you -- and they think they need to find a solution immediately. you're not going to get there unless they respect them. that's it in a nutshell. >> fascinating answer. thank you so much, doctor. steve hadley. >> i have to make a disclosure that i had the opportunity to have lunch with salim fayed, and i'd like to invite you to share a little bit of that conversation, and i realize there are some sensitive pieces to it. the reason i say that is because i think there's a lot of despair in the united states that the current situation in gaza can lead anywhere positive. and i think it's useful if you could share some thoughts about that both to give some hope but also to stimulate some thinking. and i'm thinking specifically some comments you made about the

kind of cease-fire that might allow both what the israelis want, which is the demilitarizization of hamas and what might allow hamas to get what it wants, which is the opening of the borders for flows of goods and services. you talked a little bit about that. what kind of arrangement might permit that. the role that the p.a. might play in that. and also, the issue of reconstruction of gaza and how that might be structured in such a way that actually could begin not just a reconstruction process but a reform process that could begin to do what you talked about, getting these institutions in a line between gaza and the west bank. i admit these are sensitive questions. i think what you said was very interesting and would be useful, and i would just simply invite you to share that portions that you're comfortable with. >> thank you very much. no, i would be extensive on those issues.

i think it's really important to place this in the right context in terms of how to deal with gaza and to begin to bring that into this course. as i said in my opening remarks, it's hard to use thinking in a time of crisis. but in this particular case, i think bringing that forward may help in facilitating an agreement on a cease-fire. people really start to get a sense of what happened afterwards. understanding divergence. take, for example, what you said about demilemilitarization of g. i'd said that would be a tall order now. gaza was not demilitarized even when he was there. minus the rockets, there was just about everything else. this is the reality. so for someone to come and say

hamas and gaza should be demilitarized as a condition for cease-fire, that really is setting the bar too high. death, injury, misery, epidemics, water and the power plant having been bombed and water stations and the rest of it is simply beyond -- and there is, you know, on the palestinian side, the legitimate demand and expectation for lifting the siege on gaza. one really needs to separate issues here. it's a key point. there was a lot of focus on rafa. i think it's important to really take rafa out of the discussion in terms of not completely out of the discussion but not to make the debate on access exclusively one of what to do about rafa. it's now an issue of egypt and

palestine. i think all along the idea -- i mean, post 2007. but since then, after 2007, it became exclusively a palestinian/egyptian issue. i think it's important. but even before -- and i think really sadly didn't happen, it should have happened before. you know, nobody really needs to get to an he saescalation like . it should have been dealt with before. and discussion between palestinians and egyptians. and the solution to it, even at time of separation, would have been to open it subject to it being run by the palestinian authority. something that really made sense, even at time of separation. it would have brought the p.a. back into gaza for the first time since june 2007. important. something to build on. it could have paved the way for

the government afterwards. but to begin with that something basic. something as basic as that, didn't happen. it should be approached this way. it should not mask the need for resolution, of access issues elsewhe elsewhere. for sure. but from our point of view as palestinians, opening gaza northward, connecting it with the best bank, is strategically a lot more important. it should be open. subject matter. focus on rafa and pushing gaza southward, if you will. or peace in the region, a two-state solution concept. something that requires

immediate attention. it didn't happen before. it should not be something about cease-fire or no cease-fire. cease-fire is absolutely necessary. and that discussion needs to begin. you know, egypt needs to say, you know, in order for my national security interests to be protected, the following arrangement should be respected. and i think palestinians would be more than willing to accommodate. the statelike structure of the palestinian side. and now that there is unity even though it's not deep enough and has not taken hold. regardless of what happens elsewhere. but then again, at this moment, what can happen to immediately change the landscape? history tells us that it takes time. you need to really secure the cease-fire. but you need to give people a sense of what is going to come later. short of demilitarization. and again, if you could everything, you'd have everything.

this is natural. this is what economics is about, after all. but you have to make choices. here is a proposition. you look at a situation where you're the state of israel demanding demilitarizization. i don't think that's really realistic. i don't think it's really in the cards. again, they were not able to achieve this even when they were in gaza itself. let's face it. what kind of nonaccepsense is t? that doesn't work. but short of that, what if there was serious consideration of a promise of a period of calm, calm, total commitment, by consensus, by everybody on the palestinian side. not the ultimate objective. we surely look forward to the state of palestine to be one that is based on co-existence

and total respect for agreements and renouncing violence and to assume nonbelligerence. including state of israel. but in the run-up to that. what if we say -- a long time with this in my pocket -- what if we could commit everybody on the -- that's not demilitari demilitarizati demilitarization. we need to really look at the situation. fortunate fortunately, it's not between good and bad. it's between better or worse. in this particular case, number one, the cease-fire. two, the promise of people. that's better than not having anything. but it gets things going. it requires a greater role for the palestinian authority.

not of the crime that's happened post-unification which has not happened. it's for ballistic, if you will, so far. what we really need is one that is inclusive. one that is seriously supported by the factions but one that can gain strength and presence possibly in a way that could make it an effective player. and remember, that was part of the thinking early on in terms of what the palestinian government was supposed to do, going back to the road map and in-power person of government. this is not a small issue. this is something that gives all four people to be included. and i prefer personally for it to be guilty of factions am themselves. this is a time of national crisis.

you know but doesn't require commitment? to unify, but at the same time to agree with israel and for a date certain on ending -- we can't really push on the domestic front with the international front. something like this i think would be necessary. >> thank you, doctor. jane harman. >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to see a dear friend in washington. >> thank you. >> really a pleasure. congratulations to the atlantic counsel for this enormous cow in getting our friend to join you. two things. first of all, everyone in this audience wishes you were still prime minister of the palestinian authority. i speak on behalf of everybody here. >> and dissenting voices, please be violent.

>> uh-huh. and we all remembered the two-year plan to improve so sfa. that is what my question's about. they've done a pretty good job of running the west bank. and ramallah is, and build settlements and other things that israel has done. is there a fact that given the arab neighborhood is not fond of hamas to use that story with their support to help build a coalition for enhancing the pa's role. something you've just suggested. as part of the solution which would include a cease-fire,

which would include an agreement for i would hope demilitarization of gaza. i understand that's a hard thing to do. but also an agreement for a version of a marshall plan to rebuild gaza and run gaza as part of -- as part of the demonstration program and hopef hopefully in the state of palesti palestine. are there more to find out how much it's earned in light of the governance of the west bank? >> when we say fees fire, agreement by whom? mainly hamas. but they're the ones calling the shots.

on the other side, who is really committing to this? and the fact that they've -- a difficult situation for me to watch doesn't have the formal presence in gaza, and that has been the case since 2007. without, you know, putting together an arrangement that is open to being more inclusive, being capable to act only, you though, again, i think it's really a question of choosing a it. what, you know, governance,

framework. procedures followed and something that made accepts to peop people. it's a most interesting area for consideration. and two, up with needs to keep into account that there are elections elections. i haven't said anything about the election so far, but it's important. moving toward having a democratic state. it militant, strong show values of open communication, what have you. we need to rebuild our political process. as this process moves on and the system begins to be opened up for more participation, grow the

base of participation, opening it up and then have elections at the point -- you know, if that happens, i think that is something that's a lot easier. given where we are, we need to somehow find a way. we need to improvise and find a way between now and then. because we're going to d-- you know, give right-of-way, someone el else. we have the ones on the front li lines. how to really approach this. think seriously about putting something that could enjoy

critical mass of support, adequate, just enough to enable it to begin to deliver, rebuild and implement policies that do all of these things and open the system, political system and then have elections. >> thank you very much. questions, please. >> good afternoon, sir. 22 years ago i was the staff author of a law that requires the state department to report on the rights of indinl nuss peoples around the world and its annual human rights reports. in terms of yl and t, there is . and if you use the term indigineity as used by the united states, it would force israel's neighbors to israel to

the area, but will they then recognize the palestinians having a right to their homeland. nerd, a nation state has viable. why isn't the question of indiginetity part of the new paradigms that need to be discussed in the future once the bloodshed dies down? >> you know, i've argued for something less than that. among other things, you know, going back to 1993, so-called declaration of mutual recogniti recognition. the pla -- plo. the right of the state of israel to exist in peace and security. that's what has not happened. what did not happen then and has not happened since was for therr

right, the palestinian's right to an independent state. that, i think, should be adequate, to really put the process in a more symmetrical path going forward. that, in some way, begins to address the deep sense of security. and impossibility and disillusionment. that's so prevalent on the palestinian side when they see -- the expansion of settlements and what all of that is doing. the settlement and the state of israel on the part of its rail in terms of the prospect country and -- you have a form of recognition of our right -- is this too much to ask for after all -- the right of the state of israel to exist in peace and security since 1993? contrary to conventional wisdom,

have you thought given the name of it, the declaration of mutual recognition, it recognizes the right for a palestinian state did not happen. for much of the period, much of the period, since 1996, governing coalition of israel, the platform of the partners were to say there is not very friendly to the concept of the solution. and so it is important for it to be that recognition. but i agree with that. you have that taken it beyond that. that's the basic requirement that's really needed. i wouldn't really take it to the next level in terms of what kind of state and in terms of the characterization and all that. let's make sure that the -- is adequate to carry out and move on. >> thank you. fred hoff, senior fellow here. you may want to add a sentence about the role you've played in

middle east peace. >> dr. fayad, you mentioned that a possible creative way forward in terms of all in terms of negotiations would be to set a date certain by which the occupation would come to an end. could you expand on what that actually means in terms of procedure and what would it look like when that date is arrived at? >> i think that adjustment is necessary, you know? also, by the way, not many people know this, also, it's time for conspicuously and curiously silent on the issue of palestinian sovereignty and state. it's presumed it was presumed when oslo agreed that this was what the outcome is going to be but you won't find any reference to palestinian state and

sovereignty in the documentation itself. very strange understanding is exactly opposite. and i think, again, that may have given the history and given the difficulty in getting people together to sign on to something and i wouldn't -- or take away anything from the huge significance of the signing on the white house lawn in september of 1993. that's very significant given the history. and i know many people that were there personally. very significant. to be fair to those engaged in the process, those who were actually involved and did it on the palestinian side, maybe, you know, at the time with thinking that this was was going to be a maximum of five years and you know, it was going to happen and justifies having gone it into it

but there's no justification for the possibility to go on with it without an adjustment that created t created the presumption of that which we palestinians would like to see happen and i would argue is equally as important to israelis. they require that, to be honest with you. when you're looking at the situation all of a sudden the flamework is flawed. there is examples in history where that happened. other cases where occupation or authority of settlement over it ended and, again, to invoke the first rule, the way hong kong was. in order to -- and over to china. it was supposed to happen within a certain time period and in 1997, clockwork, it happened. a lot of discussion and negotiation up to that. but the negotiations, you know,

should be about arrangements and assurances but not about principles. 20 years past oslo talk about whatever palestinians do have an inalienable right to live as free people with dignity in a country of their own as an express of their natural right to exercise a substantial life. we shouldn't be discussing this. it should be behind us. that's what's missing. so with the wars having come to an end we really need to define this. let's talk about one that's feasible. this is not to end negotiations. having agreed on this for ending the uk authority over hong kong did not preempt the need for negotiations with china and others who produce the outcome that was produced. but everybody knows what's prospect. you negotiate an arrangement, assurances, the principle of

solution are out there. there's enough in the body of international law as it existsable with various solutions of the united nations and that provide inner guidance so far as the solutions are concerned. but we can't really approach it in the way things are happening right now. this is, asymmetry in the framework right now between the occupying power and the occupied. and without presumption of an end to occupation that is enshrined in a binding agreement what this framework is telling the palestinians, go negotiate with israel for however lodge it takes and as long as you fail to agree -- meaning as long as you don't take what is an offer you have to accept the continued occupation, oppressive occupation. that's -- there's something wrong with this. that's you know what i'm really saying, needs to be fixed. so everything needs to be

assured about this. the palestinians and that, i think, could make a huge difference. the escalation, demille tearizatitea tearatitear -- demil demilitariation. and even if they went to them and said, we have a commitment. winding commitment and enshrined in the yes as a solution. this is one trip to new york i'd like to take. to end the occupation. negotiate, yes, we negotiate when the settler is -- but there's no -- you know, illusion as to what the outcome is going to be. the outcome cannot be continued occupation. exactly what is this incentive?

when you look at the framework and the huge imbalance, listen to what is said by cabinet officer after cabinet officer on the israeli said about the two-step solution including the words by prime minister himself. that something to the effect that he was right all along that he wanted -- that the scli people to know that he was right all along about them not being a possibility admissible possibility of israel relinqu h relinquishing control over jordan. what does that do to the conseventy of a two-state solution? so the rhetoric is out there and it's significant. what do you do to provide assurance? what do you do to begin to -- this is something that they'll really have to contend with. it's not a matter of choice. you know, there is -- the question of you know, a people

that is living under oppressive occupation, which it does not want, and you know, you can't continually vote on this forever. it's time for everybody to go up and approach it sensibly but to ensure that as we move forward, they are able to bring people along to carry, in other words. >> i'm going to ask you a final question because we've run out of time. it's off twitter from henson paris and i'll put in a different context as well. the question is can gaza in ruin and the west bank economically ailing could economic development hold the key to solution of the conflict? i'll also put it a different way. you predicted when you were prime minister we'd have a palestinian state by 2011. a lot of your approach is what people called unilateralism at the time. which was you were less interested in the symbolism of recognition of a palestinian state, the u.n., and more interested in what could get done on the ground. so take that question, but also,

lay on to this, when do you now predict there will be a palestinian state and what would you do unilaterally right now in the palestinian position to push this along? >> that was constructive unilateralism as opposed to something else called settlement activity and the rest of it. and i did not predict actually at the time the person what would happen in two years. what the program was about, specifically, you know, was inspired the motivated by political thinking. w45 i predicted and said we would be ready for was statehood. the program was about putting everyone on notice, similar to what we're saying today, in a way. put everyone on notice. free the palestinians. expect to be ready for a state in two years. that was meant to say, if we are

successful and somehow become ready, in the sense of being able to govern ourselves effectively and handle obligations responsibly and seen this way by the international community and, therefore, effectively answering the questions that were really put forward in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and all that. if we were able to do this and reduce this whole issue to occupation period, not occupation but the idea was that this was going to be strong enough to bring about the transformation necessary to settle the solution. what the problem wasbility inspiring ourselves to get ready for statehood in three years and tell the people beforehand. the idea was not to try to say, we took a test and passed it without announcement. but to preannounce the. that was an important part pof it. to go out and say and this is what we did in august of 2009,

two years we expect to be rae t ready for statehood. we actually said the same thing in a good way. we'll be ready. are you going to be ready for us? do the necessary things. you know, in a technical sense we succeeded because year and a half into this, we got the commission. recognition of the reality of this and it was -- people gave us the reality of state of palestine. april of 2011 was very significant date for us for the palestinians. very, very significant date. a year and a half into the adoptation of that program we got testimonials by relevant international institutions. and the united nations.

capable of delivering stap cards of countries that have been around for a long period of time and what's really most significant? it's too bad that it is not regenerated the information necessary on the political side. it's relevant today. that process of transfar maorma is needed. in order to bridge that gap between the maximum for israel and the minimum acceptable to us, that needs to be allowed to evolve and to emerge. it's not going to really happen to anybody or for anybody. it's going to be in the interest of everyone. it certainly would be -- the palestinians have been so desperate looking to be able to learn with dignity and freedom of country and that's really what this is fundamentally about

and that's something that required building and fluid and serious transformation. that's what this is about. >> thank you. there are so many more questions in the audience and i'm sorry we haven't got time to get to them. let me just close by saying, first of all, the text of his full statement will be available out in the foyer and also, online at atlantic council.org. secondarily, let me quote my friend tom friedman one more time in the article he wrote when you resigned as prime minister. he essentially said to the palestinians, had messages to various people from -- in his excellent column. people may want to look at because but he said if there's no place, quote, if there's no place for a solemn fayad type of leadership and independent palestine will forever allude you. i think we heard today in these

comments why tom wrote that and i think a lot of us in this room and perhaps, jane harmon is right. all of us in this room may agree with that. thank you so much for your service and joining the atlantic council. we're delighted that we can work what you. and best of luck to you and your people in the region. thank you. >> thank you.

>> in a few moments -- >> sunday, ron paul has written more than a dozen books on politics and history. conversation as he takes your calls and tweets. watch more next week while congress is in recess. book tv in prime time. covering book fairs and festivals from around the country. now a hearing on how

transportation sid safety is affected by marijuana users. it focused on how to test for marijuana use and the challenges in creating a federal standard for driving under the influence of recreational drugs. this is two hours. good morning. i would like to welcome everyone to the committee on government oursight and reform, and summit -- subcommittee hearing this morning on government operations. welcome, my ranking member mr. connolly. is title of today's hearing planes, trains, and auto bills -- automobiles, operating while stone.

this is the subject of the impact of changing laws and increasing use of marijuana in our society. our subcommittee in particular has jurisdiction, and part of our charter is the difference between federal and state laws, and the relationships and issues that deal with federal, state issues. certainly, in our most recent history there has been nothing that has provided a greater difference in current federal andutes and changing state local statutes then marijuana issues. it is an important matter.

i see we have mr. fleming. i don't believe he is a member of the committee. we will ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to participate in today's proceedings. and, other members who may join us. there are conferences going on around the hill. with that, after the opening statements, we will -- we have four witnesses. we will hear from them. we will withhold questions until we have heard from our panelists and get to introduce and swear you in. let me begin. again, we have an important responsibility to look at changing laws.

this subcommittee is investigating the federal response to state and local government legalization and change of laws relating to marijuana and examining the administration's sometimes chaotic and inconsistent policies on marijuana. sincef our proceedings the beginning of the year have been based on a statement the president made. he said marijuana was not much and went than alcohol, brought in the national drug control policy who differed with the president's statement. we looked at that issued. then we heard from the law enforcement agencies, the dea, they disagreed with that statement. then we solve the conflict in colorado and other states, the department of justice issued

guidelines and statements relating to enforcement. the u.s. attorney from colorado who testified about some problems, we heard from other agencies as we were doing other hearings, the district of columbia changed its law. theession, tampering down fine to $25 for one ounce of marijuana. iowa's traded by fellow -- , it wasup a joint designed to illustrate that you can have 28 of those joints now in the district and that would be the result, $25 fine. i held out in the other hand a thatof 26 federal agencies

were charged with enforcing conflicting federal law and created a delimiter. .- and created a dilemma today is important. having shared transportation, you see the results of the devastation. on our highways, probably in the last dozen years we have had a quarter of a million americans slaughtered on highways. we have gotten it down. did 40,000.ng that is the talent he's. half of those totality's are related of those fatalities

are from alcohol or drugs. marijuana is still a schedule .ne narcotic, and more potent we are going to have more people stoned on the highway. there will be consequences. , and have federal agencies we would hear from the department of transportation to see how they will deal with those. vehicles, commercial vehicles, and i don't know if we can get some of those charges to see the devastation, but the photos, aviation is another area. we having gotten into commercial. we will talk about that. these are civil aircraft.

every one of these were involved with people impaired. the way we find out now if they bye impaired wise in fact testing the corpse blood. this are some are the results we have seen. the worst train incident we have , keep recent memory flipping that. this is the metrolink. 25 people killed. the engineer was impaired on marijuana. again.iles, i think we have one on automobiles. there are thousands of accidents marijuana, a deadly

combination of marijuana and other drugs taking lives. there are consequences to what is being done in our society. to focus the aspect of not only the number of also thosems, but who are the most vulnerable in this whole process. right now, listen to this. number of000 10 the crash victims of marijuana has jumped from 4% to 12%. that is as this has been kicking in. furthermore, the incidence of alcohol and marijuana is now 24 times more likely to cause an accident than a sober person.

27% of the studies, seriously injured divers tested positive for marijuana. my major concern is the impact on the most vulnerable in our society. the trend is most troubling for our young drivers. most recently 1/8 grade school seniorsigh school admitted to driving after marijuana. 16% of drivers under age 21 years old tested positive for drugs, whereas only 7% of the same drivers tested positive for alcohol. as drunk driving for talladega

atallities have tripled, that slaughter on the highways is impacting no other group as much , and thoseg people under age 20 five years old. as much as 14% of fatal or tested positive for thc. don't have to have data to understand the full scope of the problem. data collection policies are generally testing only with fatalitiesh . traditional field testing is not

identify andive to remove intoxicated drivers from the road. we have no standard test for marijuana for drivers. there is no standard test. federal standards since notof t h c, the federal level any level of thc is illegal, a schedule one narcotic, and supposedly zero tolerance. currently there is no roadside breathalyzer for marijuana. technology is advancing. some have started to use a roadside oral test. this is one of those testing machines. europe.ed in

--takes a swab of to swab the panelists. i thought i would not do that today. you can take a swab with this. it can tell you if anyone has used marijuana within 4 hours. we have no standard or acceptable test. we have no way of telling if people are impaired. most data we are getting right now is from the fatalities. to either have to take them a hospital for a blood or urine the worst situation is where we test their blood. in the past 10 years marijuana

was a factor in the 50 accidents. i show the civil aviation. i haven't even shown what happened in the commercial market. we have 23 states with medical marijuana use, and 2 states who have not done most barriers. knocked down most barriers. the national transportation investigatedhas the different accidents and thc in at the use of number of these accidents, but all of their testing is done after the fact and usually,

where a fatality is involved. the witnesses today will tell us what if anything the federal government is doing to combat drug impaired operation of any transportation. we have a host of notes the federal government takes responsibility over, the hay cars, simple passenger commercial the goals, cargo, , and passenger and cargo of course aviation, civil and commercial. we will hear from christopher hart from the national transportation safety board, jeff michael from the national highway traffic safety kellystration, patrice from the department of transportation office of drug and alcohol policy compliance, flagel of thed

substance abuse and mental health administration. i look forward to today's further and continuing discussions on the issue that has a great impact on all of us rankingd to the member. >> thank you for holding the hearing. i am going to focus in on the automobile. this hearing addresses an aspect of marijuana policy where i believe there is general agreement over the desired outcome, reducing the incidence of vehicle accidents from driving while under the influence of any drugs. across the political spectrum there is widespread opposition while underdriving

the influence. agree ite can all remains a national challenge. according to the national survey on drug and health, drug use and health, 10.3 million people have admitted to driving while under the influence of illicit drugs in the past year. in 2010,eport that 2228 people were killed and now called related crashes, 31% of all traffic related deaths in the united states. the statistics are alarming in on acceptable. our nation must continue reducing the incidence of any drug impaired deaths. a key component will be improving our knowledge base through better data and research . with respect to the folks on

today's hearing there has been limited research conducted by the federal government usagesing the marijuana and driving safely. thc hasfrom the -- dose-related impairment and fax -- fx. e impairment is not acceptable produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. marijuana intoxication is short-lived. peak acute effects following cannabis inhalation are achieved within 10-30 minutes with the effects dissipating quickly after an hour. drivers retain

influence over their performance and will compensate. as a consequence thc's adverse effects appear relatively small. meanwhile the national transportation safety board held a public forum to discuss the most effective data driven science-based actions to reduce access resulting from substance impaired driving. a safetyit released report entitled reaching 0, actions to eliminate alcohol impaired driving in which he reiterated a recommendation to common a common standard of practice for toxicology testing. hasntific analysis standardize the use of a rep alcoholre to determine intoxication. he states beginning to implement marijuana decriminalization must

act swiftly to address the fact there is no legal limit set for driving under the influence as there is with alcohol. field sobriety tests may be accurate and effective at did testing -- at detecting impairment. consumedparticipants -- there is a strong correlation between cannabis those received and whether impairment was judged to be present. notoarse, anecdotes must substitute for rigorous scientific data. that is why we must support further research to inform the development of an effective public safety publishing -- policy. my friend and i had a discussion with one of our hearings, and we agree that has to be the basis for moving forward. in science.

we need more of it. i concern over the ineffectiveness of our federal policy of marijuana prohibition is no more of an endorsement of userecreational purposes that opposing prohibition of alcohol is an endorsement for drunk driving. the discouraging inappropriate use of drugs need not involve total prohibition and criminalization. governsral government best when it listens and learns from our states, which are the laboratories of democracy. those dates are undergoing a great experiment with respect to the subject. we need to learn from their experience and hopefully emulate them and regulations and policies in the future that address use, appropriate use, medicinal purposes, and the issue of criminalization.

thank you mr. chairman. >> i think the gentleman to recognize mr. fleming. >> thank you. i would like to thank the a and others for allowing me to participate in today's hearing. i would like to thank the chairman for having this hearing that are so vital and important. it took centuries about all and our culture, and a new organization, mothers against drunk driving, to realize that we were losing americans wholesale by the tens of thousands as a result of driving under the influence about cuyahoga. it took us 400 years to figure out that tobacco was similarly killing tens of thousands of americans every year. the early 1960's,

there were commercials in which doctors were recommending certain types of cigarettes saying it was good for your throat. i worry we are not in the same situation in this case when it comes to marijuana. drunk driving is a serious problem according to statistics in the 2012 survey on drug use and health about 10.3 million people reported driving while under the influence of an illegal drug. marijuana's active ingredient is the most common drug found in drivers and crash victims alike. studies indicate between 4-14% of drivers involved in accidents had thc in their system. a driver'secreases response time, awareness, and

perception of time and speed, which are necessary for safe driving. another concern is the combination of drugs and alcohol . whenever you hear this debate you often hear that marijuana is itocuous to begin with and is either or. either someone smokes marijuana or they drink out of. that is not the way it works. individuals who drive under the influence of marijuana have little inhibition for drinking beer and alcohol and other substances as well. smoking a joint or whatever it takes to get high or feel-good. the rocky mount high intensity drug trafficking area, which works with the white house national drug control strategy is collecting data on the impact of colorado's legalization of marijuana. the report indicated in 2000 six colorado drivers testing positive for marijuana were

involved in 28 percent of fatal drug-related vehicle crashes. 56% bymber increased to 2011. understand the in states that are decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana, certainly ida, as marijuana is destigmatize, as a threat to use is reduced, use goes up and it finds its ways into homes, candies, cookies. one thing gets there, it finds its way into the brains of teens. we know from statistics it has a 9% addiction rate among adults. those who start as teens, the rate doubles to 1-6. it is important

this year's report is also very alarming. using data from the national highway safety administration , thislent he analysis year's report due out in october was show that between 20's -- 2007-2012 while the overall traffic for tallies decrease by 15%, over that same time, mayor wire related for tallies increased 100%. earlier this year the university of colorado released a study confirming that colorado drivers are testing positive for .arijuana there's no hard and fast way to determine whether an individual is driving under the influence and it is yet to be established a uniform amount of marijuana which cost to dudes -- which

constitutes drunk driving. that is very important because in the case about the hall, when you arrest someone and they have not been in an accident, you just got them under the influence, with so many episodes that personnd, loses their license and they are taken off the road. that is not happening with marijuana. we don't have a way to do that yet. all driving under the influence is unquestionably a problem, it is concerning that pot smoking youth may have trouble finding a job. true in thelly transportation arena. the u.s. department of transportation requires mandatory drug testing on pilots, air traffic controllers, railroad employees and commercial drivers. that can include buses, 18 wheelers. cdlhing that requires a license. these individuals are responsible for numerous lives and it's critical that they are and remain drug-free.

moreuana will also become pervasive as states continue to embrace permissible laws on medical marijuana and the recreational use of marijuana and kids and youth will have easier access to a dangerous, a deep drug. and back to the medicinal there's no reason why we can't use components of marijuana for disease treatment. right now we already have a schedule three that can be used under monitoring and observation physicians closely monitoring the dosage prescribed, and it can be done safely, just like hydrocodone. it has the same activity and benefit that the plant marijuana has. it is a synthetic thc. we have that already. thereis some claim that

are oil extracts of cannabis that can be used to treat certain rare seizures in children. has little or no thc activity. there's no reason why that -- and it's under fast-track fda approval right now -- there's no reason why that can be taken out as well. but there is no reason to the schedule or make legal marijuana which is now scheduled one for those purposes. all of those things can be done without reducing the schedule or to legalize marijuana plant itself. it's no surprise to you or opposed to that i am the legalization of marijuana. what is surprising is the new york times editorial board is fully supportive of the legalization of marijuana. i have two response pieces to the new york times that i would like to submit for the record. one from the white house office of national drug control policy,

by another opinion piece peter wiener published in the wall street journal on tuesday. legalization is not the answer, nor is it a prudent decision for america. marijuana remains a dangerous, highly addictive drug, even science will tell you that. >> without objection, both of those articles -- statements will be made part of the record. there being no further opening statement, members have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. now let me proceed and recognize our first panel. the first panel consists of christopher hart, the active chairman of the national transportation safety board. mr. jeff michael is the administrator for research and program development of the national highway traffic safety administration. ms. patrice kelly is acting

director for the office of drug and alcohol policy and compliance at the department of transportation, and mr. ron fleagle is the director for the division of workplace programs at the center for substance at theevenge and substance abuse and mental health administration. i welcome all of our panelists. this is an investigative and oversight subcommittee of congress. of ourwear and all witnesses. if you will stand please, raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee of congress is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? all of the witnesses -- the record will reflect, answered in the affirmative. welcome again. ms. information on a

statistic and i didn't realize it until after i said it. i want to clarify that for the record. i said nearly a quarter of a million people had been killed in the last dozen years on our highways. it's nearly a half-million people. think about that. people died -- that's nearly a quarter of a million, with either alcohol or some substance in their system. i will get the exact numbers and will put them in the record, but i didn't give the rest of the story, as paul harvey would say. with that correction for the record, let me first welcome and recognize mr. hart. morning chairman mica,

ranking member calmly, and members of the subcommittee. focus onmmittee federal marijuana policies affecting transportation is very timely. we have been working extensively for many years to address alcohol abuse by drivers which you have heard about in the opening statements. it still kills almost 10,000 people every year on our highways. now we are becoming more concerned that our investigations also illustrate the problems of marijuana use. there was a recreational boating accident in florida killed five, a day care van driver in memphis tennessee who was high and crashed, causing five deaths, and a railroad accident in chase maryland that killed 16 that has already been referred to. but we don't have a good idea of the number of drug-related transportation totality's. as we ever, many states have authorized medical marijuana programs and two states have

criminalized recreational use of the drug. in addition, recent news reports pressure to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level as well. perhaps most disturbing is evidence that marijuana use among teenage drivers is increasing and the perceived risk of their want use is decreasing. year-long completed a review of substance impaired driving which included drug use, and we concluded that there is not enough data on drunk driving. consequently we asked knits at and wewe asked ntsa understand are working on our recommendation. lack of data about drug an issue ins also other transportation modes. investigators sometimes the evidence of drug use by pilots who are involved in accidents. so we decided it was time to look at this issue in greater detail. in september we will meet to

discuss drug use and general aviation by examining toxicology on aviationsults pilots. we are missing important data on the role of illegal drugs and the public is written much unaware of important information about how illegal drugs may also affect her performance. we will examine drug use in general aviation as compared to trends in the u.s. population in general. thermation we obtained in september reading will help evaluate if there is a need for additional recommendations or other advocacy efforts on our part. fortunately, shifting state laws have not resulted in changes for commercial operators. the department of transportation has stated it continues to have a zero tolerance policy for drug andby commercial operators the ntsb fully supports that policy. what is clear is that operator

impairment laces the public in jeopardy. impaired drivers share the roadways with other drivers. impaired pilot sure the airspace with other pilots. , many operators have passengers that may be placed at risk. too many people died on a roadways from alcohol impaired driving before strong action was taken to combat it. that strong action has reduced the tallies tremendously but there are still too many alcohol-related deaths, and everyone of them is entirely preventable. hopefully we will not wait for more people to die before we take strong and decisive action. hearings like this one today will help inform policymakers on the issues so that effective laws can be crafted, strong enforcement can be implemented and robust efforts can be accomplished in all modes of transportation. we look forward to working with you to draw more attention to this issue. inviting me you for

to testify and i look forward to your questions. >> we withhold questions until we have heard from everyone. now let me recognize jeff michael. >> i appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today. takes tremendous pride in partnering with states and by working to make vehicles safer. since 1970, highway fatalities declined by 36%. traffic deaths have fallen by 22% in the past decade. with more than 30,000 fatalities on america's roadways each year, we must continue looking at new and innovative ways to save lives. working with our state partners and other safety organizations we have made substantial progress is critical safety behaviors including drunk driving and seatbelt use and have applied the same successful

approaches to emerging concerns such as distracted driving. marijuana under state law imposes new concerns and we are actively working from our foundation of experience to understand these risks and develop appropriate countermeasures. available evidence indicates that alcohol is the most common inrce of reiber impairment. 2012, more than 30% of all traffic deaths and balls a driver with a blood alcohol level at or above the legal limit. with more than four years of research, several decades of data collection and a well-established criminal justice process, if traffic safety professionals have a good understanding of the scale and nature of the drunk driving problem. much more research is needed to gain a good understanding of the effects of drugs other than alcohol on safe driving. in 2007 we obtained the first nationally represented information on the prevalence of drug use by drivers by including drug testing in our national roadside survey. although the survey had been used to track driver alcohol use for several decades, this was the first time that information

on drug use was collected. ons survey, based information from voluntary and anonymous participants, found that about 12% of we can drivers were alcohol positive and about 9% were marijuana positive. we repeated the national roadside survey in 2013 and we are in the process of analyzing those data. to understand how state-level legalization might affect prevalence of marijuana by drivers, we partnered with the state of washington at their invitation this spring to conduct a similar roadside survey. this is a two-phase study that will assess the change in marijuana use by drivers before and following the date at which the state allowed retail sale of the drug. in addition to prevalence research, we also need information on the degree of risk associated with drug use. we are in the process of completing a new study which compares the crash risk of drivers using drugs to those with no drugs in their system. this is the first such

investigation of drug crash risk in the united states and more research of various types will be needed to get a full understanding of the role of drugs in crashes. as we prepare to release the results of this new study, we plan to reach out to stakeholders including committee staff to inform them of the findings. strong laws and law enforcement are cornerstones of our effort to address alcohol impaired driving and were looking to the same solutions for drunk driving. we were closely to develop a network of more than 7000 drug recognition expert across the nation. these trained officers can significantly facilitate successful prosecution of drug driving cases. we're also looking closely at procedural barriers to effective drug driving law enforcement and recognize the challenges presented by drug testing methods. of alcoholrosecution impaired driving cases reflects evidential testing for alcohol can typically be done at the

jurisdiction by local officials with the modern mountain training. testing for drug presence among suspected impaired drivers is often far less convenient. sample bethat a blood drawn, center remote lab for analysis by highly trained arson l. delay of such testing can be a disincentive for criminal justice officials to pursue a drug driving charge. in conclusion, we are committed to reducing both alcohol and drug impaired driving. we support the development of effective education enforcement programs with guidance for state officials based on sound research. much progress has been made. however, impaired driving still claims more than 10,000 lives per year. thank you again for inviting me to testify before your committee and i'll be happy take any questions you have. >> will now hear from mr. treece kelly. she is acting director of the office of drug and alcohol policy at the department of compliance at the department of transportation.

welcome, and you are recognize. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the potential impacts on commercial transportation of recent state and local legislation that allow recreational and medical marijuana use. the transportation industry drug and alcohol testing program for commercial operations is a critical element of the department of transportation safety mission. drivers,ilots, truck subway operators, mariners, bob -- pipeline operators, airline mechanics, locomotive engineers, motorcoach drivers and school bus drivers, among others, have a tremendous responsibility to the public, and we cannot let their performance the compromised by drugs or alcohol. today i will provide you with a brief history of our program, the scope of its application and finally annexed ruination of our

policy regarding the use of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes by individuals who work in federally regulated transportation industries. the dot drug in called testing program was first established in 1988 following the department of health and human services development of drug testing and for federalesting employees. the dot program was initiated in response to transportation industry fatal accidents that occur due to illegal drug use. in 1991, congress enacted the omnibus transportation employee theing act which required dot to expand the application of its program to include mass transit and modifies regulations to address the statutory requirements.

the dot program has always required transportation industry employers to have drug and now called testing programs that require employees to be removed from performing safety sensitive duties immediately if they have violated drug and now called testing rules. route the history program, we its relied on hhs for technical and scientific expertise for determining the types of drugs for which we may certifiedntegrity of laboratories and testing the specimens and reporting results. we are limited to testing for the controlled substances and colluding in the hhs mandatory guidelines. currently those substances include schedule one, illegal drugs him and scheduled to, legally prescribed drugs. the drugs and classes of drugs for which we test or cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and marijuana. forn employee test positive any of those substances, the employer must take immediate action to remove the employee safety sensitive

duties until that employees successfully completes treatment and additional testing. currently there are proximally 5 billion dot regulated safety sensitive employees that are sensitive to our drug testing program. unchanged has remain since our program began in 1988. there is no legitimate expectation, medical or otherwise, for the presence of a schedule one controlled substance such as marijuana in an employee's system. in december 2009, following the department of justice's issuance of guidance for federal prosecutors in states that enacted laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana, we issued a reminder to our regulated entities that under the dot testing program, medical marijuana use authorized under state or local law is not a ford medical explanation transportation employee's positive drug test results. although there has been recent movement by some states to allow

recreational use of marijuana by their citizens, the dot program does not, and will not, authorized the use of schedule one controlled substances, including marijuana, for any reason by any individual conducting safety sensitive duties in the transportation industry. in december 2012, we issued a notice explaining that stated local government initiatives allowing the use of recreational marijuana will have no bearing on the department of transportation's drug testing program, nor any individual subject to testing. it remains unacceptable for any safety sensitive employees subject to the dot drug testing regulations to use marijuana and continue to perform safety sensitive duties in the federally regulated transportation industries. this concludes my testimony. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. flegel's director for the

center of substance abuse prevention. welcome, and you are recognize. >> thank you. i am the director of the division of workplace programs at the center for substance abuse prevention. i am pleased to speak with you this morning about our role as it pertains to the issue of drug testing for marijuana. particularly as it relates to drug driving. our mission is to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental illness on the community. we strive to create awareness that prevention works and people can recover from mental and substance abuse disorders. driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

we focus on enhancing legal reforms to get drunk drivers off increasing law enforcement's ability to identify drug robbers. these efforts remain the administration's focus for the upcoming year. we have several rows as it pertains to the issue of drug driving. we conduct for sale and -- surveillance, we provide funding for drug driving prevention efforts, offer technical existence -- technical assistance in the general public and evaluate grantees that have focused efforts on the problem. we administer the federal drug for -- drug free workplace program which includes a random asting of dublin health and look safety divisions within the executive branch agencies. currently nine states are focused on drug driving prevention efforts using our grant funds. we also provide science --

training and addresses drunk driving in states and communities choose to make this a focus of their efforts or if the data suggest that drug driving is an issue in their state or community. division of workplace program has unique and ashley reported regulatory or role and responsibility for federal and nonfederal workplaces with respect to the drug-free workplace policies and programs. dwp has oversight responsibility of hhs certified laboratories operating under the mandatory guidelines for federal workplace testing program requirements. the hhs certified laboratory conducts drug testing for federal agencies under executive 12564 in the federal drug-free workplace program. issued by president reagan in 1986. the supplemental appropriations as well as specific

federally regulated industries. the federal drug-free workplace program was established as a deterrent program incorporating detection as well as referrals for treatment is needed for federal employees in safety sensitive positions while protecting national security and public safety. to ensure the reliability and accuracy of drug test and to specify the drugs for which federal employees may be tested. hence the mandatory guidelines established the scientific and technical guidelines for federal and testing programs establish standards for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing for federal agencies and the regulated industries. currently 100 57 federal agencies are affected by the guidelines based on public law and executive order.

executive order covers approximately 2.2 million executive branch employees and job applicants. the department of transportation and nuclear regulatory commission utilize the regulatoryin the testing program requiring testing of over 5 million safety anditive employees transportation related industries nationally and an additional 2 million employees in the nuclear industry. in the private nonregulated sectors whenever proximally had 20-50,000,000 americans tested as applicants or employees using some aspect of our guidelines. urine is the only specimen of federal agency may collect under guidelines for drug testing programs. the federal agency must ensure -- authorized to test for opiates and amphetamines. the guidelines are specific to testing federal employees for the purpose of work lace vetting

and do not directly govern issues related to drug driving. the revised guidelines may impact testing for drug driving through the provisions of scientific standards for oral fluid testing. the proposed revisions are still being finalized and will be posted in the federal register for public comment was completed. as i stated at the opening of my testimony, the issue is a priority for the administration. we continue to collaborate with state and local governments and nongovernmental organizations to raise awareness of the dangers of drug driving and reduce drug driving in america. advance work on this important issue and look forward to continuing to work with congress on these efforts. thank you for this opportunity and i welcome any questions you >>your colleagues may have. i thank each of our witnesses and we will start around of questions.

just to give folks the most accurate information on the number of highway for tallies, 2001-2012, and this doesn't include 2013, but during that ,oesn't years that i spoke of .68,000 highway fatalities that's nearly a half-million people and i'm sure if we would talk3, we that. that's just phenomenal devastation. tallies, not injuries, property damage and everything else. everyone in this room can probably name someone who has died or a family member in an automobile fatality. laws, with the changing

there are significant consequences. mr. hart, again, where do you reachinging as far as ine positive steps containing the issue, and also adjusting our federal laws and regulations, adopting standards for tests, the whole spectrum of addressing these changing laws. could -- maybe you comment generally. >> thank you for the question. there is indication of impairment as we have in every mode, and we are very concerned about the need for strong and decisive action. typically that will mean strong legislation, strong enforcement and good education and in addition to looking at technologies to help us with detection.

>> some of that has to be based on data. is reallyat we have not that up-to-date. mr. michael testify that started collecting some data as recently as 2007 and then you said 2013 data we had collected, which , that has notdo been calculated, and when do you expect us to have that data? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. we have collected information 2007 about the presence of drugs and specifically marijuana among drivers on the roadway. we repeated that same data collection during 2013. we are now analyzing that and it will be compared. >> my question was when will we see that completed? >> we expect to have that

information by the end of the year. >> if you could check even closer and advise the committee and staff, maybe we could ask that question. i'd like to find out when we will have that data. the next thing that comes to mind is most of the 23 states, my state may follow. florida has an initiative referendum coming in. may changentities their laws. do you plan, or will there be a plan to check some of these states? florida will change the law possibly and others have already changed the law. some have changed the law for some time. i'm getting that reports on california, a news reporter told me he went out and said it is a , much morerent world

dramatic than you would expect, it's not just medical marijuana use. just thelling me societal and behavior change. so it's had an impact. i think we need to look at doing testing. those are the medical marijuana states. each of the languages may be a little different, allowing more latitude. then you have colorado, which we datehad some experience to , but i think we ought to go in and look at colorado. washington is more recent. ,here you have a change in law and its medical marijuana and changes brought about by that morethen you have a much as youse or legalization have in colorado. do you have plans to go in and

>> yes testing then? sir, we are working with the state of washington currently and using the same roadside data collection process we have used across the country and looking pacific lit washington before legalizing and sale of marijuana to assess what affect that may have with use on the roadway. >> again, i think we need accurate data and we need to adopt our federal rags. to get to ms. kelly now, we have a whole host of areas in which we do some testing, but most of the testing is periodic for marijuana use, is it not customer >> our program covers preemployment testing to start with, before someone -- and then random. and there is reasonable cause

testing and if someone would wreck the other thing, again, and the of the states, marijuana medical use, there is different language that is allowed more latitude in stem -- in some states as people have taken advantage of that. are you going in and doing more testing in colorado or washington? for example, pilots would be , commercial drivers would be more exposed. in states where you have the with liberalization of the law, are we taking some steps to try to ensure the safety of the public? could berline pilots taking couple hundred people in -- wer, passenger rail

line safetynto pop or maritime or others, but they all pose different risk. tell us where you're going with these modes that put public safety at risk. feel that our program is effective and the way our program is structured -- >> could i ask you to put the microphone closer? thank you. >> under the regulations, our program is administered to the individual employer. you are mostly talking in terms of how things have been in the past, but not how things are most recently and where we are going with this. >> we don't conduct the testing ourselves. we require the employer to conduct it. >> have you changed any of those

requirements? >> no, sir, we have not. that you have to go to risk base when you are doing most of these approaches to try to ensure safety. preemployment is one. we have done that in the past and we are doing that. now we have a new situation that much more of this available narcotic on the market. useave seen an increase in just by the statistics that were presented by some of the panelists today. are you adapting the department of transportation regulations or advisories to where we see the most risk? federal railroad administration, national highway safety.

me if there have been any changes and directives in the last 24 months. >> there've not been any changes to our random testing rates but if a pilot flies in and out of denver it doesn't mean necessarily that he or she lives anywhere near denver. many of our employees throughout the different modes of transportation are not purely in one state. they operate across states. >> again, i think we need to be a little bit preemptive and protecting people. i had dinner the other night with a friend from florida and ask him what he was going to do for a vacation. he said we are putting it off a little and were going to go skiing. planned to go to colorado, but the last thing i want to do is take my three kids out there and have somebody to him.osing a risk

he is going to utah. that is one change in behavior. we are responsible for the safety of the public. you are responsible for administering rules and regulations that impact pilots to carry passengers. i shared that one crash with 25 people killed. that is before some of these changes in laws granted. we have seen the incidence of use, whether john people or older. you have told me their art any aanges, and we will get message to mr. fox and others that we do need to look at adapting this. we also need to get the data. maybe there isn't the problem that is perceived and the data

would support that. maybe it is worse than what we actined, but we need to risk on facts and based on , and preempt is much as you can bad effects on the general public and their safety. we collect data from the laboratory. the laboratory confirmed positive and we have been doing s.at every six-month what we have seen since 2008 is a steady rate of marijuana positive, ranging between 21,000-22,000 out of roughly 2.5-3 million employees tested each six-month. so we have seen those numbers remain the same across the itson as it comes in aggregate. >> i think it is important that we look from a safety standpoint , i'm not selling any products

but this is the only one i found available, this particular european model for testing. again, the swabs can be used on-site. i don't know if we are looking at using this kind of test for , ifk drivers, train drivers we are doing spot checking. we are not using anything like this now, are we? >> we are required to follow the signs as it is developed the department of health and human services and lamented are the mandatory guidelines. yet?t this is not accepted >> currently we are looking at having those standards come out. this would be through the mandatory guidelines. insteadey are involved

-- setting standards, is that correct? >> once the standards are out to -- public, >> can you give us a chronological estimate as to completere going to what you are saying here before the committee? dealing with some of the pull down thest national standards and testing bill a couple of weeks ago, within the last two weeks, just jerked usey had around for 10 years on a and iris standard for id. they promised and promised but did not perform. i don't want to be coming back to hearing saying where are they

with development. we need some federal and or and we need to do tests that have acceptable standards to evaluate people who are on the job and transportation and make sure the public is safe. do you see my point? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know the chairman did not mean to suggest in any way that colorado is not a safe ways to go skiing. his friends at dinner may have a private view. i'm sure there are wonderful reasons to go to colorado and someone anywhere else wishes to ski. i know my colleagues that are not here would want me to say that. >> maybe you could stay home in florida or go to virginia. there is legislation with

respect to pilot license medical certification here in congress that would no longer require -- for a pilot whose -- who carries up to five passengers. are you aware of that legislation? >> yes, i am aware of it. >> what do you think of it? our policy on what we see in accident. so far, we haven't seen enough accidents to warrant an agency position on it yet but we are very concerned about not only not having a medical, you're less likely to pay attention to the list of prohibited legal .rugs we are concerned that list will

not be paid attention to by people who do not have medical crew exit scribe -- strikes me as odd -- >> it just strikes me as odd that we are having a hearing on the utilization and potential harmful effects of any kind of drug or controlled in the operation of any kind of vehicle, and meanwhile, there's apparently would exempt at subclass of people who fly airplanes. i cannot believe for a minute that if we really are concerned about the use of marijuana or any other drug, that we would ever countenance legislation like this. i cannot believe they could come to any good. so i encourage you and your colleagues to re-examine that legislation and hopefully take a position on it, because it seems to contradict everything we are talking about this morning at this hearing.

pay close certainly attention to that in our future accident investigations. was just thinking about talking about driving while impaired and things would discourage. we are worried about thc, but texting while driving. bad idea? >> of course, sir. very bad idea. >> kills people. >> of course. >> do we have data on it? we do. >> how many people were killed on the roads last year texting while driving? >> distraction in general is about 3000 people. texting alone is several hundred. >> alcohol and driving? 2012, 10,300 22 people died in crashes in which the driver had a blood-alcohol limit above the legal limit. quick sleep deprivation?

>> that is harder to measure, of course. we believe it is a significant problem. >> would it be fair to say that studies on sleep deprivation and driving suggest that sleep deprivation mimics an almost exact detail thinking and driving? in terms of impairment? >> at least in some details. driving, driving an unsafe speed? >> as many as a third of crashes are attributed at least in part to excessive speed. >> and hammy desk can we attribute to thc in the bloodstream -- how many deaths can we attribute to thc in the bloodstream? >> we don't know. we don't have the precise estimate. >> we do have precise estimates on distracted driving.

3331. we have precise estimates of drinking and driving. i just want to put it in context. the fact of the matter is we don't have a lot of data. let me ask, do we have a borrow your i could gizmo here for a minute. out that in points parts of europe, they take a swab sample and measure thc. that have any such device we use in law enforcement in the united states? ofyes, there is some use vice is very similar to that by law enforcement. currently doing a pilot test in california to test the feasibility of more widespread use of devices very similar to that. >> we have an alcohol standard

that blood-alcohol above a certain standard, you are in legal jeopardy. would you remind us what that standard is? >> .08. correction that is a national standard, and excepted by virtually all states? >> that's right. >> do we have a comparable standard for thc? >> no, we don't, sir. the available evidence does not support the development of an impairment threshold for thc, which would be a knowledge is to that for alcohol. >> why is that, dr. michael? indicatesle evidence that the response of individuals to increasing amounts of thc is much more variable than it is for alcohol. so with alcohol we have a considerable body of evidence that can place risk odds at increasing levels of blood-alcohol content. for example, .08 blood alcohol

is associated with about four times a crash risk of a sober person. 15.average arrest is point that is associated with about 15 times the crash risk. broad confirmation that higher levels of thc are generally associated with higher a moreof impairment, precise association of various thc levels and degrees of impairment are not yet available. .> that's really interesting we don't have a uniform standard, the variability is much greater than that with other controlled substances such as alcohol. when actually cannot pinpoint levels of impairment with any accuracy.

and were notiable sure enough to adopt a uniform standard as to the maximum level where we know there are serious impairment. and that is a substance one controlled substance. underscores why we need a lot or science here, and i guess what really strikes me is that meanwhile, as i said in 22 states statement, plus the district of columbia have decided to legalize marijuana in some fashion. most of them for medical purposes, but some of them even for recreational purposes. at least at a national level,

were not comfortable with the findings in terms of the impact of thc with operating a vehicle. fair statement? yes, and we are pursuing that science. >> i understand. so we are pursuing. is there a goal or an in date where we want to achieve, so by a certain date we hope to have some preliminary -- we hope to have the basis upon which to examine or adopt some preliminary standards comparable to other substances. >> we have sponsored some work with standards development with regard to measurement techniques and specific drugs to be along drivers involved in traffic crashes and also minimum cutoff levels that

represent the analytical capabilities of the existing technology. those recommendations have been established. our thresholds of impairment that are a knowledge is -- that are analogous. one step that is ongoing with that will take us in that direction. it is the crash risk study i mentioned in my opening statement. this is the same sort of study aat was done for alcohol number of years ago which established those risk levels that i told you about. this involves a very careful look at two groups of subjects. one group had been involved in a crash and the other group was not. and looking for relative concentration levels of factors that might've caused the crash such as thc use. with those kinds of studies, and can develop the risk odds that

could potentially be used to .evelop a threshold >> i wish you luck in your research. i just think it is amazing with hyperventilated rhetoric about marijuana use and thc that 50 years -- i guess it's 50 years we have declared .t a class one substance we still don't have enough data to know just how dangerous it is in operating a vehicle. and that really raises questions the classification itself and whether that makes , or raises serious questions about how our government is operating in terms of data does not have and the science it does not know, and yet the assertions that we make. for is not a good recipe

rational public policy. it's one of the reasons i 422 states that are headed in a different direction without the science. there are lots of complications. at the previous hearing, dr. fleming and i talked about this along with the chairman. whereve doctors in states legalization for medicinal purposes has been granted who, nonetheless, really don't have protocols, really don't have the science to decide on levels of efficacy, mixing it with other ofgs, potential dangers overdose or whatever. point think we are at a where we've got to get a lot more serious about the science in order to fashion rational withc policies, including

respect to transportation safety. i thank you all for your testimony and i thank you, dr. fleming. mr. michael, to follow up on the questions from my good , we don'tm virginia have adequate science on the effects of marijuana, thc specifically, on the body. and speaking as a physician and someone who has worked in the area of addiction, my understanding of this is that it's a much more complex interaction and physiology between the drug and the body, metabolites remain in the body for up to 30 days after use. the fat,t is stored in so fat body content can affect it. would that be a correct assumption on my part that is really what makes this more difficult issue in terms of

measurement than now, all. >> you're completely right on that. the studies of the effects on thc on driving is much more challenging in just about every aspect and that for alcohol. >> are really it is multidimensional as opposed to alcohol, which you can draw a straight line on the graph, plus or minus a small tolerance level. .08 is when people become far more impaired, hitting a critical threshold. we just don't know that, even if it exists, in thc. it may be a much smoother graph. haveven the fact that we certainly a lack of knowledge of the effects of thc on the body and on the brain and behavior, although we know we have a lot of examples of problems from it,

would it lead you to be more restrictive until we get that information, or less restrictive in the application and allowance of the use of that drug going forward? >> with regard to use on the roadway, which of course is my it is theern, decision of the states how they want to deal with these impairment issues. with tried to provide them guidance, with scientific evidence they can use to support effective policies. we have been able to do that with alcohol and states have been able to respond very positively to alcohol impairment and drive those numbers down. over12, there were just 10,000 killed in such crashes. 20 years previously, that number was well over 20,000. >> going beyond whether were

talking comparing thc with alcohol or any other drug, and i'm asking your personal opinion , and i'm going to ask the opinion of the rest of the panel members here as well. if you have a drug that we really cannot define the effects adequately, but we know that it can have serious, in fact proved that it can actually kill people, does it make sense to be more aggressive in terms of relaxing the standards, or does it make sense to be more conservative and wait for that science to develop? >> i think it makes sense to be policyutious with the when the complete evidence is not yet available. >> mr. hart, what is your opinion, sir? accident investigators, we follow where the accidents take us and that's the reason we did something no sierra controversial, which was to recommend that the lead alcohol

content be reduced. there is no bright line says is .uch is too much the policy question of where it should be for legal enforcement, we would have it i approach with ,espect to any other substance it's kind of wait and see based on our accident experience every >> is certainly bus driving is the same as impaired driving. driving is the same as impaired driving. whenever there's a question of being more conservative and protective, when in doubt, always be a little safer and a little more restrictive. would that be a safe estimate, from your opinion? we are the safety people so we would always go in that direction. >> how about you, ms. kelly? wewe rely on the science and make the policy based on the

science. >> but when there is a lack of science, do you lean towards being more conservative and until that science develops, or just full steam ahead, let's go ahead and give it a chance? >> we remain with the science on it. when our senses tell us that things have changed, then we follow what they say. until then, it remains agile one, we treat it as schedule one, with no excuses. >> are you would agree that , notinly being cautious being aggressive to change something to a more relaxed standard without the science to back that safety up, you are reluctant to move forward. changesnnot make without the science. >> as with my colleague here, under executive order, thc is mentioned directly, and we will continue to test for schedule one and scheduled to drugs. somewhat of we have

an agreement here. we can all agree to the fact that until we have the science, we should be careful and cautious. one of the things about thc is because it has been illegal, we haven't really been doing the studies and research. some of the only data has become out recently as it has been legalized. evening casual users, there are profound changes in the brain. we have done a number of mri scans. studies showed a progressive decline in iq. even in early studies, we are starting to see problems and that is notwithstanding the of to 14% of fatal accidents involving thc.