very clearly that we had been able to drop dramatically tobacco use. and it kills more people than marijuana if you don't know that. but we've been able to drop that without locking people up,

without arresting -- i think this administration has seen three to four million people arrested for marijuana since it's been in office. >> and yet we've been able to drop tobacco use without being coercive and we've been using fact based advertising and focused our efforts on things that matter rather than things that don't work. and i respectfully suggest that you and the department take a step back if you're concerned that somehow people think marijuana is benign. that part of the reason is that drug professionals can't communicate in ways that the rest of america does. i appreciate you're being here and i welcome any written follow-up to my questions. i'm not trying to trap you but

i'm very discouraged by your inability to answer questions. >> let me tell you this morning, i spent the bulk of my morning with a number of parents from across the country who are doing everything they can do to prevent drug use and particularly prescription drug use. and many of them whose kids have died of an overdose. i asked them, what more can the federal government be doing in terms of preventing substance use and preventing the tragedies. and they told me they cannot understand why states are moving to medical marijuana and legal marijuana. they cannot understand it becausethy understand from a very acute level, the message that legalization sends them. these are -- this is not from a bureaucrat in washington. these are from parents who struggle on a daily basis and have been devastated by addiction in their kids. they understand that -- they understand in a very dramatic and real way, that legalizing

marijuana since the absolute wrong message to our youth. >> the gentleman will recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> with all due respect, you should be listening to scientists. i understand the parents who are grieving because their child died of an overdose. they didn't overdose on marijuana. if you're listening to them rather than scientists. mr. botticelli, it may go back to a few good men, the movie, jack nickel son, you can't handle the truth. the drug war failed. your direction on marijuana is a failure. my young 22-year-old friend died of a heroin overdose. he smoked marijuana, probably the first thing he did, but that's not why he smoked heroin

or shot it up. maybe he did it because he heard people like you saying they are all bad and terrible, can't deal with the truth and tell him, maybe marijuana doesn't kill you and heroin does and meth does. until you deal with the truth, the kids aren't going to believe you at all. you talked about alcohol and may have gotten to this. sir rose sis of the liver, pretty serious thing. violence against spouses and women, people don't smoke marijuana and beat up their wives and girlfriends. they get drunk, sometimes they beat up their wives and girlfriends. and i know you've got your statistics and i would debate your statistics. your statistics about the amount of people with marijuana in their system in fatal accidents, i would submit they probably had other drugs like cocaine or crack in addition to the marijuana or alcohol and marijuana wasn't the cause. what i've understand is that

people who smoke marijuana, mostly drive slower and look out for cops. they don't drive fast and wild like people do on alcohol and cause deaths. maybe the reason there's so many more people smoking marijuana now because they are not listening and maybe they are doing the other drugs too. it shows the drug war has been a failure, serious failure. harry ans linger -- >> i don't. >> you should. he's your great grandfather, he started this war in the '30s and he did it to get the american public had problems and sometimes i think we still got them with hispanics and mexicans coming into this country. and it was a war on hispanics and african-americans and that's when they made marijuana illegal was in the '30s and all directed ought those people. and latinos are just as much discriminated against as

african-americans. it still continues to this day and 85 years since he started this. the fact we've spent so much time arresting people is simple. you talked about the overall effects of marijuana. again, you can't name one person who has died from an overdose of marijuana, can you? >> not to my knowledge. >> right. you say the cumulative effects, do ut know people possibly or heard of people who smoke marijuana who are corporate giants, run banks, run major corporations, do you know about these people? >> yes, but i also know an equal number of people, substantial number of people who also have gone on to develop significant disorlds who have smoked marijuana. one in nine people who try marijuana, develop a dependency and we know that particularly those kids who use it earlier in their --

>> kids shouldn't use it ever. age 18, people shouldn't be arrested for it. maybe it should be 21. but kids shouldn't use it. that's something we all degree on. but the fact is, we need to put our priorities toward heroin and meth. what percentage of your budget goes towards heroin addictions? >> i don't think we necessarily slice our budget, our demand reduks budget based on drugs. our prevent efforts are focused on preventing drug use, of -- >> isn't that a mistake when people die from her o inwith great numbers and the vermont governor spends his entire state of the state on heroin use and we don't distinguish and try to save people's lives? that's when you knock people over at the corner store, not to get money to buy a doughnut because you're high, it's to buy heroin because you're hooked. that causes people to die. >> our office in 2011

acknowledged the epidemic we have in the united states. in 2011 we released a plan that looks at dealing with prescription drug abuse and oepiate issues. >> my time is about to run out. i compounded in 2011 with your predecessor. >> kru la could you xi. >> he said there was no particular -- they haven't found any medical use to date however the fda not found smoke and marijuana to be a safe and effective for any condition. i think that medical association -- are you not aware of people who smoke through marijuana to get through cancer treatment and nausea? >> i do. it's never been our position to arrest people who have been using medical marijuana. i think it's important for us age, again, the fda is not here,

fz the fda process that determines the scientific efficacy. >> couldn't you try to influence it? i had a buddy who a buddy that seal. he died of cancer. he smoked marijuana at the end. our role in this is to rely on the scientist process to determine. i would say and i mind it unfortunate to invite the director of the national institute on drug abuse. we are a science becauased offif you ask her, she will lay out for you the scientific evidence. >> you are prohibited by law and

you are the only office that is restricted in that way and required to oppose schedule iin purpose ps for approval. aren't you troubled by this? >> sir, i'm not familiar. congress put that language in our reauthorization and i'm actually not, i don't know the background of that. >> would you support legislation to use science as a basis for your determination. i would support federal agencies that allow you to do that. >> yours is prohibited by law. >> you think you should be muzzled? >> i think that it is important that our office not involve

itself in terms of giving legislation or activities. that the office not involve itself in state -- >> but the totality of the drug world you need to participate. if you realize that medical marijuana can help people with cancer or ghcla glaucoma, your d be to have a sane policy not to be handcuffed. in 1971 congress created a commission to study federal marijuana policy.

sir, i would be happy to review that legislation. i would be happy to have a conversation in terms of what that would look like. we would have additional questions. some weren't able to attention. we'll be submitting to you some questions we'll ask for a written response. again, i think this is our first hearing. we may have a series. you have suggested additional sit ness and we are going to try to work with the minority.

it shows efforts on programs abuse under control. with that, i again, i appreciate your coming out today being part of this hearing. this hearing is adjourned. thank you mr. chairman. >> the house comes in at 10:00 eastern and is expected to finish work on a hunting and in

the -- fishing on public lands bill this afternoon. live house coverage on c-span. on c-span2 -- we just saw a florida congressman chaired a hearing about marijuana policy from yesterday. we will talk to the congressman later this hour on "washington journal." congressman donna edwards will discuss the latest cbo numbers on the deficit and the deadline on the debt limit. general oner surgeon the state of the latest research to improve survival rates from ied's and mass shooting incidents. we will also take your phone calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" begins shortly.

♪ >> good morning. costing 956 billion dollars cleared its final hurdle yesterday. the senate approved the legislation 68-32. the president is expected to sign the bill on friday. target apologizing for its security breach, promising to spend $100 million to improve technology. if you missed it, go to c-span.org. over at the white