U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–703 PDF 2014

PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES: OPERATING 

WHILE STONED 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 31, 2014 

Serial No. 113–130 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia Ranking 

Minority Member 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 31, 2014 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Christopher A. Hart, Acting Chairman, U.S. National Transportation Safety Board 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Jeffrey P. Michael, Ph.D., Associate Administrator for Research and Program 

Development, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Ms. Patrice M. Kelly, Acting Director, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy 

and Compliance, U.S. Department of Transportation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 42 

Mr. Ronald Flegel, Director, Division of Workplace Programs, Center for 

Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 43 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 46 

APPENDIX 

Wall Street Journal 7-29-14, ‘‘Science Collides With the Push to Legalize 

Pot’’ by Peter Wehner, submitted by Rep. Fleming .......................................... 70 

Response to the New York Times Editorial Board’s Call for Federal Marijuana 

Legalization by Office of Nat’l Drug Control Policy Staff, submitted by 

Rep. Fleming ........................................................................................................ 72 

Answers to questions for the record from Rep. Turner to Jeffrey P. Michael, 

Ph.D., and Patrice Kelly from NHTSA and DOT, Respectively, submitted 

by Rep Farenthold ................................................................................................ 74 

Statement from Ms. Patrice M. Kelly .................................................................... 78 

(1) 

PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES: 

OPERATING WHILE STONED 

Thursday, July 31, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Mica, and Connolly. 

Also Present: Representatives Fleming and Blumenauer. 

Staff Present: Melissa Beaumont, Assistant Clerk; Will L. 

Boyington, Deputy Press Secretary; Molly Boyl, Deputy General 

Counsel and Parliamentarian; Sharon Casey, Senior Assistant 

Clerk; John Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, 

Chief Clerk; Mark D. Marin, Deputy Staff Director for Oversight; 

Emily Martin, Counsel; Katy Rother, Counsel; Laura L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Andrew Shult, Deputy Digital Director; Jaron 

Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Devon Hill, Minority 

Research Assistant; and Cecelia Thomas, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I’d like to welcome everyone to the 

Committee on Government Oversight and Reform and our subcommittee hearing this morning. This is the Subcommittee on Government Operations and I welcome my ranking member, Mr. 

Connolly, and others who may join us this morning. 

The title of today’s hearing is Planes, Trains and Automobiles: 

Operating While Stoned. And this, I believe, is, what, our fifth 

hearing on the subject of the impact of changing laws on the increasing use of marijuana in our society. 

And our subcommittee in particular has jurisdiction and part of 

our charter is the difference between Federal and state laws and 

the relationships and a whole host of issues that deal with, again, 

Federal-state issues and certainly in our most recent history, 

there’s probably been nothing that has provided a greater difference in, say, current Federal statutes and changing state and 

local statutes than the marijuana issue. So it’s an important matter and we try to approach it and look at all of the aspects and impacts. 

The order of business this morning will be opening statements. 

I’ll start with mine, yield to Mr. Connolly. 

I see we have Mr. Fleming. I don’t believe Mr. Fleming is a member of the committee, but I ask unanimous consent that, and withVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:41 Sep 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\89703.TXT APRIL
2 

out objection, that he be permitted to participate in today’s proceedings, and other members who may join us. Right now there are 

a number of conferences going on around the Hill. 

With that, after the opening statements, we’ll hear—I see we 

have four witnesses, we’ll hear from them. We’ll withhold questions 

until we’ve heard from all of our panelists and get to introduce you 

and swear you in after the opening statements. So with that, let 

me begin. 

Again, I have an important responsibility to look at changing 

laws. This subcommittee has, in fact, been investigating the Federal response to state and local government legalization and change 

of laws relating to marijuana and examining the Administration’s 

sometimes chaotic and inconsistent policies on marijuana. 

In fact, most of our proceedings since the beginning of the year 

have been based on a statement that the President made, and he 

said that marijuana was not much different than alcohol and I 

think one of our first hearings was to bring in the Office of National Drug Control Policy, who differed with the President’s statement. We looked at that issue, then we heard from the law enforcement agencies. DEA, they disagreed with that statement. 

Then we saw the conflict in Colorado and other states. Department of Justice had issued some guidelines and statements relating 

to enforcement. We heard, as I recall, from the U.S. Attorney from 

Colorado, who testified about some of the problems. We heard from 

DEA and other agencies. 

As we were doing one of the hearings, the District of Columbia changed its law on possession, tampering down the fine to $25 for 

1 ounce of marijuana, and I illustrated by holding up a fake joint. 

Some people thought that was entertaining, but it was also designed to illustrate you could have 28 of those joints now in the 

District and that would be the results and the $25 fine. And then 

I held up in the other hand a list of 26 Federal agencies that were 

charged with enforcing conflicting Federal law, and it does create 

a serious dilemma and situation. 

And, again, I think today is very important, because having 

chaired Transportation, and you see the results of the devastation, 

just for example, on our highways. Probably in the last dozen 

years, we’ve had a quarter of a million Americans slaughtered on 

the highways. Think about that: over a quarter of a million. We’ve 

gotten it down. It was down in the 30 some thousand, but it was 

running in the mid, almost mid 40,000, and that’s fatalities and 

half of those fatalities are related to people who are impaired 

through alcohol or drugs. 

And as we embark on this new era with many more people exposed to what is now still a Schedule I narcotic and more potent, 

as we heard from some of the scientific folks, we are going to have 

a lot more people stoned on the highway, and there will be consequences. 

We do have Federal agencies, and we’ll hear from the Department of Transportation to see how they’re going to deal with both 

vehicles, both passenger vehicles, with commercial vehicles. And 

then also, and I don’t know if we could put up some of those charts 

to see some of the devastation, but—or the photos. Aviation is another area. Maybe you could put some of those up there. We 

3 

haven’t gotten into commercial, and we’ll talk about that, but these 

are civil aircraft. Just keep flipping them. Every one of these were 

involved with people impaired. 

And the way we find out right now if they were impaired was, 

in fact, by testing the corpse, the blood, and this is some of the results we see. 

The worst train incident that we’ve had probably in recent memory—keep flipping that to—let’s see if we can—this is the Metro 

link. Look at that, 25 people killed, and the engineer was impaired 

with marijuana and then automobiles again. I just showed one on 

automobile, but there are thousands of accidents that involve some 

just marijuana, some a deadly combination of marijuana and other 

drugs taking lives. So there are consequences to what’s being done 

in our society. 

Today I want to also focus on the aspect of not only the number 

of crash victims, but also those who are the most vulnerable in this 

whole process. Right now, listen to this, from 1999 to 2010, the 

number of crash victims with marijuana in their system has 

jumped from 4 percent to over 12 percent, and that’s actually as 

some of this has been kicking in. 

Furthermore, the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, they 

say, is now 24 times more likely to cause an accident than a sober 

person and I could cite some of these studies. In a study, 27 percent of the seriously injured drivers tested positive for marijuana. 

Now, again, one of my major concerns is the impact of the most 

vulnerable in our society, and the trend is most troubling for our 

young drivers. Most recently one eighth grade school senior admitted driving after smoking—one in eight, I’m sorry, high school seniors admitted to driving after smoking marijuana, and nearly 28 

percent of the high school seniors admit to getting into the car of 

a driver who had recently used marijuana or other illicit drugs. At 

night, 16 percent of the drivers under age 21 tested positive for 

drugs, whereas only 7 percent of the same drivers tested positive 

for alcohol. 

As drugged driving fatalities have tripled, a study has found 

nearly half of the drivers fatally injured in car accidents are under 

the age of 25. That slaughter I talked about on the highways is impacting no other group as much as our young people and those particularly are teenagers and those under age 25. As much as 14 percent of fatal or sustained injury drivers tested positive for THC in 

2012; however, we don’t have to have data to understand the full 

scope of the problem. 

Data collection policies are set up by states, and generally testing 

only occurs, unfortunately, with drivers with fatalities. Drivers who 

have used marijuana do not exhibit the same intoxication effects as 

drivers who have used alcohol, and traditional field testing is not 

always effective to identify and remove intoxicated drivers from the 

road. In fact, we have no standard test for marijuana, for drivers. 

There is no standard test. We don’t have Federal standards of limits of THC, since right now at the Federal level, any level of THC 

is illegal, it is a Schedule I narcotic, and supposedly zero tolerance, 

but we have no way of testing that. 

Currently, there’s no roadside breathalyzer for marijuana, but 

technology is advancing and some countries have started to use a 

4 

roadside oral test. Now, this is one of those testing machines, and 

this is used actually in Europe and as I understand, it takes a 

swab. I was going to swab the panelists, but I thought I wouldn’t 

do that today, but you could take a swab with this and it can tell 

you if anyone has used marijuana within 4 hours. But, again, we 

have no standard, we have no acceptable test, and we have no way 

of telling if people are impaired. 

Most of the data we’re getting right now is from, again, fatalities 

and you either have to take an individual to a hospital for a blood 

or urine test, or, again, the worst situation is to the morgue where 

we test their blood. 

In the past 10 years, marijuana was a factor in nearly 50 aviation accidents. I showed some of the civil aviation. We haven’t even 

begun to think of what can happen in the commercial market as 

more people are exposed to marijuana. We now have 23 states with 

medical use and two states who have knocked down most of the 

barriers and more people will have, again, exposure to use of marijuana and very little means of testing them. 

The National Transportation Safety Board has investigated different accidents, and found, again, the use of THC in a number of 

these accidents, but, again, all of their testing is done after the fact 

and usually where a fatality is involved. 

The witnesses today will tell us what, if anything, the Federal 

Government is doing to combat drug-impaired operation of any 

transportation mode. And, again, we have a whole host of modes 

that the Federal Government takes responsibility over, vehicular, 

simple passenger cars, commercial vehicles, cargo, of course rail, 

both passenger and cargo, and of course aviation, civil and commercial aviation. 

We’ll hear from Christopher Hart from the National Transportation Safety Board, Jeff Michael from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Patrice Kelly from the Department of 

Transportation Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy Compliance, and 

Mr. Ronald, what is it, Flegel, Mr. Flegel of the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Administration. 

So I look forward to today’s further and continuing discussions 

on this issue that has a great impact on all of us. 

And yield now to the ranking member, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding today’s hearing to examine the effects of marijuana on the ability to operate planes, trains and automobiles. I’m going to particularly focus in on the automobile, but not to the exclusion of everything else. 

This hearing addresses an aspect of marijuana policy where I believe there’s general agreement over the desired outcome: reducing 

the incidents of vehicle accidents resulting from driving while 

under the influence of any drugs. Across the political spectrum, 

there’s widespread opposition to allowing driving while under the 

influence of any drug that impairs an individual’s ability to operate 

a vehicle safely. Where differences emerge are over the most effective policy to achieve this widely shared outcome, which I think we 

can all agree remains a national challenge. 

According to the National Survey on Drug and Health Use— 

Drug Use and Health, excuse me, approximately 10.3 million peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:41 Sep 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\89703.TXT APRIL
5 

ple have admitted to driving while under the influence of illicit 

drugs in the past year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that in 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcoholimpaired driving crashes, accounting for 31 percent of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. 

These statistics are alarming and unacceptable. Our Nation must 

continue reducing the incidents of any drug-impaired driving 

deaths. A key component to this longstanding effort will be improving our knowledge base through better data and research. 

With respect to the focus of today’s hearing, there’s been very 

limited research actually conducted by the Federal Government addressing the relationship between marijuana usage and driving 

safety. Reports from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conclude that THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana has dose-related impairing effects on driving performance. 

For example, NHTSA has previously reported, quote, ‘‘the impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol, 

yet NHTSA also found that marijuana intoxication is short-lived. 

Peak acute effects following cannabis inhalation are typically 

achieved within 10 to 30 minutes, with the effects dissipating 

quickly after about an hour. According to NHTSA, drivers under 

the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and 

will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or 

increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small,’’ unquote. 

Meanwhile, the National Transportation Safety Board held a 

public forum to discuss the most effective data-driven, sciencebased actions to reduce accidents resulting from substance impaired driving. In May 2013, it released a safety report entitled, 

Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired Driving, in 

which it reiterated a recommendation from NHTSA to develop a 

common standard of practice for drug toxicology testing. 

Scientific analysis and technological advances have standardized 

the use of a breathalyzer and the 0.8 percent blood alcohol concentration limit to determine alcohol intoxication; however, states 

beginning to implement marijuana decriminalization, and there are 

now 22 of them plus the District of Columbia, must act swiftly to 

address the fact that there really is no legal limit set for driving 

under the influence of marijuana as there is with alcohol. 

For instance, field sobriety tests may be accurate and effective in 

detecting marijuana impairment. A study of the U.K. examining 

the accuracy of field sobriety tests in gauging the amount of marijuana participants had consumed, concluded that there is, quote, ‘‘a 

strong correlation between cannabis dose received and whether impairment was judged to be present,’’ unquote. 

Of course, anecdote must not substitute for rigorous scientific 

data. That’s why I believe we must support further research in this 

field to inform the development of effective public safety policies 

regulating marijuana and my friend, Dr. Fleming, and I had a discussion at one of our hearings on this very matter, and I think we 

agree that that has to be the basis for moving forward, it’s got to 

be based in science, and we need more of it. 

6 

My concerns over the ineffectiveness of our Nation’s existing Federal policy of absolute marijuana prohibition is no more of an endorsement of its recreational purposes use than opposing prohibition of alcohol is an endorsement for drunk driving. Our Nation 

proved with respect to policies regulating the use of other potentially harmful substances that discouraging the inappropriate use 

of drugs need not, and perhaps should not, involve total prohibition 

and criminalization. 

I’ve long believed that the Federal Government governs best 

when it listens and learns from our states, which are the laboratories of democracy. Right now those states are undergoing a great 

experiment with respect to this subject, and we need to learn from 

their experience and hopefully emulate them in regulations and 

policies in the future that address both use, appropriate use, medicinal purposes and, of course, the issue of criminalization. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. MICA. And I recognize now Mr. Fleming, if he had an opening comment. 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank Chairman Mica and the other members of 

the Government Operations Subcommittee for allowing me to participate in today’s hearing. I would also like to thank the chairman 

for holding this series of hearings that are so vitally important. 

You know, it took us centuries of alcohol in our culture and it 

took a new organization, a then new organization, Mothers Against 

Drunk Driving, to realize that we were losing Americans wholesale, 

by the tens of thousands as a result of driving under the influence 

of alcohol. 

It took us approximately 400 years to figure out that tobacco was 

similarly killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. In fact, 

as early as—or as recently as the early 1960’s, there were commercials in which doctors were actually recommending certain types of 

cigarettes, saying that it was good for your throat. I worry that 

we’re not, in fact, in the same situation in this case when it comes 

to marijuana. 

Drugged driving is a serious problem. According to the statistics 

compiled by the 2012 National Survey On Drug Use and Health, 

about 10.3 million people 12 and over reported driving while under 

the influence of an illegal drug. Marijuana’s active ingredient, 

THC, is the most common drug found in drivers and crash victims 

alike. Studies indicate that between 4 to 14 percent of drivers involved in accidents, fatal or otherwise, had THC in their system. 

Marijuana decreases a driver’s response time, awareness and perception of time and speed, all of which are necessary for safe driving. 

Another concern of mine is the combination of drugs and alcohol. 

You see, whenever you hear this debate, you often hear that marijuana is innocuous to begin with, and number two, it’s either or: 

either someone smokes marijuana or they drink alcohol. That’s not 

the way it works. Individuals who are driving under the influence 

of marijuana will have little inhibitions for drinking beer and alcohol and other substances as well, smoking a joint behind the weed 

or whatever it takes to get high or feel good. 

7 

The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, 

which works closely with the White House’s National Drug Control 

Strategy, is collecting data on the impact of Colorado’s legalization 

of marijuana. An August 2013 report indicated that in 2006, Colorado drivers testing positive for marijuana were involved in 28 percent of fatal drug-related vehicle crashes. That number increased 

to 56 percent by 2011. And understand that in states that are decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana, and certainly we know 

from NIDA, who’s done some work on this, that as marijuana is destigmatized, as a threat to use is reduced, that use goes up, it finds 

its way into homes, into candy, into cookies and baked goods, and 

once it gets there, it finds its way into the brains of teens. 

And we know from statistics that marijuana has a 9 percent addiction rate among adults, but those who start as teens, that rate 

doubles to one in six. So it’s very important what’s happening in 

these states who are legalizing and even decriminalizing or 

medicinalizing marijuana. 

This Year’s Rocky Mountain HIDTA report on 2012 data is also 

very alarming. Using data from the National Highway Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System, FARS, this year’s 

report, due out in October, will show that between 2007 and 2012, 

while Colorado’s overall traffic fatalities decreased by 15 percent, 

over that same time, marijuana-related fatalities increased 100 

percent. Earlier this year, the University of Colorado released a 

study confirming that Colorado drivers are testing positive for 

marijuana and involved in fatal accidents is on the rise. 

There is no hard and fast way to determine whether an individual is driving under the influence and there’s yet to be established a uniform amount of marijuana which constitutes drugged 

driving, and that is very important, because, you see, in the case 

of alcohol, when you arrest someone for—if they’ve not been in an 

accident, you just caught them driving under the influence, with so 

many episodes of that arrest, that person loses their license, they’re 

taken off the road. That’s not happening with marijuana. We don’t 

have a way to do that yet. 

While driving under the influence is unquestionably a problem, 

it is also concerning that pot smoking American youth may also 

have trouble finding a job. This is especially true in the transportation arena. The U.S. Department of Transportation requires 

mandatory drug testing on pilots, air traffic controllers, railroad 

employees and commercial drivers, and that can include buses, it 

can include 18 wheelers, anything that requires a CDL license. 

These individuals are responsible for numerous lives, and it’s critical that they are and remain drug free. 

Marijuana will also become more pervasive as states continue to 

embrace permissible laws on medical marijuana, and the recreational use of marijuana in kids and youth will have easier access to a dangerous, addictive drug and, again, back to the medicinal marijuana, there’s no reason why we can’t use components of 

marijuana for disease treatment. 

Right now we already have Marinol, which is a Schedule III, can 

be used under the monitoring and observation of a physician, closely monitored at the dosage precisely prescribed, and can be done 

safely, just like hydrocodone. It has the same activity and benefit 

8 

that the plant marijuana has. It is a synthetic THC. We have that 

already. 

There is some claim that there are extracts, oils extracts of cannabis that can be used to treat certain rare seizures in children. 

Well, it has little or no THC activity. There’s no reason why that— 

and it’s under fast track FDA approval right now. There’s no reason why that can’t be taken out as well, but there’s no reason to 

de-schedule or to make legal marijuana, which is now Schedule I, 

for those purposes. All of those things can be done without reducing the schedule or to legalize the marijuana plant itself. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s no surprise to you or to anyone here that I 

am opposed to the legalization of marijuana. What is surprising, 

however, is that the New York Times editorial board is fully supportive of the legalization of marijuana. 

Mr. Chairman, I have two response pieces to the New York 

Times that I would like to submit for the record, one from the 

White House Office of National Drug Policy and another opinion 

piece by Peter Wehner 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. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Without objection, both of those articles, statements 

will be made part of the record. 

Mr. MICA. There being no further opening statements, members 

may have 7 days to submit opening statements for the record. 

Mr. MICA. Now let me proceed and recognize our first panel. 

The first panel consists of Christopher A. Hart, and he’s the acting chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board; Mr. Jeff 

Michael is the associate administrator for research and program 

development at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Ms. Patrice Kelly is acting director for the Office of Drug and 

Alcohol Policy and Compliance at the Department of Transportation; and Mr. Ron Flegel is the director for the division of workplace programs at the Center for substance abuse prevention at the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. I welcome all 

of our panelists. 

This is an investigative and oversight subcommittee of Congress. 

We do swear in all of 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? 

All of the witnesses, the record will reflect, answered in the affirmative. Welcome them again. 

And I gave misinformation on a statistic, and I didn’t realize it 

until after I said it, and I want to clarify that for the record. I said 

nearly a quarter of a million people had been killed in the last 

dozen years on our highway. It’s nearly a half a million people, a 

half a million people. Think about that. And half of those people 

died, that’s nearly a quarter of a million, with either alcohol or 

some substance in their system. I’ll get the exact numbers and we’ll 

put them in the record, but I didn’t give the rest of the story, as 

Paul Harvey would say. 

9 

Mr. MICA. With that correction for the record, let me first welcome and recognize Mr. Hart. Welcome, and you’re recognized, sir. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER A. HART 

Mr. HART. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member 

Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much 

for inviting the NTSB to testify today. 

The subcommittee’s focus on Federal marijuana policies affecting 

transportation is very timely. We’ve been working extensively for 

many years to address alcohol use by drivers, which you’ve heard 

about already in the opening statements, but that still kills almost 

10,000 people every year on our highways. Now we’re becoming 

more concerned that our investigations also illustrate the problems 

of marijuana use in transportation operations. 

Among the more egregious drug-involved accidents that are listed in my written testimony are a recreational boating accident in 

Ponte Vedra, Florida, that killed five, a daycare van driver in 

Memphis, Tennessee, who was high and crashed, causing five 

deaths, and a railroad accident in Chase, Maryland, that killed 16 

that’s already been referred to. But we don’t have a good idea of 

the number of drug-related transportation fatalities. 

We’re not surprised about the growing evidence of drug use by 

drivers, pilots and others, however, given that as we have heard, 

many states have authorized medical marijuana programs and two 

states have decriminalized recreational use of the drug. In addition, recent news reports have noted pressure to decriminalize 

marijuana at the Federal level as well. Perhaps most disturbing, as 

we’ve heard mentioned in the opening statements, is evidence that 

marijuana use among teenage drivers is increasing and their perceived risk of marijuana use is decreasing. 

In 2013, we completed a year-long review of substance-impaired 

driving, which included drug use and we concluded that there is 

not enough data on drugged driving. Consequently, we asked 

NHTSA to establish guidelines for collecting this data to enable 

policy makers to make more informed decisions regarding how to 

address this important issue, and we understand that NHTSA is 

working on this recommendation. 

Lack of data about drug impairment is not only a problem in 

highway accidents, but also in other transportation modes. In general aviation, our investigators sometimes see evidence of drug use 

by pilots who are involved in accidents. So we’ve decided it was 

time to look at this issue in greater detail. In September, we will 

meet to discuss drug use in general aviation by examining toxicology testing results conducted on fatal injured general aviation 

pilots. We will look at over-the-counter, prescription, and illicit 

drugs in pilots. We are missing important data on the role of illegal 

drugs, and not only that, but the public is pretty much unaware 

of important information about how legal drugs may also affect 

their performance. We will also examine drug use in general aviation pilots as compared to trends observed in the U.S. Population 

in general. Information that we obtain in this September meeting 

10 

will help us evaluate whether there is a need for additional recommendations or other advocacy efforts on our part. 

Fortunately, shifting state laws have not resulted in changes in 

illegal drug use policies for commercial operators. You’ll hear on 

this panel today that the Department of Transportation has stated 

that it continues to have a zero tolerance policy for drug use, illegal 

drug use by commercial operators, and the NTSB fully supports 

that policy. 

What is clear is that operator impairment places the public in 

jeopardy. Impaired drivers share the roadways with other drivers, 

impaired pilots share the air space with other pilots. Impaired 

mariners share the seas with other mariners. And across all modes, 

many operators have passengers that may be placed at risk. 

Too many people died on our roadways from alcohol-impaired 

driving before strong action was taken to combat it. That strong action has reduced fatalities tremendously, but there are still too 

many alcohol-related deaths, and every one of them is entirely preventable. Hopefully, we will not wait for more people to die from 

drug-induced transportation accidents before we take strong and 

decisive action. 

Hearings like this one today will help inform policymakers on the 

issues that so that effective laws can be crafted, strong enforcement 

can be implemented, and robust education efforts can be accomplished in all modes of transportation, and we look forward to 

working with you to draw more attention to this issue. 

Again, thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to responding to your questions. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And we will withhold questions until we’ve 

heard from everyone. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hart follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 1 here 89703.001
12 


Insert offset folio 2 here 89703.002
13 


Insert offset folio 3 here 89703.003
14 


Insert offset folio 4 here 89703.004
15 


Insert offset folio 5 here 89703.005
16 


Insert offset folio 6 here 89703.006
17 


Insert offset folio 7 here 89703.007
18 


Insert offset folio 8 here 89703.008
19 


Insert offset folio 9 here 89703.009
20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 89703.010
21 


Insert offset folio 11 here 89703.011
22 


Insert offset folio 12 here 89703.012
23 


Insert offset folio 13 here 89703.013
24 

Mr. MICA. And now let me recognize Jeff Michael, who’s with the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. MICHAEL 

Mr. MICHAEL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s research on drugged driving. 

NHTSA takes tremendous pride in our 40-year record of protecting Americans by partnering with states to enforce strong highway safety laws and by working to make vehicles safer. Since 1970, 

highway fatalities have declined by 36 percent, traffic deaths have 

fallen by 22 percent just in the past decade, but 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’ve made substantial progress with critical safety behaviors, including drunk diving, seatbelt use, and have applied the same successful approaches to emerging concerns, such as distracted driving. 

The legalization of marijuana under state laws poses new concerns, and we are actively working from our foundation of experience to understand these risks and develop appropriate countermeasures. 

Available evidence indicates that alcohol is the most common 

source of driver impairment. In 2012, more than 30 percent of all 

traffic deaths involved a driver with blood alcohol level at or above 

the legal limit. With more than 40 years of research, several decades of data collection and a well established criminal justice process, traffic safety professionals have a good understanding of the 

scale and the nature of the drunk driving problem. Much more research is needed to gain a good understanding of the effects of 

drugs other than alcohol on safe driving. 

In 2007, we obtained the first nationally representative information on the prevalence of drug use by drivers by including drug 

testing in our national roadside survey. Although this survey had 

been used to track driver alcohol use for several decades, this was 

the first time that information on drug use was collected. This survey, based on information from voluntary and anonymous participants, found that about 12 percent of weekend drivers were alcohol 

positive and about 9 percent 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 the 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 

25 

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 efforts 

to address alcohol-impaired driving, and we are looking to the same 

solutions for drugged driving. We worked closely with the law enforcement community to develop a network of more than 7,000 

drug recognition experts across the Nation. These trained officers 

can significantly facilitate the successful prosecution of drugged 

driving cases. 

We are also looking closely at procedural barriers to effective 

drugged driving law enforcement, and recognize the challenges presented by drug testing methods. While the prosecution of alcoholimpaired driving cases is complex, evidential testing for alcohol can 

typically be done at the jurisdiction by local officials with a moderate amount of training. Testing for drug presence among suspected impaired drivers is often far less convenient, requiring that 

a blood sample be drawn, sent to a remote lab for analysis by highly trained personnel. The cost and delay of such testing can be a 

disincentive for criminal justice officials to pursue a drugged driving charge. 

In conclusion, NHTSA’s 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’m happy to take any questions you may have. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Michael follows:] 

26 


Insert offset folio 14 here 89703.014
27 


Insert offset folio 15 here 89703.015
28 


Insert offset folio 16 here 89703.016
29 


Insert offset folio 17 here 89703.017
30 


Insert offset folio 18 here 89703.018
31 


Insert offset folio 19 here 89703.019
32 


Insert offset folio 20 here 89703.020
33 


Insert offset folio 21 here 89703.021
34 


Insert offset folio 22 here 89703.022
35 


Insert offset folio 23 here 89703.023
36 


Insert offset folio 24 here 89703.024
37 


Insert offset folio 25 here 89703.025
38 


Insert offset folio 26 here 89703.026
39 


Insert offset folio 27 here 89703.027
40 


Insert offset folio 28 here 89703.028
41 


Insert offset folio 29 here 89703.029
42 

Mr. MICA. And we’ll now hear from Ms. Patrice Kelly, and she’s 

acting director of the Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy at the department—Compliance at the Department of Transportation. 

Welcome, and you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICE M. KELLY 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member 

Connolly, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the potential impacts on 

commercial transportation of recent state and local legislation that 

allow recreational and medicinal marijuana use. 

The transportation industry drug and alcohol testing program for 

commercial operations is a critical element of the Department of 

Transportation’s safety mission. Airline pilots, truck drivers, subway operators, mariners, pipeline operators, airline mechanics, locomotive engineers, motor coach drivers and school bus drivers, 

among others, have a tremendous responsibility to the public, and 

we cannot let their performance be compromised by drugs or alcohol. 

Today I will provide you with a brief history of our program, the 

scope of its application, and finally, an explanation of our policy regarding the use of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes 

by individuals who work in federally-regulated transportation industries. 

The DOT drug and alcohol testing program was first established 

in 1988 following the Department of Health and Human Service’s 

development of drug testing in alcohol—drug and alcohol testing 

for Federal employees. The DOT program was initiated in response 

to transportation industry fatal accidents that occurred due to illegal drug use. 

In 1991, Congress enacted the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act, OTETA, which required the DOT to expand the 

application of its program to include mass transit, and modify its 

regulations to address the statutory requirements. 

The DOT program always has required transportation industry 

employers to have drug and alcohol testing programs that require 

their employees to be removed from performing safety sensitive duties immediately if they have drug or alcohol violations. 

Throughout the history of our program, and consistent with 

Congress’s direction in OTETA, we have relied on HHS for its technical and scientific expertise for determining the types of drugs for 

which we test, the testing methodology we must use in our program, and the integrity of the HHS certified laboratories in testing 

the specimens and reporting the results. We are limited to testing 

for the controlled substances included in the HHS mandatory 

guidelines. 

Currently, those substances include Schedule I, illegal drugs, and 

Schedule II, legally prescribed drugs. The drugs and classes of 

drugs for which we test are cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, 

phencyclidine and marijuana. If an employee tests positive for any 

of those substances, the employer must take immediate action to 

remove the employee from performing safety sensitive duties until 

that employee successfully completes treatment and additional 

43 

testing. Currently there are approximately 5 million DOT-regulated 

safety sensitive employees that are subject to our drug and alcohol 

testing program. 

The Department’s policy on the use of Schedule I controlled substances has remained unchanged since our program began in 1988. 

There is no legitimate explanation, medical or otherwise, for the 

presence of a Schedule I 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 valid medical explanation for transportation employees’ 

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 authorize the use 

of Schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana, for any 

reason by any individual conducting safety sensitive duties in the 

transportation industry. 

In December of 2012, we issued a notice explaining that state 

and local government initiatives allowing the use of recreational 

marijuana will have no bearing on the Department of Transportation’s drug testing program nor any individual subject to testing. 

It remains unacceptable for any safety sensitive employee subject 

to the DOT’s drug testing regulations to use marijuana and continue to perform safety sensitive duties in the federally regulated 

transportation industries. 

Chairman Mica, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you or your colleagues have. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And we’ll hold questions. 

Mr. MICA. Ron Flegel is the director for the Division of Workplace Programs at the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, at 

Substance and Abuse Mental Health Administration. 

Welcome, and you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD FLEGEL 

Mr. FLEGEL. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking 

Member Connolly, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Ron Flegel and I am the director of division of workplace programs at the Center of Substance Abuse Prevention within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, 

or SAMHSA. It’s an agency of the Department of Health and 

Human Services. I am pleased to speak with you this morning 

about SAMHSA’s role as it pertains to the issue of drug testing for 

marijuana, particularly as it relates to drugged driving. 

SAMHSA’s mission is to reduce the impact of substance abuse 

and mental illness on America’s communities. SAMHSA strives to 

create awareness that behavioral health is essential for health, prevention works, treatment is effective, and people recover from mental and substance use disorders. 

44 

Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol continues to pose 

a significant threat to public safety. The administration has focused on four key areas to reduce drugged driving: increased public 

awareness, enhancing legal reforms to get drugged drivers off the 

road, advancing technology for drug tests and data collection, and 

increasing law enforcement’s ability to identify drugged drivers. 

These efforts remain the administration’s focus for the upcoming 

year. 

SAMHSA has several roles as it pertains to the issue of drugged 

driving. We conduct surveillance through the National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health, as said today; we provide funding for 

drugged driving prevention efforts; offer technical assistance about 

prevention of drugged driving to grantees and the general public; 

and evaluate grantees that are focused efforts on the problem. 

SAMHSA administers the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Program, which includes the random testing of national security, public health and public safety positions within the executive branch 

agencies. 

Currently, nine states are focused on drugged driving prevention 

efforts using SAMHSA’s grant funds. SAMHSA also provides stateof-the-science training and technical assistance to states and communities, and thus addresses drugged driving if states and communities choose to make this a focus of their efforts and/or if the data 

suggests that drugged driving is an issue in their state or community. 

SAMHSA’s Division of Workplace Program has a unique and nationally important regulatory role and technical assistance role and 

responsibility for Federal and non-Federal workplaces with respect 

to their drug-free workplace policies and programs. DWP has oversight responsibility of the HHS certified laboratories operating 

under the mandatory guidelines for Federal workplace testing program requirements. The HHS certified laboratories conduct forensic drug testing for Federal agencies under Executive Order 12564, 

and the Federal drug-free workplace program issued by President 

Reagan in 1986, and the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1987, 

public law 100–71, as well as specific federally-regulated industries. 

The Federal drug-free workplace program was established as a 

deterrent program incorporating detection as well as referrals for 

treatment as needed for Federal employees in safety sensitive positions, while protecting national security and public safety. 

Public law 100–71 directs HHS to publish mandatory guidelines 

using the best available technology to ensure the reliability and accuracy of drug tests and to specify the drugs for which Federal employees may be tested; hence, the mandatory guidelines established 

the scientific and technical guidelines for Federal drug testing programs and established standards for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing for Federal agencies and the regulated industries. 

Currently, 157 Federal agencies are affected by the guidelines 

based on public law and executive order. The executive order covers 

approximately 2.2 million executive branch employees and job applicants. The Department of Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission utilize the SAMHSA guidelines in their reguVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:41 Sep 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\89703.TXT APRIL
45 

latory testing programs requiring testing of over 5 million safety 

sensitive employees and applicants in DOT-regulated transportation related industries nationally, and an additional 2 million 

employees and applicants in the nuclear industry. 

In the private, non-regulated sectors, we have approximately had 

20 to 50 million Americans that are tested as applicants or employees using some aspect of SAMHSA’s guidelines. 

Currently, urine is the only specimen a Federal agency may collect under the guidelines for its workplace drug testing program. 

A Federal agency must ensure that each specimen is tested for 

marijuana and cocaine metabolites and is authorized to test each 

specimen for opiates, amphetamine and phencyclidine. 

The SAMHSA guidelines are specific to testing of Federal employees for the purpose of workplace settings and do not directly 

govern issues related to drugged driving, however, the revised 

guidelines may impact testing for drugged driving through the provisions of scientific standards for oral fluid testing. The proposed 

revisions of the mandatory guidelines are still being finalized and 

will be posted in the Federal Register for public comment once completed. 

As I stated at the opening of my testimony, the issue of drugged 

driving continues to be a priority for SAMHSA and the administration. SAMHSA, along with other Federal agencies, continue to collaborate with state and local governments, non-governmental organizations and Federal partners to raise awareness of the dangers 

of drugged driving and meet the president’s goal of reducing 

drugged driving in America. 

The Administration continues to advance the work on this important issue, and we look forward to continuing to work with Congress on these efforts. 

Chairman Mica, thank you for this opportunity. I welcome any 

questions from you or your colleagues may have. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flegel follows:] 

46 


Insert offset folio 34 here 89703.034
47 


Insert offset folio 35 here 89703.035
48 


Insert offset folio 36 here 89703.036
49 


Insert offset folio 37 here 89703.037
50 


Insert offset folio 38 here 89703.038
51 


Insert offset folio 39 here 89703.039
52 


Insert offset folio 40 here 89703.040
53 


Insert offset folio 41 here 89703.041
54 

Mr. MICA. Thank each of our witnesses. And we’ll start a little 

round of questions. 

Just, again, to give folks the most accurate information on the 

number of highway fatalities, from 2001 to 2012, and this doesn’t 

include 2013, but during that dozen years that I spoke of, 468,743 

highway fatalities. That’s nearly half a million people and I’m sure 

if we include 2013, we would top that. That’s just a phenomenal 

devastation and that’s fatalities; that’s not injuries, property damage and everything that has gone. Everyone in this room can probably name someone who’s died or a family member in an automobile fatality. And, again, with the changing laws, there are significant consequences. 

So, Mr. Hart, again, where do you see us going as far as reaching 

some positive steps in, one, containing the issue, then also adjusting our Federal laws, our regulations, adopting standards for tests, 

the whole spectrum of addressing these changing laws? Maybe you 

could comment generally. 

Mr. HART. Thank you for the question. As the accident investigators, when we investigate accidents and see indication of impairment, as we have in every mode, then we’re very concerned about 

the need for strong and decisive action, and typically that will 

mean, as you’ve heard from the other panelists, strong legislation, 

strong enforcement, and good education, and in addition, we are 

look at technologies to help us with the detection, so we see that— 

that needs to be—— 

Mr. MICA. Some of that has to be based on data. Some of what 

we have is really not that up to date. 

And I think Mr. Michael testified they started collecting some 

data as recently as 2007, and then you said 2013 data we had collected, which we’re going the do a comparison of is—but that has 

not been calculated, and when do you expect us to have that data? 

Mr. MICHAEL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We have collected 

information in 2007 about the presence of drugs, and specifically 

marijuana among drivers on the roadway, and we repeated that 

same data collection during 2013. We are now analyzing that, and 

it will be compared. 

Mr. MICA. But what—my question was when will we see that 

completed? 

Mr. MICHAEL. We expect to have that information, sir, by the end 

of the year. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Well, if you could check even closer and advise 

the committee and staff, maybe we could ask that question. I would 

like to find out when we’ll have that data. 

Now, the next thing that comes to mind is, most of the 23 states, 

my state may follow, Florida has an initiative referendum coming 

in and other entities, state entities that may change their laws. Do 

you plan or will there be a plan to check some of these states? 

Now, Florida will change the law possibly and others have already 

changed the law. Some have changed the law for some time. 

I’m getting back reports on California that a news reporter told 

me he went out and he said it’s a whole different world in the uses. 

Again, much more dramatic than you would expect. It’s not just 

medical marijuana use but it’s spread, and he was telling me, just 

the societal change and behavioral change. 

55 

So it’s having impact, but I think we need to look at doing testing. Those are the medical marijuana states, and each one of the 

languages may be a little bit different allowing more latitude, but 

then you have Colorado, which we have had some experience to 

date, but I think we ought to go in and look at Colorado. Washington is more recent, but where you have a change in law, if its 

medical marijuana, and again changes brought about by that law, 

and then you have a much more lax use or legalization as you have 

in Colorado, do you have plans to go in and do some testing there? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yes, sir. We are working with the State of Washington currently and using the same roadside data collection process that we’ve used across the country looking specifically at Washington before and after their legalizing the sale of marijuana to assess what effect that may have with the levels of use on the roadway. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Well, again, I think we need accurate data, and 

then we need to adopt our Federal regs and get to Ms. Kelly now. 

You have a whole host of areas in which we do some testing but 

most of the testing is periodic, is it not, for marijuana use? 

Ms. KELLY. Our program covers preemployment testing to start 

with, so before someone enters—— 

Mr. MICA. Right. But then actually—— 

Ms. KELLY. —the industry, and then random, and then there is 

reasonable cause testing. There is post-accident testing, and then 

if someone is being positive, then follow up. 

Mr. MICA. The other thing, too, again, in some of these states— 

and the marijuana medical use, there is, again, different language 

and it’s allowed more latitude in some states and people have 

taken advantage of that. Are you going in and doing more testing 

say in Colorado or Washington? For example, pilots would be more 

exposed, commercial drivers would be more exposed. 

In states where you have, again, the possibility of—with liberalization of the law, are we taking some steps to try to ensure the 

safety of the public and again the transportation mode? An airline 

pilot, a commercial one can be taking a couple of hundred people 

in the air, passenger rail. 

We didn’t get into, in our headline here, pipeline safety or maritime or others, but they all pose different risks. Tell us where 

you’re going with these modes that put public safety at risk? 

Ms. KELLY. Well, we do feel that our program is effective, and 

the way our program is structured through the regulation—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Kelly, could I ask you to put that microphone 

closer to you. Thank you. 

Ms. KELLY. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Under the regulations, our program is administered through the 

individual employers. 

Mr. MICA. But it’s historic and it’s been developed, but it was— 

and it’s applied, but it is—you’re mostly talking in terms of how 

things have in the past or—— 

Ms. KELLY. Uh-huh. 

Mr. MICA. But not how things are most recently and where we’re 

going with this. 

Ms. KELLY. We don’t conduct the testing ourselves. 

Mr. MICA. Yeah. 

56 

Ms. KELLY. We require the employers to conduct it. 

Mr. MICA. Right. 

Ms. KELLY. And so many of our employers are nationwide employers. 

Mr. MICA. Have you changed any of those requirements? 

Ms. KELLY. No, sir, we have not. We have maintained under the 

regulation, the random testing—— 

Mr. MICA. It’s same old, same old, but see, that’s my point is I 

think we’re—you have to go to risk based when you’re doing most 

of these approaches to try to ensure safety, and preemployment is 

one, we’ve done that in the past, we’re doing that. 

Now, we have a new situation with much more of this available 

narcotic on the market, and we’ve seen an increase in use just by 

the statistics that were presented by some of the panelists today. 

But are you adapting the Department of Transportation regulations or advisories to where we see the most risk? 

Okay. We’ve got FAA, we’ve got Federal Railroad Administration, 

we’ve got National Highway Safety. Tell me if there have been any 

changes in directives in the last 24 months? 

Ms. KELLY. There have not been any changes to our random testing rates, but many of our employees are interstate, and so if a 

pilot flies in and out of Denver, doesn’t mean necessarily that he 

or she lives anywhere near Denver, so many of our employees 

throughout the different modes of transportation are not purely in 

one state. They operate cross states and—— 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, I think we need to be a little bit preemptive in DOT in protecting people. I had dinner the other night with 

a friend from Florida and asked him what he was going to do for 

a vacation. He says, well, we’re putting it off a little and we’re 

going to go skiing, and he said—he said—this is just in conversation. He said we had planned to go to Colorado, he says, but the 

last thing I want to do is take my three kids out there and have 

somebody stoned, you know, posing a risk to him. He’s going to 

Utah. I mean, not just—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No risk there. 

Mr. MICA. There will never be any risk in family friendly Utah, 

but I mean, that’s one change a father in behavior. We are responsible for the safety of the public. You’re responsible for administrating rules, regulation that impact pilots who carry passengers, 

trains—I mean, I showed that one crash, 25 people killed, and 

that’s before some of these changes in law are granted, so—and 

we’ve seen that, again, incidents of use, whether it’s young people 

or older, is more so. 

You’ve told me there aren’t any changes, and I want to get—we’ll 

get a 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’s worse than what we imagine, but we need to know. We need 

to act based on facts and act based on risk and preempt as much, 

as you can, bad effects on the general public and their safety. 

Ms. KELLY. Well, and the data is a good point, sir. We collect 

data from the laboratories, the laboratory confirmed positives, and 

we’ve been doing that every 6 months in our office with Aggregate 

National Data, but what we’ve seen so far since 2008 is a steady 

57 

rate of marijuana positives ranging between 21,000 to 22,000 out 

of roughly 2.5 to 3 million employees tested each 6-month period, 

so we have seen those numbers remain the same across the nation. 

Again, as it comes in as Aggregate. 

Mr. MICA. Again, I think it’s important, too, 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, and again, this swabs, can be used on site. I don’t know if 

we’re looking at these, using this kind of a test for truck drivers, 

train drivers, you know, where we’re doing spot checking. We’re not 

doing it—using anything like this now, are we? 

Ms. KELLY. We’re required by the statute, the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act to follow the science as it’s developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and implemented through the mandatory guidelines, so we look to—— 

Mr. MICA. But we have none of the—this is not accepted yet, Mr. 

Flegel, is it? 

Mr. FLEGEL. Currently we are looking at having the oral fluid 

standards come out and then be implemented public. 

Mr. MICA. And is that—and ITSA, or whatever it is. 

Mr. FLEGEL. No, this would be through the mandatory guidelines. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. 

Mr. FLEGEL. Right, and—— 

Mr. MICA. But at least they’re involved in setting standards; is 

that correct? 

Mr. FLEGEL. We actually set the mandatory guideline testing cutoff—— 

Mr. MICA. Okay. 

Mr. FLEGEL. —and standards. So, once those standards are out 

to the public and be commented, we would like to evaluate all 

these devices. 

Mr. MICA. Can you give us, the committee, a chronological estimate as to when you’re going to complete, again, your—what you’re 

saying here before the committee, because dealing with some of the 

standards, I just pulled down the national standards and testing 

bill a couple of weeks ago, or within the last 2 weeks just because 

they had jerked us around for 10 years on a biometric standard for 

an iris I.D. and they promised and promised and not performed. 

I don’t want to be coming back to a hearing saying where are 

they, we are developing these things. We need some Federal standards and we need also new tests that have acceptable standards to 

evaluate people who are on the job in transportation and make certain the public is safe. Do you see my point? 

Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

By the way, I know the chairman did not mean to suggest in any 

way that Colorado is not a safe place to go skiing. His friend at 

dinner may have a private view. I’m sure there are wonderful reasons to go to Colorado and Utah and anywhere else one wishes to 

ski, and I know my Colorado colleagues who aren’t here would 

want me to say that, so I’m sure you didn’t mean to suggest that, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. No. Maybe he could stay home in Florida or go to—— 

58 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Mr. MICA. Go to Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Florida and Virginia, however, obviously are better. 

Mr. Hart, there is legislation with respect to pilot licensed medical certification here in the Congress that would actually no longer 

require medical certificates for pilots whose craft carries up to five 

passengers. Are you aware of that legislation? 

Mr. HART. Yes, I’m aware of that legislation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And what do you think about it? 

Mr. HART. Well, we are very concerned about pilots flying without, you know, inadequate medical standards. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Mr. HART. But we based our what we—our policy based on what 

we see in accidents, and so far we haven’t seen enough accidents 

to warrant an agency position on it yet, but we are very concerned 

not only about not having to have a medical, but then, in addition 

to that, if you don’t have a medical, you are less likely to pay attention to the FAA’s list of prohibited legal drugs as well as obviously 

the illegal drugs—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Mr. HART. —but also the legal drugs, and we’re concerned that 

that list will not be paid attention to by people who don’t have a 

medical certificate. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. It just strikes me as very odd. Here we are having a hearing on, you know, the utilization and potential harmful 

effects of any kind of drug or controlled substance in the operation 

of any kind of vehicle and meanwhile there is apparently legislation that would exempt a class, a subclass of people who fly airplanes, and I can’t 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 that that could come to any good, so I encourage 

you, Mr. Hart, and your colleagues to re-examine that legislation 

and hopefully take a position on it because it seems to contradict 

everything we’re talking about this morning at this hearing. 

Mr. HART. We will certainly pay close attention to that in our future accident investigations. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Dr. Michael, I was just thinking about, talking about driving 

while impaired and things that we discourage. For example, we’re 

worried about THC, but I mean, texting while driving, bad idea? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Of course, sir, very bad idea. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Kills people? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Of course. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Do we have data on it? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yes, we do. 

Mr. CONNOLLY.How many people were killed on the roads last 

year texting while driving? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Distraction in general is about 3,000 people. 

Texting alone is several hundred. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. Alcohol and driving? 

Mr. MICHAEL. In 2012, 10,322 people died in crashes in which a 

driver had a blood alcohol limit above the legal limit. 

59 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Sleep deprivation? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Sleep is harder to measure, of course, but we believe it is a significant problem. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would it be fair to say, by the way, that studies 

on sleep deprivation and driving suggests that sleep deprivation 

mimics in almost exact detail drinking and driving in terms of impairment? 

Mr. MICHAEL. At least in some details. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aggressive driving, driving at unsafe speeds? 

Mr. MICHAEL. As many as a third of crashes are attributed at 

least in part to excessive speeding. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And how many deaths can we attribute to THC 

in the bloodstream? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Currently, that’s difficult to say, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Hmm. I just, fair enough, probably not zero. 

Mr. MICHAEL. Probably not. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But we don’t know. 

Mr. MICHAEL. We don’t. We don’t have a precise estimate. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We do have precise estimates on distracted driving, 3,331. We have precise estimates of drinking and driving, so 

I just want to put it in context. No one is arguing that it’s a good 

idea, but the fact of the matter is we don’t have a lot of data. 

Now, let me ask. Do we have a standard, if I could borrow your 

gizmo here for a minute. 

Mr. MICA. You want to swap? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. The chairman points out that in parts of Europe 

they take a swab sample, put it in here and measure THC. Do we 

have any such device that we use in our law enforcement in the 

United States? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yes. Excuse me, sir. There is some use of devices 

very similar to that by law enforcement. In fact, we are currently 

doing a pilot test in California to test the feasibility of more widespread use of devices very similar to that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We have an alcohol standard that blood alcohol 

above a certain standard, you’re in legal jeopardy. Would you remind us what that standard is? 

Mr. MICHAEL. .08 blood alcohol. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And that’s a national standard. 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yes, it is. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And accepted by virtually all States? 

Mr. MICHAEL. That’s right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Do we have a comparable standard for THC? 

Mr. MICHAEL. No, we don’t, sir. The available evidence does not 

support the development of an impairment threshold for THC 

which would be analogous to that for alcohol. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why is that, Dr. Michael? 

Mr. MICHAEL. The available evidence indicates 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 content is associated 

with about four times the crash risk of a sober person. The average 

arrest is .15 THC. That’s associated with about 15 times the crash 

risk. 

60 

Beyond a—some broad confirmation that higher levels of THC 

are generally associated with higher levels of impairment, a more 

precise association of various THC levels and degrees of impairment are not yet available. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That’s really interesting. So we don’t have a uniform standard. The variability is much greater than that with 

other controlled substances such as alcohol. 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yeah. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We actually can’t scientifically pinpoint levels of 

impairment with any accuracy. We would all concede there’s some 

impairment for some period of time, but it’s very variable, and 

we’re not quite sure yet, certainly not sure enough to adopt a uniform standard as to here’s the maximum level beyond which we 

know there’s serious impairment? 

Mr. MICHAEL. That’s fair to say, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Wow. And that’s a substance 1 controlled substance. 

Well, I think it underscores—your testimony underscores, Dr. 

Michael, why we need a lot more science here, and I guess what 

really strikes me is that meanwhile, as I said in my opening statement, the laboratories of Democracy, 22 states 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, and meanwhile, at least on a national level, 

we’re not comfortable with the science, and in terms of the impact 

of THC on operating a vehicle of any kind. Fair statement? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yes. And of course, we’re pursuing that science. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I understand. So, we’re pursuing it. Is there a 

goal or an end, you know, date where we want to achieve so by a 

certain date we hope to have some preliminary—well, we hope to 

have the basis upon which to examine or adopt some preliminary 

standards comparable to other substances? 

Mr. MICHAEL. We have sponsored some work with standards development with regard to measurement techniques and specific 

drugs to be measured in—among drivers involved in traffic crashes 

and also minimum cutoff levels that represent the analytical capabilities of existing technology. Those recommendations have been 

established. What we lack are a thresholds of impairment that are 

analogous to .08 BAC. 

One step that is currently ongoing that will take us well into 

that direction is the crash risk study that I mentioned in my opening statement. This is the same sort of study that was done for alcohol a number of years ago which established those risk levels 

that I told you about. So this involves a very careful look at two 

groups of subjects, one group who has been involved in a crash, another group who has not, and looking for relative concentration levels of factors that might have caused a crash, factors such as THC 

use. Those kinds of studies can develop the risk odds that could potentially be used to develop a threshold in the future. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you, and I wish you luck in your research. I just think it is amazing with some of the hyperventilated 

rhetoric about marijuana use and THC that 50 years after, I guess 

it’s 50 years we’ve declared it a class 1 substance, we still don’t 

61 

have enough data to know just how dangerous it is in operating a 

vehicle. 

Mr. MICHAEL. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And that really raises questions about either, you 

know, the classification itself and whether that makes any sense or 

raises serious questions about how our Government’s operating in 

terms of the data it does not have and the science it does not know 

and yet the assertions that we make. And that is not a good recipe 

for rational public policy, and it’s one of the reasons, I suggest, why 

22 states have just headed in a different direction, but there’s danger in that, too, because they’re going in a direction also without 

the science, and there are lots of complications. 

The previous hearing we had, and Dr. Fleming and I talked 

about this, along with the chairman, you know, you’ve got doctors 

in States where legalization for medicinal purposes has been granted who, nonetheless, really don’t have protocols, really don’t have 

the science to decide on, you know, levels of efficacy, mixing it with 

other drugs for enhanced efficacy, potential dangers, overdose, 

whatever, and I just think we’re at a point where we’ve got to get 

a lot more serious about the science in order to have, to fashion rational public policies, including with respect to transportation safety. 

I thank you all for your testimony, and Mr. Chairman, again, a 

thoughtful hearing, and I thank you. 

Thank you, Dr. Fleming. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Dr. Fleming. 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Michael, to kind of follow up on some of the question from 

my good friend from Virginia. We don’t have adequate science on 

the effects of marijuana, THC specifically on the body, and speaking as a physician and someone who’s worked in the area of addiction, my understanding of this is that it’s a much more complex 

interaction in physiology between the drug and the body. For instance, we know metabolites remain in the body for after 30 days 

after use. Much of it is stored in the fat, so fat body content can 

affect. Would that be a correct assumption on my part that that’s 

really what makes this a more difficult issue in terms of measurement than alcohol? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yes, sir. Of course, you’re completely right on that. 

The study of the effect of THC on driving is much more challenging 

in just about every aspect than that for alcohol. 

Mr. FLEMING. Right. So really it’s multidimensional as opposed 

to alcohol, which you can draw a straight line on the graph, again 

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. 

Well, given the fact that we have 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? 

62 

Mr. MICHAEL. With regard to use on the roadway, which of 

course is my major concern, it’s the decision of the States how they 

want to deal with these impairment issues. We’ve tried to provide 

them with guidance, with scientific evidence that they can use to 

support effective policies. 

We’ve been able to do that with alcohol, and States have been 

able to respond very positively to alcohol impairment and drive 

those numbers down. In 2012, there were just over 10,000 killed 

in such crashes, 20 years previously, that number was well over 

20,000. 

Mr. FLEMING. But I mean, going beyond whether we’re talking— 

comparing THC with alcohol or any other drug, and I’m asking 

your personal opinion, I’m going to ask the opinion of the rest of 

the panel members here as well. If you have a drug that you really 

can’t define the effects adequately but we know that it can have 

serious, in fact, proof 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? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Well, I think that it makes sense to be very cautious with a policy when the complete evidence is not yet available. 

Mr. FLEMING. Okay. Mr. Hart, what is your opinion, sir? 

Mr. HART. As accident investigators, we follow where the accidents take us, and that’s the reason that, for example, we did 

something that was very controversial, which was to recommend 

that the blood alcohol content number be reduced from .08 to .05 

because we know any alcohol is impairing and there is no bright 

line that says this much is too much, and it’s really a policy question of where should it be for legal enforcement. We would have 

that same approach with respect to any other substance, is that it’s 

kind of wait and see based on our accident experience. 

Mr. FLEMING. So certainly buzzed driving is the same thing as 

impaired driving. 

Mr. HART. That’s the slang for it—— 

Mr. FLEMING. Yes. 

Mr. HART. —is buzzed driving, that’s correct. 

Mr. FLEMING. So whenever there’s a question as to being more 

conservative and more protective and more restrictive, when in 

doubt, always be a little safer and a little more restrictive, would 

that be a safe estimate from your opinion? 

Mr. HART. Well, we are the safety people, so we would always 

go in the direction that is for safety. 

Mr. FLEMING. Okay. Very good. I am two for two here. How 

about you, Ms. Kelly? 

Ms. KELLY. Well, we rely on the science, and we make the policy 

based on the science. 

Mr. FLEMING. But when there’s a lack of science, do you lean towards being more conservative until that science develops or to just 

full steam ahead, let’s go ahead and give it a chance? 

Ms. KELLY. We remain with the science on it. So when our scientists at the Department of Health and Human Services tell us 

that things have changed, then we follow under the Omnibus 

Transportation Employee Testing Act, we follow what they say. 

Until then, it remains a schedule 1, we treat it as a schedule 1. 

63 

Mr. FLEMING. Okay. 

Ms. KELLY. With no excuses. 

Mr. FLEMING. So you would agree that certainly being cautious, 

not being aggressive to change something to a more relaxed standard without the science to back that safety up, you’re reluctant to 

move forward? 

Ms. KELLY. We cannot make changes—— 

Mr. FLEMING. Yes. 

Ms. KELLY. —without the science, yes, sir. 

Mr. FLEMING. You, Mr. Flegel, how about you? 

Mr. FLEGEL. As with my colleague here from DOT, under executive order, THC is mentioned directly, and we will continue to test 

for schedule 1 and schedule 2 drugs. 

Mr. FLEMING. So, I think certainly we have somewhat of agreement here. I think we can all agree to the fact that until we have 

the science, we should be careful and cautious, and certainly one 

of the things about THC is, because it has been illegal, we haven’t 

really been doing the studies, the research, and only now, I mean, 

even some of the important data that’s come out has only come out 

very recently as it’s become legalized. 

For instance, we know that even in casual users, there’s profound changes in the brain. We see that on MRI scans, and we’ve 

done a number of them to see that. We also know that a longitudinal study showed a progressive decline in IQ, so just even with 

early studies, we’re beginning to see a lot of problems, and that’s 

notwithstanding the up to 14 percent of fatal accidents involve 

THC. 

Now, we hear about medicinal marijuana. It’s interesting that in 

the State of California and in the city of Denver, we have more pot 

dispensaries than we do Starbucks, and I don’t know what your 

opinion is, but I don’t think people are that unhealthy in Denver 

and in California. Is there anyone on the panel that would disagree 

with that? 

So, again, I question—and here’s my question as it interacts with 

what you do. Do you treat someone who is on medicinal marijuana 

versus recreational marijuana any differently when it comes to 

traffic accidents, when it comes to being able to say fly an airplane, 

or to engineer a train, do you treat those people any differently? 

Anyone like to comment on that? Yes, go ahead. 

Ms. KELLY. No, sir, we do not in the Department of Transportation. All the transportation safety sensitive employees are subject 

to the same testing, and we did issue the two statements, one in 

2009 in response to the medicinal marijuana laws in States, and 

in 2012 on recreational. Everyone is to be treated the same. There 

is no legitimate medical explanation for the schedule 1 drug, marijuana. 

Mr. FLEMING. Right. So for all intents and purposes, if someone 

is sick and needs marijuana, that person is disabled for the purpose of having a job in transportation? 

Ms. KELLY. If that person tests positive, they will put—they will 

be required to be removed from safety sensitive functions. 

Mr. FLEMING. All right, okay. Very good. Now, there was a mention here about, I think, I didn’t catch all of the exchange there, 

but I believe there was a—Mr. Connolly brought up Mr. Rokita’s 

64 

bill that would actually reduce the standards for private pilots such 

that all you would require is just a regular driver’s license to be 

able to qualify in terms of safety standards to fly an airplane. 

Mr. Hart, did I catch that right, or am I—or were you talking 

about a different subject? 

Mr. HART. You are correct. It’s legislation to allow private pilots 

to not have to have the medical examination that they are now required to have. 

Mr. FLEMING. Right. So, in theory, someone could be with that 

standard, and maybe even under the current standard, a private 

pilot could be flying an airplane under the influence of marijuana, 

THC? 

Mr. HART. That is possible, and we have investigated accidents 

where that was occurring. That’s the reason we’re having this 

forum, and we’re going have this meeting in September to look at 

that and get—— 

Mr. FLEMING. Right. 

Mr. HART. —more data and get more specific about it. 

Mr. FLEMING. You know, I love to watch documentaries on TV, 

and I was watching one the other night that discussed airplanes 

and mid-air collisions, and what they focused on was private aircraft that had drifted in the wrong air lane and interacted with a 

commercial aircraft. 

One that comes to mind, I was living in the area at the time was 

in San Diego. I believe it was 1978 where you had a private airplane that drifted in the wrong—they were actually in the wrong 

air space, they collided with a commercial aircraft, and hundreds 

of people died as a result of that. 

So what that would suggest to me is that no matter what the 

highest standards you could ever come up with for a commercial 

pilot, when you have private pilots out there who could be impaired 

and not receive the same high standard, then they are, in effect, 

just as dangerous to the commercial passengers as the commercial 

pilot himself if his standards were lowered as well. 

Would you agree or disagree with that? A private pilot flying 

with lower standards in effect has the same potential danger impact as if the pilot of the commercial aircraft is impaired instead. 

Mr. HART. When we do our accident investigation, the issue of 

impairment, it may be independent of the issue of what their medical standard was. If they’re impaired, whether they had a medical 

certificate or not, then we’re going to put that in our probable 

cause if that was a cause of the accident. 

Mr. FLEMING. Right. So certainly a private aircraft—the safety of 

aviation in general is no better than what the lowest standard for 

any pilot who is in the air, and so as we have pilots who in this 

case, hopefully it will never make it into law, but we have pilots 

who are flying with no more standard than to have a driver’s license and hopefully will be certified to fly, of course, that makes 

sense but no medical standard beyond that, and then we have the 

legalization and the increased medicinalization and decriminalization of marijuana, then I see the risk to air travel to be growing 

in the future as we go forward with that. 

So, certainly I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we look at this 

at both sides. One is the fact that there is many reasons, in my 

65 

view, why we should not go forward with legalization, 

medicinalization or even decriminalization, but also have the highest standards for all who fly in the air realizing that there are new 

threats when it comes to THC. 

One last question. What sort of guidance are you getting from 

the White House? You know, the President has been giving some 

ambiguous cues on this. In 2011 he made very clear statements 

that marijuana should not be legalized, that it’s a potential danger, 

and certainly young people should stay away from it, but in 2014, 

he made other statements that suggested that it’s maybe no worse 

than tobacco or alcohol, so I’d love to hear from you as Government 

agencies what sort of guidance, if any, are you getting from the 

White House. Mr. Michael? 

Mr. MICHAEL. We work closely with the White House Office of 

National Drug Control Policy, and we are a part of the national 

drug strategy. The office has provided us support for our roadside 

survey and for other research that we’ve done, so I would say that 

we are getting very good input and very good support. 

Mr. FLEMING. Okay. Anyone else? 

Mr. FLEGEL. I would say also the same. We work closely with the 

Office of National Drug Control Policy in setting standards. They 

set policy, we set the regulatory side, so we’ve worked well with 

them over the last year. 

Mr. FLEMING. But have you been moved in any direction towards 

relaxed standards or legalization of marijuana from the White 

House, any guidance in that direction? 

Mr. FLEGEL. We are currently, as I stated, under executive order, 

so we are under executive order to test for schedule 1 and schedule 

2 drugs, and that will remain. 

Mr. FLEMING. Okay. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A very interesting discussion—— 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. FLEMING. —and panel. Thank you so much. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Dr. Fleming. 

Didn’t the President, after he made his statement it was no 

worse than alcohol or tobacco, we did have testify the ONDCP, I 

think it was his deputy, and he said he disagreed with the White 

House. So you-all said you’ve been working with ONDCP, you 

would agree with them more than you would with the President, 

Mr. Hart? Come on, I want to put you on the spot. 

Mr. HART. Our guidance is to investigate accidents, find out what 

happened, and recommend what is necessary to—— 

Mr. MICA. And that’s right. You didn’t commit yourself on that, 

but Dr. Michael did. Okay, Dr. Michael, you said you were working 

with ONDCP and you concurred with them, so which—you agree 

with what they said, ONDCP? 

Mr. MICHAEL. We are in agreement with ONDCP, and I would 

like to say we are in agreement with the President as well. 

Mr. MICA. Oh, now. I could make a funny comment now but I 

won’t. We might have to get the testing equipment out here. 

Mr. Flegel. 

Mr. FLEGEL. And again, we work closely with ONDCP on everything as far as, both in setting—— 

Mr. MICA. But again—— 

66 

Mr. FLEGEL. —the standards. 

Mr. MICA. —the President said one thing. We hauled in the deputy director. He disagreed with the President. We had a whole host 

of people, DEA, other agencies who also disagreed with the President on—and that was my point. I tried to embarrass you, but it 

didn’t work. 

So Dr. Michael, you said it’s the decision of the States really, but 

the Federal Government does set some standards, and we have a 

.08 standard now. If you don’t comply with that, we can penalize 

you and that is an incentive, is it not? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yes, the Congress established a statute. 

Mr. MICA. Yeah, and that’s come down. In fact, I just read your 

office, or one of the office’s—yeah, it’s your office said just recommended going to .5; is that right? 

Mr. MICHAEL. I believe that was a recommendation from—— 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Hart. Okay. I knew one of you did, but there’s a 

recommendation, and then we do assess penalties to states that 

don’t comply where there is some, some reduction in their eligibility for programs or funds. But that was your recommendation, 

Mr. Hart? 

Mr. HART. That was our recommendation, that’s correct, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. One of the problems we have here is we don’t have 

federal standards. We do have States adopting standards. Colorado, it’s five nanograms per milliliter, I guess, and is there any 

consideration of any standard under way other than what the national standards board is considering? Are you guys looking at anything? Dr. Michael. 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yes, we are. We, recognize that we need more testing of drivers at the state level. 

Mr. MICA. And then you need some means of testing and I want 

you also to comment, you said you’re using some similar devices in 

testing. There’s nothing with a standard, there’s nothing that has 

been accepted as an acceptable or certified, I’m sure you haven’t 

certified anything yet, piece of equipment that can test, correct? 

Mr. MICHAEL. That’s right. The technology, which you have in 

your hand, is developing rapidly, and we think this will improve 

testing quite a lot. 

Mr. MICA. You said California you’re doing some testing? 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yes, we’re doing some pilot tests in four locations 

in California as we speak to test the feasibility of those with the 

idea, if they are working well, that encouraging their use by states. 

More testing, we believe, would also call—— 

Mr. MICA. Is this just internal, or are you working with the national standards testing agency? 

Mr. MICHAEL. This test is—we’re working with State officials on 

this. 

Mr. MICA. But not with the ones who are setting the standard, 

or at least looking at setting some standards which would be our 

National Standards testing, NS, whatever the initials are—— 

Mr. MICHAEL. Yeah. 

Mr. MICA. It’s NS. 

Mr. MICHAEL. No, we are not working with—— 

67 

Mr. MICA. I think it would behoove you to contact them, and 

we’ll also. I’ll ask the committee to put you in touch with them. I’ve 

had my go-arounds with them, and they do take awhile to develop 

a standard. I mean, it’s an important responsibility and you have 

to be accurate, and whatever you adopt does become a standard. 

So, I would suggest that, you know, I don’t do these hearings just 

to hear ourselves talk. We’re trying to also stay ahead of the curve. 

We have changing, dramatically changing laws that our states— 

and it changes social behavior, and we don’t have the same—Mr. 

Connolly was talking about the marijuana when he went to college 

or something, and this is much more powerful—— 

We’ve had testimony that confirms this that we’ve got people 

more at risk, we’ve got laws rapidly changing, societal view of the 

risk, and then we talked about teens are most susceptible and also 

the most vulnerable and the most slaughtered by transportation, 

by a vehicle, many of them by alcohol, some by substance abuse, 

and we see increasing use of that particular among the most vulnerable who are now viewing this as less of a risk, so we do have 

some serious issues here. 

No standards, no testing capability, and then we haven’t done— 

we’ve done some testing in the past, 2007, 2013, we don’t have that 

data back. I want to see some data and I want to see Fox and others looking at beefing up the testing and the regulations where we 

have now more exposure to a schedule 1 narcotic being more available to the public and the implications on public safety and transportation. So, that’s something hopefully positive that can come 

from this. 

Also, it’s my understanding marijuana stays in the system longer 

than alcohol. We’ve got a whole host of things that need to be 

looked at, and again, implications from a different type of substance that is posing a risk. I’ve been on transportation for two decades, says something good about some institutional knowledge, but 

one of the things we focused on transportation, when you see people getting slaughtered by the tens of thousands a year, we did 

some simple things. We put in guardrails in the median, there 

were so many crossover—we put in simple, what do you call it, the 

rumble strips so people who fall asleep are awakened or shaken 

alert. We’ve encouraged the safety airbags on the side and structural changes. 

Now, if we don’t do something when we see a danger of a new 

narcotic, again, the potential of more people impaired, driving 

while impaired, whether, again, a vehicle, manning a train, piloting, and I showed just a few samples of the civil planes that went 

down. We have pages and pages. I shared four. I showed one picture of a teenage fatality, and we know from the blood test, the 

people say no one gets killed from smoking marijuana, well, I differ 

with that, so it’s a serious issue. We have serious responsibility, 

and I intend to pursue the matter beyond even this hearing. 

So I thank each of you for coming out, for being part of today’s 

hearing. Hopefully we can all do a better job, and there being no 

further business, well, let me see. With the concurrence of the minority, we’ll leave the record open for 10 additional days. We may 

have additional questions, and I’ve asked for additional information 

to be submitted for the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

68 

Mr. MICA. No further business before the Government Operations Subcommittee, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(69) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

70 


Insert offset folio 42 here 89703.042
71 


Insert offset folio 43 here 89703.043
72 


Insert offset folio 44 here 89703.044
73 


Insert offset folio 45 here 89703.045
74 


Insert offset folio 46 here 89703.046
75 


Insert offset folio 47 here 89703.047
76 


Insert offset folio 48 here 89703.048
77 


Insert offset folio 49 here 89703.049
78 


Insert offset folio 30 here 89703.030
79 


Insert offset folio 31 here 89703.031
80 


Insert offset folio 32 here 89703.032
81 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 33 here 89703.033