too many people died before strong action was take tone combat it. 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 before we take strong and decisive action. hearings like this will inform policy makers so effective law can be crafted, strong enforcement can be implemented in all modes of transportation and we look forward to working with you to draw more attention to this issue. again, thank you for inviting me to testify. i look forward to responding to your questions. >> thank you. we will withhold questions until we recognized everyone. now jeff michael with the national highway traffic safety administration. you are recognized. >> good morning chairman. i appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today on the national highway traffic

safety administration's research on drugged driving. we take tremendous pride in protecting americans by partnering with states to enforce strong highway safety laws and working to make vehicles safer. highway fatalities have declined, traffic deaths fallen by 22% in the past decade. with more than 30,000 fatalities each year we must look at new and innovative ways to save lives. working with our partners and other organizations we made substantial process including drunk driving and seatbelt use and applied the same approaches to emerging concerns such as distracted driving. the legalization of marijuana under state laws poses new concerns and we are working to understand these risks and develop appropriate countermeasures. available evidence indicates alcohol is the most common source of driver impairment.

in 2012 more than 30% of traffic deaths involved a driver with blood alcohol level at or above legal limit. several decades of data collection and a well established criminal justice process traffic safety professionals have a good understanding of the scale of the drunk driving problem. in 2007 we obtained the first information on the prevalence of drug use by drivers by including drug testing in our national roadside survey. although the survey was used to track driver alcohol use for several decades this was the first time information on drug use was collected. this survey based on information from voluntary participants found 12% of weekend drivers were alcohol positive and 9% were marijuana positive. we repeated the survey in 2013 and we are in the process of

analyzing that 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 to conduct a similar roadside survey. this is a two-phase study that will assess the change in drivers before and will ifing the data in which the state allowed retail sale of the drug. we also need information on the degree of risk associated with drug use. we are in the process of a new study comparing the crash risk of drivers using drugs to those with no drugs in their system. the first investigation of drug crash risk in the united states and more research of various types will be needed to get a full understandingly of the role in drugs in crashes. as we are prepared to release the results we plan to reach out to stakeholders to inform them of the findingings. strong laws and law enforcement

are cornerstones and we are looking to the same solutions for drunk driving. we look close closely to develop more than 7,000 experts across the nation. these trained officers can significantly facilitate successful prosecution of drugged driving cases. we are looking closely at procedural barriers. recognizing the challenges presented by drug testing methods. while it is complex, testing for alcohol can be done at the jurisdiction by local officials with a moderate amount of training. testing for drug presence among suspected drivers is less convenient requiring a blood sample be drawn and tonight a lab. the cost and delay can be a disincentive for officials to

pursue a drugged driving charge. in conclusion we are committed to reducing alcohol and drug impaired driving and support enforcement of rograms much progress has been made but it still claims more than 10,000 lives per year. thank you for inviting me to testify. i am happy to take any questions you may have. >> thank you. we will hear now from patrice kelly, acting director of the office of drug and alcohol policy at the department of compliance at the department of transportation. welcome and you are recognized. >> thank you chairman and ranking member and 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 .egislation

the transportation industry drug and alcohol testing program is a critical element of the department of transportation a safety mission. airline pilots, truck delivers, subway operators, mariners, flight operators, airline mechanics, locomotive engineers, motorcoach drivers and school bus drivers among others have a tremendous responsibility to the public and we cannot let their performance be compromised by drugs or alcohol. i will provide you with a brief history of our program regarding the use of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes by individuals who work in federally regulated testing -- transportation industries. the program was first established in 1988 following the department of health and human services development of

ug testing for federal employees. the program was initiated in response to fatal accidents that occurred due to illegal drug use. in 1991 congress enacted the transportation employee testing act. requiring the d.o.t. to expand the application of its program to include mass transit and regulations to address the requirements. the d.o.t. program always has required transportation industry employers to have drug and alcohol testing programs that require their employees to be removed from performing sensitive duties immediately if they have drug or alcohol violations. throughout the history of our program and consistent with congress' direction we have relied for their technical expertise for determining the drugs for which we test, the testing methodology and the

integrity of the laboratories we are limited to testing for controlled substances included in the mandatory guidelines. currently they include schedule 1 and 2 drugs. the drugs in classes for which we test are cocaine, opiates, amphetamines 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 testing. currently there are approximately 5 million d.o.t. safety sensitive regulated employees that are subject to our testing program. has epartment's policy remain unchanged since the program began.

there is no legitimate explanation, medical or otherwise for the presence of a schedule 1 controlled substance such as marijuana in an employee's system. we issued a reminder to our regulated entities that under the d.o.t. testing program medical marijuana use authorized under state or local law is not a valid medical explanation for positive drug testing results. although there is recent movement to allow use of marijuana by their citizens the d.o.t. program does not and will not authorize the use of schedule 1 controlled substances, including marijuana for any reason by any individual conducting safety sensitive duties in the ransportation issue.

we announced it will have no bearing on the testing program nor any individual subject to testing. it remains unacceptable for any safety sensitive employee subject to the drug testing regulations to use marijuana and continue to perform safety sensitive duties in the federally regulated transportation industries. chairman, this concludes my testimony. i would be happy to answer any questions you or your colleagues have. >> thank you. e will hold the questions. the substance and abuse mental health administration. welcome. you are recognized. >> thank you. good morning chairman and ranking members and distinguished members of the subcommittee. i am the director of the division of workplace program within the substance abuse and

mental health administration. from agency of the department of health and human services i am pleased to speak with you about the role as it pertains to the issue of drug testing for marijuana. particularly as it relates to drugged driving. the mission is to reduce substance abuse and mental illness on america's communities. treatment is effective and people recover from mental and substance use disorders. driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol poses a significant threat to public safety. the administration is focused on four key areas. increase public awareness. enhancing legal reforms to get drugged drivers off the road, advancing technology for drug test and data collection and increasing law enforcement's ability to identify drugged drivers. these efforts remain the administration's focus for the upcoming year.

we conduct surveillance through the national survey on drug use and health. we provide funding for prevention efforts, offer technical assistance and evaluate those that are focused n the problem. administer the program including 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. e also provide science and raining and does address it if states and communities choose to make it a focus of their effort or that drugged driving is an issue in their state and community. the program has a unique and

national important role and technical assistance role for federal and nonfederal workplaces with respect to the drug-free workplace policies and programs. dwp has oversight responsibility of the certified laboratories operating under the mandatory guidelines for esting program requirements. the federal drug-free workplace program issued by president reagan in 1986. and the supplemental appropriations act of 1987 as well as specific federally regulated industries. the federal drug free workplace program was established as a rogram incorporating detection and referrals as needed while

protecting public safety. it directs hhs to publish mandatory guidelines using the best available technology to insure the accuracy of drug tests and specify the drugs for which employees may be tested. the mandatory guidelines established the technical guidelines for programs and establish standards for ertification of laboratories the executive order covers approximately 2.2 million executive branch employees. the commission utilized the guidelines in their testing programs requiring testing of over 5 million safety sensitive employees and advocates and dot

regulated industries nationally and an additional 2 million in the nuclear industry. in the private sectors we have 20 to 50 million americans that are tested using some aspect of he guidelines. currently urine is the only pecimen that may be collected. the guidelines are specific to testing of federal employees for the purpose of workplace settings and do not govern issues related to drugged driving. however the revised guidelines may impact testing through the provisions of scientific standards for oral fluid testing. the revisions to the mandatory guidelines are still being finalized and will be posted for public comment once

completed. as i stated at the opening of my testimony the issue of drugged driving continues to be a priority. along with other federal agencies we continue to collaborate with state and local governments and federal partners to raise awareness of the dangers and meet the goal of reducing drugged driving in america. we look forward to continuing to work with congress on these efforts. >> thank you and we will start a round of questions. just again to give folks the most accurate information on the number of highway 2012. ies from 2001 to it does not include 2013. but during that dozen years

,743 spoke of, 468 highway fatalities. that is nearly half a million people. i am sure if we include 2013 we top that. hat is fatalities. everyone in the room can probably name someone who has died or a family member in an automobile fatality. ain with the changing laws there are significant onsequences. again, where do you see us some as far as reaching containing s in

the issue and also adjusting our federal laws and regulations and adopting standards for tests. the whole spectrum of addressing these changing laws. maybe you can comment generally. >> thank you for the question. we are very concerned about the need for strong and decisive action. that will mean as you heard trong legislation strong education. we are looking at technology to help us. we see that. >> some of that has to be based on data. some of what we have is really not up-to-date. i think mr. michael testified that they started to collect data as recently as 2007.

and then you said 2013 data that we had collected which we are going to do a comparison of. that hasn't been calculated. when do you expect us to have that data? >> we have collected information. we repeated that same data collection during 2013. we are now analyzing that and it will be compared. but my question was when will we see that completed? >> if you can check even closer and advise the committee maybe we can ask that question. i would like to find out when we will have that data. the next thing that comes to mind is most of the 23 states, my state may follow.

florida has a referendum coming in and other entities, state ntities may change their laws. will there be a plan to check some of the states? florida will change the law. >> i am getting back reports on california, a news reporter told me that he went out. he said it is a whole different world. it is much more dramatic than you would expect. it is not just medical marijuana use. but if has spread. he was telling me the change and behavior change. so it is having an impact. but i think we need to look at doing testing. those are the medical marijuana

states. each one of the languages may be a little different allowing more latitude. then you have colorado. we have had some experience to date. i think we ought to go in and look at colorado. washington is more recent. where you have a change in law if it is medical marijuana and again change is brought about by that law. and then you have a much more lax use or legalization as you have in colorado. do you have plans to go in and do testing there? >> yes, sir. we are working with the state of washington currently. using the same at that timea collection process. we are looking specifically at washington before and after

their legalizing the sale of marijuana. we will assess what levels it may affect the roadway. >> i think we need accurate data. again, we need to adopt our federal regs. to get to miss kelly now. we have a host of areas in which we do testing. most of the testing is periodic. >> our program covers preemployment testing. >> right. but then actually. >> and then random. there is reasonable cause testing. there is accident testing. >> another thing too in some of these states, marijuana medical use, there is different language that is 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. states that you have the we taking are steps to try to ensure the safety of the public and again, the transportation of airline pilots, commercial one can be .aken under, passenger rail we didn't get in to it in our headline here. pipeline safety or others. but they all pose different risks. tell us where you are going with these modes that put public safety at risk. >> well, we do feel our program is effective. the way our program is

structured. >> can i ask you to put the microphone closer. >> yes. >> our program is administered through the employer. >> it has been developed. it is applied. but you are mostly talking about it in terms of how things have been in the past or not how things are most recently. and where we are going with this. >> we do not conduct the testing ourselves. we require the employers to conduct it. >> have you changed any of those requirements some >> no, sir. we have not. we have maintained under the regulation. >> the same old. that is my point. i think that is where we are. you have to go to risk space when you are doing most of we have a new situation

re with much more of the available narcotics on the arket. we have seen an increase in use by the statistics that were reported by some of the panelists today. are you adapting the department of transportation regulations or advisories to where we see the most risk? we have federal railroad dministration. tell me if there are any changes of directives in the last 24 months. >> there as well not been any changes. most of our employees are interstate. if a pilot flies in and out of denver that does not mean he or she lives anywhere near denver.

many of our employees throughout the different modes of transportation are not purely in one state. they operate cross states. >> again, i think we need to be a little pre-emptive in dot in protecting people. i had dinner the other night ith a friend from florida. asked what he would do for a vacation. he said we are putting it off and we are going to go skiing. he says we had planned to go to colorado. but the last thing i want to do is take my three kids out there and have somebody stoned posing a risk to him. he is going to utah. that is one change a father in behavior. we are responsible for the safety of the public. you are responsible for

administering rules and i showed the one crash, 25 people killed. we have seen the incidents of use, whether it is young people or older. you have told me that there are not any changes. i want to get a message to mr. fox and others that we do need to look at adapting this and we also need to get the data. maybe there is not a problem that is perceived and the data would support that. maybe it is worse than we imagined. we need to act based on facts and risk and preempt at much as you can bad effects on the general public and their safety. >> the data is a good point.

we collect it from the lab. we have been doing that every we have seen a steady rate of marijuana positives ranging from 21,000 to 22,000 out of roughly 2.5 to 3 million employees tested each period. we have seen those numbers remain the same across the nation. >> ok. and again i think that it is important too that we look from a safety standpoint. i am not selling any products. but this is the only one that i found available. this particular european model for testing. i don't know if we are looking at using this for truck and

train drivers where we are doing spot checking. >> we are required to follow the science as it is developed by the department of health and human services. >> so we have none of this. this is not accepted yet, is t? >> whatever it is. >> this would be through the mandatory guidelines, right. >> but they are involved in setting standards, is that correct? >> we set the mandatory standards. once the standards are out to be commented we want to evaluate these. > can you give the committee estimate as to when you are going to complete what you are

saying here before the committee? dealing with some of the standards, i just pulled down e national standards and testing bill a couple of weeks ago. because they jerked us around for 10 years. ey performanced and promised i don't want to say where are they. we need federal standards. that o need new tests have acceptable standards to evaluate people on the job in transportation and make certain the public is safe. do you see my point?

>> i know the chairman did not mean to suggest colorado is not a safe place to go skiing. his dinner friend may have a private view. i am sure there are wonderful reasons to go to colorado and utah and anywhere anyone wishes to ski. i know my colorado colleagues want me to say that. i am sure you did not -- >> maybe you can stay in florida or go to virginia. >> there is legislation with espect to pilot licensed medical certification here in congress that would no longer require medical certificates.

are you aware of that legislation? >> yes, i am aware of that legislation. >> what do you think about it? >> we are concerned about pilots flying with inadequate medical standards. so far we have not seen enough accidents to warrant an agency position on it yet. if you do not have a medical you are less likely to pay attention to the list of ohibited legal drugs > here we are having a hearing on the utilization and potential harmful effects of any type of controlled substances in the operation of any type of vehicle.

and meanwhile there is apparently legislation that would exempt a subclass of people that fly airplanes. i can't believe for a minute if we are really concerned about the use of marijuana or any other drug that we would ever count on legislation like this. i can't believe that can come to any good. i encourage you and your colleagues to re-examine that legislation and hopefully take a position on it. because it seems to contradict everything that we are talking about this morning at this hearing. >> we will certainly pay close attention to that in our future accident investigations. >> thank you. dr. michael, i was just thinking about talking about driving while impaired and the things that we discourage. we are worried about thc. but texting while driving, bad

idea? >> of course. very bad idea. >> kills people. >> of course. >> do we have data on it? >> yes, we do. >> how many people were killed on the roads last year texting while driving? >> distraction in general is 3,000 people. exting alone is 700. >> sleep deprivation. >> sleep is harder to measure of course. we believe it is a significant problem. >> it would be fair to say that studies on sleep deprivation and driving suggest that sleep deprivation mimics in almost exact detail drinking and driving in terms of impairment? >> at least in some details.

>> aggressive driving. driving at unsafe speeds. >> as many as a third of crashes are attributed in part to excessive speed. >> how many deaths can we attribute to thc in the bloodstream? >> currently that is difficult to say, sir. >> fair enough. probably not zero? >> probably not. >> but we don't know. >> we don't have a presights estimate. >> we do have precise estimates on distracted driving. 3,331. we have precise estimates of rinking and driving. the fact of the matter is that we do not have a lot of data. now, do we have a standard?

if i can borrow your gizmo here or a minute. the chairman points out that in parts of europe they take a swab sample and put it in here and measure thc. do we have any device we use in our law enforcement in the united states? >> yes. excuse me. there is some use of devices similar to that by law enforcement. in fact we are current lie doing a pilot test in california to test more widespread use of devices similar to this. >> we have an alcohol standard. blood alcohol above a certain standard you are in legal jeopardy. >> that a national standard? >> yes it is. >> accepted by virtually all states? >> that is right. >> do we have a comparable standard for thc? >> no we don't, sir.

the available evidence does not support the development of an impairment threshold for thc which would be that of alcohol. >> why is that? >> the available evidence indicates that the response of individuals to increasing amounts of thc is more varible than it is with alcohol. we can prays 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. associated with 15 times the rash risk. beyond some broad confirmation

that higher levels of thc are generally associated with higher levels of impairment. a more precise level of thc and degrees of impairment are not yet available. >> that is really interesting. so we do not have a uniform tandard. it is greater than other substances like alcohol. we actually can't pinpoint levels of impairment. not with any accuracy. we would all concede some impairment for some period of time but it is very varible and we are not sure, not sure enough to adopt the uniform standard as to here is the maximum level by which we know there is serious impairment. >> that is very safe, sir. >> wow.

that is a substance 1 ontrolled substance. well, i think it underscores your testimony why we need a lot more science here. and i guess what really strikes the that meanwhile laboratories democracy, 22 states and the district of columbia have decided to legalize marijuana in some fashion. most of them for medical purposes. some of them even for recreational purposes. meanwhile at least at a national level we are not comfortable with the science. not in terms of the impact of thc on operating a vehicle of any kind. fair statement? >> yes. and of course we are pursuing that science. > i see. we are pursuing it. is there a goal or an end, you

know, date where we want to achieve it by a certain date we hope to have preliminary -- we hope to have the basis upon which to examine or adopt preliminary standards comparable to other substances? that work sponsors with regards to measurement techniques and specific drugs among drivers involved in crashes and also minimum cut off levels that represent the analytical capabilities of existing technology. those recommendations have been established. of we lack are thresholds impairment. one step that is current leongoing that will take us in

that direction is the crash risk study that i mentioned in my opening statement. is is the same sort of study done for alcohol a number of years ago that established the risk levels i told you about. so this involves a very careful look at two groups of subjects. one group that has been involved in a crash and another that is not. looking for relative concentration levels of factors such as thc use. with those types of studies, the risk odds that could potentially be used to gp a threshold in the future. >> i wish you luck in your research. i just think that it is amazing with some of the rhetoric about 50 juana use and thc that ars after we declared it a

class 1 substance we still don't have enough data to know how dangerous it is in operating a vehicle. that really raises questions about either the classification itself and whether that makes serious or raises questions about how our government is operating in terms of the data that it does not have and the science that it does not know and yet the assertions that we make. that is not a good recipe. it is one of the reasons why 22 states have headed in a different direction. but there is danger near that too. they are going in a direction also without the science. and there are a lot of complications, previous hearing that we had and doctor flemming

and i talked about this along with the chairman. in now you have doctors tates where legalization for purposes who don't have protocol ask or the science to decide on levels, mixing it th other drugs and potential dangers, overdose, whatever. and i just think that we are at a point where we have to get a lot more serious about the science in order to have and to fashion rational public policies including with respect to transportation safety. i thank you all for your testimony. a thoughtful hearing and i thank you. > thank you. >> to follow up on some questions from my good friend

from virginia, we do not have request science on the effects ofman and thc specifically on he body. my understanding of this is that it is a more complex interaction in fizzology between the drug and the body. we know metabolites remain in the body for up to 0 days. much of it is stored in the fat. would that be a correct assumption on my part that is what makes it a more difficult issue in terms of measurement than alcohol? >> the study of the effect of thc on driving is more challenging in every aspect than that of alcohol.

>> right. >> so really it is multidimensional as opposed to alcohol which you can draw a straight line on the graph. again, plus or minus. a small tolerance level. we do not know that. even if it exists in thc it may be a much smoother graph. given the fact that we certainly have a lack of knowledge of the effects of thc on the body and the brain. 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 rug going forward?

>> it is the decision of the state in how they want to deal with these impairment issues. we tried to provide them with guidance and evidence that they can use to support effective policies. we have been able to do that with alcohol. states have responded very positively to alcohol impairment and driving those numbers down. n 2012 there were 20,000 illed. >> i am asking your personal opinion. i will ask the opinion of the rest of the members as well. ifure have a drug where you can't define the effects quickly but we know that it can have serious proof that it can

actually kill people does it make sense to be more aggressive in terms of relaxing the towards or does it make sense to be more conservative and wait for that science to develop? >> well, i think it makes sense o be very cautious with policy when the complete evidence is not yet available. >> ok. what is your opinion, sir? >> as accident investigators we follow where the accidents take us. that is a reason we did something that was very controversial, to recommend the blood alcohol number be reduced. we know any alcohol is impairing. we would have the same approach with the respect to any other

substances. >> certainly buzzed driving is the same thing as impaired driving? >> that is the slang for it, yes. >> whenever there is a question as to be more conservative and more protective and more restrictive, when in doubt always be a little safer and more restrictive. would that be a safe estimate from your opinion? >> we are the safety people. we would always go in that direction. >> good. how about you? >> we rely on the science. we make the policy based on the science. >> when our scientists at the department of health and human services tell us things have changed we follow what they

say. until then it remains schedule 1. we treat it as a schedule 1 ith no excuse. >> you would say being cautious, not changing something to a more relaxed standard without the science you are reluctant to move forward? >> thc is mentioned directly and we will continue to test for schedule 1 and 2 drugs. >> so i think that certainly we agreement at of an 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 have not really been doing the

studies to research it. only now. even the important data that has only come out recently since it has been legalized. we know there are profound changes in the brain. we have seen it on m.r.i. scans. we know studies showed a progressive decline in i.q. just even with early studies we are beginning to see a lot of problems. that is nnd up to 14% of fatal accidents involve thc. now we hear about medicinal marijuana. now it is interesting. in the state of california and in the city of denver we have more pot dispenseries than we do starbucks. i don't know what your opinion is. i don't think people are that

unhealthy in denver and in california. is there anyone on the panel that would disagree with that? here is my question. you treat someone who is on medicinal marijuana vs. recreational marijuana any differently when it comes to traffic accidents, when it comes to be able to fly an irplane or to engineer a train? do you treat those people any differently? >> no we do not. all of the employees are subject to the same testing. we issued two statements. e in 2009 in response to the medicinal marijuana laws and in

2012. there is no legitimate explanation for schedule 1 drug, marijuana. >> 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? >> if that person tests positive they will be required to be removed. >> ok. very good. there was a mention here -- i didn't catch all of the exchanges there. burr i believe that -- there was a bill that would actually reduce the standards for private pilots such as that all that you would require is a regular drivers license to be able to qualify in terms of safety standards to fly an airplane. did i catch that right? were you talking about a

different subject? >> you are correct. it is the legislation to allow private pilots to not have to have the medical examination that they are now required to have. >> 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. >> that is possible. and we have investigated accidents where that was occurring. that is the reason we are having this meeting in september to look at that and get more data and get more specific about it. >> i love to watch documentaries on tv. i was watching one the other airplanes iscussed and midair collisions. 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 in san diego, 1978.

you had a private airplane that drifted in the wrong air space. they collided with the 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 that you could ever come up with for a commercial pilot, when you have private pilots out there that 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 it has 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 was a commercial aircraft is impaired instead. >> when we do our accident investigation the issue of impairment may be independent of the issue, what the medical

standard was. if they are impaired, whether they had a medical certificate or not we will put that in as probable cause of the accident. >> certainly a private aircraft, the safety of aviation in general is no better than what the lowest standard for any pilot in the air. so as we have pilots who in this case hopefully it will never make it into law. we have pilots flying with no more standards than to have a driver's license and be certified to fly but no medical standard beyond that. and then we have the legalization and the increase in decriminalization of marijuana and i see the risk to air travel to be growing in the future. certainly i would suggest mr. chairman that we look at this in both sides. one, the fact that there are many reasons in my view why we shouldn't go forward with

legalization. or even decriminalization. but also have the high standards for all that 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 queues on this. in 2011 he made very clear statements that marijuana shouldn't be legalized. that it is a potential dangerer and certainly young people should stay away from it. but in 2014 he made other statements that suggested that it is maybe no worse than tobacco and alcohol. i would love to hear from you as government agencies what sort of guidance, if any, are you getting from the white house. > 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 have done. i would say that we are getting very good input and very good support. >> ok. anyone else? >> i would also say we work closely with the national drug control policy onsetting standards. we worked well with them over the last year. >> have you been moved in any direction towards relaxed standards or legalization of marijuana from the white house? any guidance in that direction? >> we are currently under executive orders to test for schedule 1 and schedule 2 drugs and that will remain. >> ok. all right. thank you mr. chairman.

very interesting discussions. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> thank you dr. flemming. didn't the president after he made his statement, it was no worse than alcohol or tobacco. e did have testify and he said he disagreed with the white house. so you all said you have been working with ondcp, you would agree with them more than you would the president? >> i don't want to put out spot. >> ok. to investigate accidents, find out what happened and find out what is necessary. >> that is right. you did not commit yourself on that. but dr. michael did. you said that you were working with them and you concurred with them. you agree with what they said? >> we are in agreement. i would like to say we are in agreement with the president as

well. >> oh. i can make a funny comment now but i won't. we may have to get the testing equipment out here. >> again, we work closely with ondcp on everything including both -- >> the president said one thing. we hauled in the deputy director and he disagreed with the president. we had a whole host of people. d.e.a. and other agencies who also disagreed with the president on that. that was my point. i tried to embarrass you but it did not work. dr. michael, you said it is the decision of the state, really. the federal government does set some standard and we have the 0.8 standard. we can penalize you and that is an incentive. is it not? >> the congress established a statute.

>> i just read one of the offices that just recommended going to 0.5. is that right? >> i believe that was a recommendation. >> i knew one of you did but there's a recommendation. and we do assess penalties to states that don't comply where there is some reduction in their eligibility for programs or funds. that was a recommendation? >> that was our recommendation, yes. >> one of the problems we have is we don't have federal standards. we have states adopting standards. colorado it is five nanograms per milliliter, i guess. is there any consideration of any standard under way other than what the national standards board is considering? are you guys looking at

anything? >> yes, we are. we recognize that we need more testing of drivers at the state level. >> and you need some means of testing. you said you are using some similar devices in testing. there is nothing that has been accepted as -- acceptable or certified. i'm sure you have not certified anything yet. any piece of equipment that can test, correct? >> that is right. the technology you have in your hand is developing rapidly and we think this will improve testing. >> in california you're doing some testing? >> pilot testing in four locations in california as we

speak to test the feasibility of those with the idea that if they are working well encouraging the use by state. more testing, we believe -- >> is this internal or are you working with a national standards testing agency? >> we are working with state officials on this. >> but not with the ones who are setting the standard or at least looking at setting from standards which would be the national standards testings -- what are the initials? >> no, we are not working -- >> i think it would behoove you to contact them. we will ask the committee to put you in touch with them. i've had my go around with them and they do take a while to develop a standard. it is an important responsibility and you need to be accurate in what you adopt as

it does become a standard. i would suggest that -- i do not do these hearings just to hear ourselves talk. we're trying to also stay ahead of the curve. we have dramatically changing laws that changes social behavior. talking about marijuana when he went to college or something and this is much more powerful. we have had testimony that confirms this and we've got people more at risk. we have laws rapidly changing, societal view and then we talked about teens are most susceptible and vulnerable and the most slaughtered by transportation, many of them by alcohol, some by substance abuse and we see

increasing use of that among the most vulnerable now viewing this as less of a risk. we do have some serious issues here. no standards, no testing capability. we have done some testing in the past, 2007 and 2013. i want to see some data and i want to see others looking at beefing up the testing and the regulations where we now have more exposure to a schedule one narcotic being more available to the public and the implications on public safety and transportation. that is something hopefully positive that can come from this. it is my understanding marijuana stays in the system longer than alcohol.

we have a whole host of things that need to be looked down. again, implications from a different type of substance that is posing risks. i've been on transportation for two decades with some institutional knowledge. one thing we focused on with transportation when you see people getting slaughtered by the tens of thousands per year, we did some simple things. we put in guard rails and the median. there were crossovers and we put in the rumble strips so people who fall asleep are awakened or shaken alert. the safety airbags and the structural changes. if we do not do something when

we see the danger of a new narcotic, again the potential of more people impaired, driving while impaired whether, again, a vehicle manning a train, piloting. i showed just a few samples of the civil claims that went down. we have pages and pages and i showed four. i showed one picture of a teenage fatality we know from the blood test that people says no one gets killed from smoking marijuana. i would differ with that. 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, with the concurrence of the minority, we will 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. no further business before the government operations subcommittee, this hearing is adjourned. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up in just under an

hour on c-span, the national association of latino elected officials meeting held earlier this year in san diego. we will hear from of former attorney general, alberto gonzales. he talked about the need for an immigration bill. is thatrspective congress -- i agree that congress needs to get to this. as other speakers have talked about this, this is a law enforcement, security, economic issue. this is about us. this is about america, who we are as a country. i have heard republican say, wait a minute. we do not want to go down this road because this president will only enforce the laws you want to. congress has a job to do. congress ought to do their job. they ought to pass the bill and both branches ought to be working together.

to me, it is intolerable. i know how hard this is. we could not get it done with a republican congress. that is why we elect these people to go there, to tackle the most difficult issues we have is a country. they should be accountable. they should be accountable. >> what your position is, it is so interesting to me. obviously they are republicans. people who are inside the party who are resisting this. especially the talk radio crowd, who say you are rewarding people who have done illegal things. intare in a position of an ra-party civil war with the republican party over this issue. how'd you see it playing out? my sidenk in the end, will win or it is the end of the party. >> the end of the party? >> that is the way i see it. >> really? >> yeah. this is something that has got

to be solved. the truth of the matter is, hispanics are a growing political force. if they feel like the republican party does not have anything for them, they will vote democrats. the republicans will not win the white house. they will lose control of the senate. -- the house. they will not get control of the senate. >> just some of the former attorney general's remarks. we will show them in their entirety tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. tonight on the communicators, three members of congress talk about their technology legislation. >> i believe in an open and free internet. when you look where the internet has come and where it is going, this is all being done by the private sector. >> why would a team not want their product, brand exposed to tens of thousands of people?

we think that the blackout rule is obsolete. move.c took the first they will vote at the end of the year. we believe that will follow suit. >> a bill that tries to address rules over retransmission and consent and giving people level footing when it comes to being to negotiating about broadcasts and being able to negotiate with providers and people who are trying to deliver that media to the consumer. it puts people on a level playing field when it comes to those kinds of negotiations. >> republican representative bob higgins,m ohio, brian and representative cory gardner tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span 2. recesse congress is in for the next month, you can watch programs from american history tv in prime time. a look at watergate 40 years on

and a supreme court oral argument from 1974. an issue whether or not president nixon to claim executive rutledge over the watergate recordings that were being sought by the prosecutor. is "book tv" in prime time. larry diamond and mark plattner discuss their book "democratization and authoritative -- authoritarianism in the arab world. years, c-span brings public affairs offense from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences. in offering complete apple to gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry.

there c-span, created by cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. a washingtonn journal," we will look at issues members of congress will be dealing with during their five-week recess leading up to fall elections. ,ur guest is sabrina siddiqui and carlos will discuss his book "nine and 35 lies." your facebookake comments and tweets. all at "washington journal" starting live at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow on c-span. earlier today we looked at welfare and the argument that is holding back african-americans in the u.s.. this is 45 minutes. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us next in our studio in new york, jason riley,

now up with his second book :alled, "please stop helping us how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed." thank you for joining us on washington journal. what motivated you to write the book? the book because i think that a lot of the efforts to help black underclass have not been working. in many cases, they have been doing more harm than good. i thought the 50th anniversary of the great society programs was an opportunity to look back on what has been tried and perhaps thinking about reevaluating our efforts on this. host: how do liberal policies make it harder for blacks to succeed? guest: one of the essential themes of the book is that blacks ultimately must help themselves by developing the same habits and characteristics and attitudes and behaviors that other groups in america have had to develop in order to rise

socioeconomically. to the extent a government effort or program or social policy, however well-intentioned, interferes with that necessary self-development, i think it does more harm than good. that is what a lot of these policies have done. well-intentioned policies have put in place at incentives and have led to results that were not intended. host: tell us about your upbringing. you're now an editorial writer ." the "wall street journal you write about admiration for your dad. where did you grow up and what was life like for you? guest: upstate new york in buffalo. that is where i went to college. i came down to new york after taking a job at the "wall street journal" 20 years ago now. i grew up somewhere in the working-class, lower middle-class, place on the sort of income spectrum.

my parents were divorced when i was very young. my father played a very active role in my life. i had two siblings and he was very close to all of his children, saw us several times a week, holidays, so forth. i had a large extended family on my mother's died right there in buffalo. a very religious family. of myurch was a big part upbringing as well. in addition to my father and a role model there in terms of black men, i also had a lot of black role models on my mothers side of the family right there in buffalo growing up. host: did your operating feel typical to you? -- upbringing feel typical to you? guest: no. i got a glimpse into different worlds growing up. i attended public schools and private schools, both catholic schools and nonsectarian schools. i got a pretty widely varied

view of different ways that people grew up here and i did not find my upbringing typical, no. host: jason riley is our guest. his book is "please stop helping : how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed." republicans (202) (202)02, democrats 737-0001, independents (202) 628-0205. the book also covers a wide range of economics to crime statistics and prison sentences, to president obama. i wanted to show a quote from your book about the popularity of president obama. you write in your book talking about polls on the presidency --

host: what do you think is behind the reason the african-american support has grown for president obama, or at least sustained in his second term? guest: there are a number of reasons i point to in the book. one of the first ones and perhaps the most obvious one can be a sort of racial lori -- loyalty. black folks very proud of the first black president being elected and some book -- subsequently reelected. i guess there is some of that going on.

that isso think behind a, i would say, greater than normal were greater than average reliance on political saviors among blacks in america. looking to the government for solutions. reflected inhat support for obama. i argue in the book that blacks in fact have an overdependence on the government and on politicians to provide solutions in the black community. you see this reflected not only jobs, government jobs going to blacks, whether it is the military, the post office, other civil service jobs, you also have it -- independents in terms of government benefits, handouts, welfare, food stamps, so forth. i argue this is something the democratic party has encouraged in order to win votes from blacks, or the party that gives

you things. they are the party of bigger government and i think black loyalty to the democratic party is reflected in that sentiment. that one ofargue the reasons you see blacks so overwhelmingly supporting the is the lack of black outreach on the part of republicans. it is just not uncommon for a republican candidate to simply write off the black vote. also reflected in black loyalty to democrats. i don't subscribe racial animus to it. it's just pragmatic politics. i think republicans don't feel they need the black vote to win elections right now and that you won't see a serious black outreach effort until they do feel they need the black vote. right now, in the republican party, you see a big debate over the latino vote and whether republicans can continue to win elections going forward without

more of that hispanic voting block. there is no discussion regarding the black vote in gop circles. is our guest.ley we were talking about his book and the unemployment rates. thelatest statistics, unemployment rate for african-americans is 11.4%. hispanics, 7.8%. white americans, 5.3%. for asians, 4.5%. that was the rate for july 2014. we have calls waiting for jason riley. let's go to kevin in marshall, texas. caller: yes, god bless you. of black i have a lot friends. of course, we start talking politics and all. you, if liberalism has heard one single group or than any other in this country, i do believe it is the black race. as i try to tell them

how it has hurt them and held them back, it winds up being i comes to thehen it end of it. i was just wondering, and you bring up a really good point, that the republicans, they do not do any outreach. i think that is a pitiful shame because blacks really need to join all of us as americans as small government, understanding that we need to, you know, rely on ourselves more than the government. i think that's what it takes for anyone to succeed in this country. i'm just wondering, what can i do differently, that i can try to reach people, my friends, and convince them that this just is not good for anybody? thanks for the call. i don't know. one of the points of the book is that blacks need to help themselves. i argue that a lot of the barriers to black social economic progress today are

caused by black soldier -- culture, attitudes toward education. we all know the steppingstones toward the middle-class this country -- in this country. hard work, so forth. those values, and there is a black subculture out there that rejects those values out of hand. it is reflected in the music, the rap music and so forth. it is reflected in the violence in these neighborhoods. it is reflected in attitudes toward schooling. the book is not an autobiography or a memoir. but i do include personal anecdotes in there about what it is like to grow up lack and mail in the inner-city. treatment of kids who are bookish, and nerdish, the acting white problem, getting beat up, made fun of, ridiculed for wanting to go to school, raising your hand in >>, knowing the answers, studying, this is a huge problem in the black community.

people like bill cosby want to talk about it. but he gets his head handed to him when he does. even when president obama comes out and talking about growing up without a father, black liberal elites slam the president and accuse him of talking down to black people and condescending them. i think this has got to change. the black political left in particular has a certain narrative out there that they want to keep out there because it serves their interest. that narrative is that white racism is an all-purpose explanation for what ails black america. when others want to talk about what blacks are doing or not up theroperly to move socioeconomic ladder, those black elites do not want to hear that. they want to keep the conversation focused on what whites should be doing for blacks instead of what blacks should be doing for themselves. i do not think it does the black underclass any favors. you write about your

upbringing and talk about a good friend, trevor. you said, by contrast, the trevors were everywhere. i related with them, went to school with them -- book you write in the about you and trevor going separate ways in high school. what could have been done differently than -,- then, back in those years, that would have change that? anythingdon't know if could have been done differently. i lost my younger sister to drugs when she was 21 years old. overdosing.

on cocaine. you know, trevor fell in with the own crowd and so did members of my own family and we lived under the same roof. and yet had widely different values and attitudes toward school and learning and what it meant to be black, frankly. contention your that liberal policies make it worse? are -- not talking about it is a problem. not wanting to discuss black culture. when we talk about crime, the left loves to talk about the racial disparity in incarceration rates. they don't want to talk about the racial disparity in crime rates, in black behavior. they want to talk about how many black kids are getting suspended in school versus the white kids, regardless of who is doing the bullying in school. why would we expect to see parity in school discipline? do we see parity in behavioral outcomes outside of school?

do we think this behavior begins after the kids leads -- to leave school? there is a disparity in the prison system, why would be expected in behavior? we do not want to talk about that. we want to keep the focus on white behavior. you have liberal organizations out there scouring the nation, looking for the next donald sterling or clive and bundy and go, look, nothing has changed. you cannot hold blacks -- lastble as long as cannot be held accountable. i fundamentally reject that. i think we need to talk about , these kidse shooting each other in chicago. it is not because of a racist criminal justice system, which, by the way, today, is run by one black man, eric holder, who reports to another, president obama. it is not about race as police, racist rug lost. it is about lack behavior. it is about the breakdown of the black family. it is about fatherless homes and this warped sense of what it means to be a man in the ghetto.

and a black person in general. and we have got to talk about these issues. that is not where the conversation typically heads. the conversation heads toward white racism and how that impacts the black community. let's get back to calls. exegesis, independent line. -- massachusetts, emily, independent line. let's try betty in birmingham, alabama. democrats line. caller: good morning. from birmingham, alabama, where dr. king said, we kept everywhere. , i mean, come on. do not sit there and say that all black people, we have stuff going on in our neighborhoods,

we have children in white neighborhoods, these kids coming up in schools killing these other kids and whatever. we have drugs everywhere. that is why eric holder and the --tice department is saying african-american men get for selling a certain amount of crack, and the white guy get away from selling tons of cocaine. come on. in theave disparity justice system. we do have racism. i don't care how you try to hide your head and say that black people need to stop. . . .

if you could snap your fingers and sent home every person in date was therefore a drug offense, the portion of the black prison population barely budge. there are about 37 proceed of people incarcerated.

if you sent home all the drug offenders, blacks would be around 37% of people incarcerated. drivingenses are not the black incarceration rate in this country. blacks are overrun government -- overrepresented among violent crimes, white-collar crimes. it is black criminality that needs to be addressed. here is bill in georgia. are you there? caller: good morning, mr. riley. are you there? host: you are on the air. caller: sorry. the delay fooled me. i sort of reject your premise that the liberals cause all the problems that we are experiencing in the african-american community. i think your book will appeal to the same people that by the

books written by ann coulter, who like to slam the liberals as the reason we have problems in america. if the liberals are causing the failure of the black community, is there anything that we can blame the republicans for? should we give them the credit of the success for the caucasian people that are successful in their business with tax breaks and things like that? thank you for this. i think you somewhat misstated the premise of the book, which is not that liberals are causing all of black people 's problems. i think liberal attempts to help blacks have made the situation worse. black robins that

are largely self-inflicted by a black subculture that does not value the things that other groups valued in order to move up in society. trend, but recent you can date this back to the beginning of the great society programs. one of the arguments in the book and one of the narratives out there -- one of the narratives that does not get a lot of in this is that blacks country largely lifted themselves out of poverty. coming out of slavery, through reconstruction, through jim crow. the black poverty rate in america between 1940 and 1960 fell by 40 percentage points. before the civil rights ask -- act, before the voting rights act. blacks were entering professions at a higher rate before 1960. blacks were increasing their years of

schooling both in absolute terms and relative to whites before affirmative action and other programs designed to help them. there's a narrative out there, that is why the ranks of the black middle class increase. i argue that that is not the case. moreover, it gives blacks a sense that but for these programs we can't get ahead in america, we can't succeed without affirmative actions or government programs and so fourth. that's just a false narrative. we were doing that and we were doing a very good job of that. now, that is not to argue that the civil rights legislation in the '60s was necessary. i'm very happy it

passed. it was necessary. i think all americans can be very proud of that. but that's a separate argument from saying black people need affirmative action to get ahead in america because we were moving along very well before affirmative action was put in place. host: this is mary anne. caller: i get so tired of hearing people like this get on tv and say black people want welfare and all this stuff. look, welfare, food stamps, were created for white women and they used it up until this time and still using it and nobody says a word until a black person need it. host: mr. riley, do you think liberal policies, more broadly,

she spoke about welfare and food stamps have not been helpful. guest: there's a difference in terms of dependency on these programs. multigenerational, approximate proportion of whites versus blacks, the rate of welfare and food stamp use, there is a difference and there are racial differences in uses of these programs. my point is an open-ended welfare benefit does not help a group of people develop a work ethic. that's an example to me of a well-intentioned policy that is there to show sympathy that in fact, in practice is doing more harm than good. caller: i wish that we could make that very important distinction. i know that words

mean things. they get to use the term bastardized. racism, to be a racist you have to believe in racism and believe your group of people are superior to the other group of people. i wish we would drop the term racism and substitute it with racial bias. most people are racially biased and they're not taught this. it's not their parents. it's what they see in life. i hear black callers every single day call in if it has anything to do with president obama and circle the wagons so to say i can't pick on my wife's family. she can pick on her family, but i can't. i

agree with a lot of the points you're making but -- god bless you, you have a hard duty. the woman said that she's tired of hearing this stuff. i mean, i hardly ever hear people like you talk on radio or tv. thank you. host: well, i think that there are more people in the black community who i think have an appreciation for what i'm saying than a lot of people realize. the media tends to run to the current black leadership to speak about blacks and they have a different agenda. jesse jackson has been out in california complaining about yahoo and twitter and facebook's

hiring practices essentially trying to put in quotas for hiring. i'm sure in exchange for money. talking about what whites should be doing for blacks instead of what blacks should be doing for themselves. if jesse jackson wanted to really do good for the black community, we should go back to chicago and devote all of his time to getting these kids to stop shooting each other. if he does that, hiring practices will take care of themselves over time. they're hiring from a pool of company that graduate from some of the most difficult schools and blacks are simply underrepresented in that pool of people and we can do something about that. we don't need jesse jackson but he does that because

that benefits him. host: we have david here. caller: just to respond to the last comment. i personally wish we would drop the term race all together. i think it was an idea from 300 years ago that we're all divided in different races. we're all part of the human race in my view. in regards to the destructive nature of leftist ideology. jason, you remember the saying of the soviet union, we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us. when the soviet union collapsed, 60 percent were

alcoholics. they targeted the african american society which caused more destruction. it broke up the black family. it helps contribute to that and all the problems that have followed since. guest: if you look at black outcomes, again, prior to the great society programs in terms of black labor participation rates, in terms of the stability of the black family, marriage rates among blacks in many years in the '40s and '50s exceeded marriage rates among whites. unemployment in this country. we've had a black unemployment rate that has been double the white rate for 50 years. that was not the case in the 1930s

and '40s and '50s. and it was not because blacks were doing menial, low level jobs. they were lifting themselves out of poverty, entering the skilled professions at a faster rate prior to the 1960s. so there is something to this notion that the great society did -- the welfare state did more to break up the black family than slavery did. because if you look at the black family through reconstruction and jim crowe, the families were still together. there's a lot of social science data out there about the outcomes associated

with an absent father in the home, drugs, criminal justice system, teen pregnancy, not finishing school, on and on. there are all kinds of problems associated with absent black fathers and that's what you have as the norm today in the black community. host: rick asks what part does obstructionism have on the part of the jobless rate in the black community. do you recognize a concerted effort to, quote, de-fang obama? guest: it's an interesting subject that i go into in some detail in the book. first i look at why these laws were passed in the first place back in the 30's and '40s. and they

were placed in part to price blacks out of the labor force. labor was worried about competition for jobs with their members. they petitioned congress to pass these laws with the express intent of putting black people out of work and it worked. now, today, i do not -- this affects younger people, less experienced people, less skilled people, a disproportionate number who happen to be black. i would argue that they are doing much more damage to black employment rates than just about anything

else out there. host: lily is in montgomery, alabama. go ahead. caller: i have two questions. would you allow me to ask him? host: go ahead. caller: he said liberals are causing the problem. i don't think so because they're the same people. when the black man left the house did they just jump up and leave on their own or how did that happen? and then he only speaks of himself and what do you own besides that paper you work for besides that paper that pays you everything. that's what i'd like to know. and then when it comes to the president, you got more people in the room -- people didn't vote for him because he's black. they voted for him because they wanted to. so you say what you want to make them happy. that's what you're doing. so keep it

up. we're just going to float on past you until you own something and then come back and tell us about it. okay. you have a nice day. host: comments? caller: well, i'm not quite sure what the questions were. i guess when it comes to why the black family is broken down to the extent that it has, i would point to, again, well-intentioned policies that were trying to help at the time. but trying to replace the man in the home with a government check doesn't work. and that's what a lot of these welfare policies have attempted to do. again, open-ended welfare policies don't encourage responsible child bearing baring,

responsible child rearing. these are things other groups historically have had to develop in order to rise in america. and again these attempts to help haven't helped. there are people that it were not well intentioned. i don't take that view. i think that there were a lot of liberals, freedom riders, people working with king, thurgood marshall. i think that was liberalism at its best and it culminated with the passage of the civil rights act and the voting rights act. that was the pinnacle of liberalism. we need

equal outcomes and that's where i think the left has gotten into trouble. you don't get equal results. nowhere in u.s. history do you find equal results. nowhere outside the u.s. in history do you get equal results. there are limits to what the government can do beyond providing equal opportunity. then it's up to these groups to take advantage of these opportunities. then where they don't find equal outcomes, assuming automatically that racism or a lack of opportunity is the reason. we should not be so quick to make that assumption. i think we need our government to take a much more modest approach in what it is capable of doing. and this is something blacks --

the black leadership used to understand quite well and i talk about it in the book. and not just king. going back to before king. those before him were saying it is right and proper that all the rights and privileges of the constitution should be ours. they were optimistic. they were saying that these rights and privileges should be ours. but they said it's much more important for blacks to ready themselves to take advantage of these opportunities once we have them. and i think the failure of the modern day civil rights movement is that, they have not readied blacks properly by going through government and looking to the government for answers to take advantage of the opportunities blacks have today. host: jackson, tennessee. pat.

caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i beg to differ with this young man. he needs to go back and study the affirmative action plan. he said that it didn't help that much. you need a lesson in studying the affirmative action plan. blacks were not being hired. it was the reason, the affirmative action plan, it was the reason why a lot of black people did get hired. all they asked is for companies to start meeting a certain quota of hiring minorities so they could get into the workforce. that's how they got started. and they saw that they were good employees. then they started hiring more. you need to get back to your

books and do a little bit more studying. and when you come out and you're saying that in the '60s, there were a lower amount of percentage of blacks being in the prison, compared to what? host: thank you, pat. guest: the black incarceration rate in 1960 was lower than it is today. lower compared to what. affirmative action is something i address at length and the caller is simply wrong on the facts. they were entering professions at a faster rate in the '40s and '50s than they were after affirmative action. i also discuss affirmative action in the realm of higher education. we now have about 40 years of this sort

of social engineering to look at what has happened. in 1996, the university of california system ended racial-based admissions into its university system. 1996. and what happened after that ban took place? black college graduation rates increased by more than 50 percent. not just overall but through the more difficult disciplines such as math, engineering. they went up by more than 50 percent. so here you had a well-intentioned policy which in fact was producing fewer doctors, fewer black lawyers, fewer black engines than -- engineers than we otherwise would have had. kids were being funneled into

schools where they couldn't handle the work and didn't have the credentials and so they were either dropping out or switching to easieier majors. but the college administrators concern is not black college graduation rates. it's diverty on college campuses. they want a color-coded college catalog. but i'm concerned with black kids graduating and affirmative action the record shows has not helped that effort. it has hurt that effort. caller: good morning. i'd like to make a couple of points. it kills me when i hear black

conservative republicans talk this. he don't represent me. i've never heard black conservatives claim -- you got idiots out there such as donald trump questioning whether or not president obama was born here or not. second of all, you never hear black conservatives also talking against the fact that they have voter suppression out there. first they want you to have voter id. they're trying to do everything they can to hamper our efforts to vote. you don't hear none of the black conservatives preaching out against that. host: thank you.

guest: well, i never said racism doesn't exist. i never would say that. i think it is out there. that's just a misstatement of what i've been saying here. in terms of whether that is driving criticism of obama, i think obama's response to that was the best response i've ever heard which was i was black before i was elected. he was black before he was re-elected as well. so the idea that racism is driving this criticism just doesn't hold water. in terms of voting, the black voter turnout rate in 2012 exceeded the white voter turnout rate even in states with the strictest voter

id laws in the country. if voter suppression of blacks is going on, where is the evidence? back in 2008, back in 2008, obama out performed both al gore and john kerry in states like texas, georgia, and the carolinas. that is evidence of racial progress in this country. it doesn't mean racism has been eliminated but i think we've come a long way. and the question isn't whether there's racism left in america. that's not the question. the question is how does racism explain the fact that black kids are shooting each other in chicago. i would argue in the 1940s and '50s when we did not have these outcomes, we had much more

racism. caller: i'd like to say quickly. i've been around longer than he has. i want to say this to the young man. you are sitting there because of jesse jackson, bec >> you're sitting there because of the people that came before you. you need to thank them for the mere fact that you are sitting there because of that. you did not get there on your

own. >> they came up in a hard-working family. i had my grandpa, parents, mother, father. >> all right. we have just a moment or two left. we'll get a final word for jason riley. >> and speaking about the importance of family and i would agree that, that's where it's got to start. a black man in the white house is all well and good but it cannot replace a black man in the home. >> jason riley, author of the book please stop helping us. we thank you for joining us today from new york. >> thank you.

had felt after that, had felt during an assassination attempt on president reagan, he later became a leading advocate of gun control. the brady bill instituted a mandatory waiting period for purchasing handguns and background checks for buyers. he was awarded the presidential medal of freedom by president bill clinton in the 1996. >> james scott brady. he came to national prominence as