the supercommittee does what the american people have said very loudly and clearly -- they've said it in demonstrations, they've said it in polls, they've said it in communications with their members in the house and the senate. we have an opportunity to make significant progress in terms of deficit reduction, but that deficit reduction should not take place on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. those populations, the most vulnerable people in this country, are hurting enough right now. so, madam president, i hope that the supercommittee has the courage to do what's right.

i hope that it has the courage to do what the american people want them to do. and with that, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i request that the pending quorum call be lifted? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: and that i be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, we are going through one of the most difficult and painful periods in american history, and millions of americans are wondering what is happening to our country. behind the curtain of spin and propaganda and political

attacks, here's what i believe is happening. the rules of the economic game in this country are increasingly being rigged to provide unfair advantage to the wealthy and well-connected and to take unfair advantage of regular folks and families. america has always promised a straight deal, and that straight deal for many americans is getting harder and harder to find. let me say that i am relentlessly proud to be an american. i grew up in the foreign service of this country, surrounded by families who put public service and pride in this country ahead of their comfort, of their convenience, even of their safety and their family's safety. i am absolutely convinced of

american exceptionalism. i have seen it, and i have lived it. and that is why i am so upset to see our country in the shape that it's in today. our founding fathers changed the world when they set in place our finely balanced system of government illuminated by the clear and guaranteed rights of the american people. but we are squandering that inheritance. our government isn't working. our rights are being undermined. and it is the american people who are paying the price. they're paying the price because too often they're not getting a straight deal anymore. so let's look at some of the places where the deal is rigged, where special interests get special deals and where the

regular american family doesn't get a straight deal. big multistate banks are allowed to charge middle-class families 30% credit card interest rates that are likely illegal under the state laws where that family lives. and senators in this chamber who are ardent states' rights federalists in every other circumstance have no complaint when their state law is overruled and overborne by the big banks. students with college loans who now carry a $1 trillion of debt and families with home mortgages are denied the privileges every corporate borrowing gets to seek

bankruptcy protection against their debt when they are in over their head. our individual tax system allows the wealthiest and highest-income americans to pay lower tax rates than middle-class wage earners pay, or even hide their income in offshore tax havens and pay no tax at all. and the corporate tax system allows international corporations to route their profits through foreign countries and through tax shelters to pay little or no tax in this country. when you drill down to cases, g.e. -- general electric -- on billions of dollars in profits paid little or no federal income tax. when you pull up to look system-wide, even though corporations are richer than ever, american people now contribute $5 for every $1 that corporations contribute to

sustaining our country's revenues. it used to be one to one. for every $1 that corporations contributed, american people contributed $1. there was an even sharing of our nation's revenue needs. but for 75 years now it has been steadily sliding, and now it is five to one against ordinary americans and in favor of corporations. the wealthy elite who mheir ande marketplace. they try to rig the game, even e itself at risk. and when that requires everybody else to come to their rescue, they show no shame and little gratitude, and go right back to work gaming the system. those who become c.e.o.'s extract from their companies ridiculous amounts of

compensation. c.e.o. pay is up in my lifetime from 40 times the average wage of the employee to 400 times the average wage..'s even action trt princely compensat-- even extract princely compensation when they fail. the big polluters have got one party denying science entirely, denying the plain evidence of carbon pollution all around us and spinning the phony theory that the costs of controlling pollution are a burden on the economy, when they're actually a huge net gain for our country. a party that used to proudly carry the banner of conservation and environmental protection is now reduceed to serving corps rats and masters with phony classifications and it's the middle-class families that pay the price. the appointees on the supreme court by a bare 5-4 majority are willing to overturn precedent

and flout the rules of judicial decision make to go decree something really novel and remarkable. that corporations are people and that money is speech, and that, therefore, our precious constitutional rights to free speech as american people give corporations a right to spend as much money as they please, even anonomously, in american elections. international corporations with no loyalty to any flag or nation, but with virtually unlimited money may now drown out the voices of regular people, regular families in our american democracy. c.e.o.'s get to use the corporate megaphone amplified by the corporate treasury to drown out their employees' voices. just one big corporation with

just 5% of one quarter's profits could match the entire political spending of both presidential campaigns in the last election. our constitution and bill of rights established a jewry not once but three separate times as an institution of democracy. de tocqueville, one of the great historians and commentators on the american system of government, called the american jewry one of the forms of the sovereignty of the people. and big corporations go to court all the time and fight it out before a jury when they want to. but over and over if you're a middle-class family in contracts that you can't negotiate or control, in fine print you -- and fine print you probably never even read, your credit card company, your cell phone

company, the companies you do business with quietly take away your right to go against them before an american jury. and over and over again those same supreme court judges who decided a corporation was a person have let them. you have to go instead to something called arbitration instead of a constitutional american jury. and to give you an idea of how arbitration works, for a long time the biggest arbitration company in the country was a racket rigged to rule against the consumer, and it had to be shut down by legal actions by our state attorneys general. add it all up, all those different areas that i mentioned, and it's a lot of changes since my childhood. and it's a lot of changes in how our country runs. and it's all in the same

direction. special deals and special tax rates and special rules that help big corporations and people who are as wealthy as big corporations, and that leave out regular people who don't have masses of money, money, money. rules that allow corporations to intrude into our public discourse in this democracy and drown out people's voices through mighty corporate megaphones amplified by money, money, money and lies and nonsense cooked up in corporate spin factories being treated as fact, obtaining acceptability by how often the lies are repeated thanks to money, money, money. under all that money, what is drowning is the sense that we are all in this together as americans. that one of the things that america actually stands for in

this world is that we are fair with each other, that we get a straight deal and that we give each other a straight deal. that's one of the ways that we as america set an example in this world, an example of being fair. there are plenty of countries in the world whose internal political and economic systems amount to a racket, a racket rigged for the benefit of their rich and powerful, where farmers and workers and ordinary families get screwed and the wealthy skim all the cream. some of these countries are so bad we call them kleptocracies. the world is full of that. it has been the pride and joy of america that we are not like that. it has been our message to the world that it doesn't have to be like that. but now it is looking more that we actually are becoming just

like that. so what can we do about it? what can we do to make sure americans are getting a straight deal in all of this? i propose these things. one, big banks should have to follow the state laws just like local banks do, and just like you and i do. no more going to south dakota and marketing from there credit cards with 30% interest rates that violate the laws of your home state. two, if big corporations can restructure all their debts in bankruptcy court, so should students and families be able to. no second-class citizenship for those who borrow college loans and home mortgages. three, amend the constitution to make it clear that corporations aren't people. never were, never could be. the good lord just did not make

it that way. and make it crystal clear that corporations can't spend money in american elections anonomously or through phony shell organizations. if big oil wants to influence american elections, americans should know it's big oil. four, straighten out our tax systems, and until we do, put in a minimum tax for ultrahigh income earners that's at heart disease at the rate that ordinary american tax-paying families pay. and while we're at it, put in a minimum corporate tax rate that's at least half of what average corporations pay. no corporation that is making millions or billions of dollars should get away with paying nothing in income tax. five, shut down the offshore tax

havens and charge companies a c.e.o. pay surtax on c.e.o. compensation that is more than 100 times their average worker's compensation. six, make polluters pay the actual costs of their pollution. why should a polluting company be able to push onto all of the rest of us the costs of their pollution? why should american families bear that polluting corporation's cost? economics tells us that should be part of the company's cost of doing business. seventh, no more corporate tax deductions for offshoring american jobs, and no more favoring of offshore corporate income derived from what used to be american jobs. and eighth, take out of those

take it or leave it consumer contracts the provisions that take away in the fine print your right as an american to go before an american jury as the constitution and bill of rights promises whenever you have agreements or have been harmed. none of these things, none of those eight things that i have just mentioned ask anything of anyone that isn't fair, and most of them simply ask that ordinary americans get the same deal, or at least no worse of a deal than special americans get and big corporations get. this all does no more than put people on the same level, or at least under the same rules as the rich and powerful. when someone is getting a better

deal than you just because of who they are, you are not getting a straight deal. when someone is taking advantage of you because you are small and easy to take advantage of, you are not getting a straight deal. and when the rules of the game are rigged to help the winners win and to make you a loser, you are not getting a straight deal. and, mr. president, it is time we started giving the people of america a straight deal around here. i thank the president. i note -- i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: now ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority

leader, with the consultation of the republican leader, the republican leader or his designee be recognized to move to proceed to the consideration of s.j. res. 6, a joint resolution disapproving the rules submitted by the federal electiofederalcommunication comh respect to regularring the broadband industry practices. there be up to four hours of debate with the time divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the motion to proceed and if the motion is successful, time for debate with respect to the motion be equally divided between two leaders or their designees. upon the use or yielding back of time, the joint resolution be read a third time, the senate proceed to vote on passage of the resolution, all the provisions of the statute governing consideration of the joint resolution remain neskt. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the order with respect to s.j. res. 6 also apply to s.j. res. 27 with l the only exception be two hours of

debate equally divided between the leaders or her designees prior to the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: we proceed to h.r. h.r. 2674. officer the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, moves to proceed to calendar number 212, h.r. 674, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: there is a cloture motion at the desk. i ask that it be rorlted. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on motion to proceed to calendar number 212, h.r. 674. an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators as follows: reid of nevada -- mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the

nainls waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: is i ask that the mandatory quorum be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 415, the nomination be confirmed with no intervening action or debate, there be no further motions in order to the nominations, any ay statements appear in the record, president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. officer without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 405, there be 15 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form, upon the use or yielding back of tiernlg the senate proceed to vote on calendar 405, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be in intervening action or debate, any related statements be printed in the record and th the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: #eu ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to calendar number 211. the clerk: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 818, an act to direct the secretary of the steer-to-lou for prepayment of repayment contracts between the united states and the intaw water conservancy district. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i have never known the clerk to make a mistake in reading a name. i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, no intervening action or debate, any statements reemented to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to calendar number s. 1487 -- calendar number 216,. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1487, a bill to

authorize the secretary of homeland security in coordination with the secretary of state to establish a program to issue asian-pacific economic corporation business travel cards and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, any statements be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask we proceed to calendar number 218, s. 1759. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 218, s. 1759, a bill to facilitate the hosting in the united states of the 34th america's cup by authorizing certain eligible vessels to participate in activities activs related to the competition. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. scriemr. reid:, i ask unanimous consent that the fine stein

amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be passed, there be no intervening being a or debate, any plaiment sphaiments be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. res. 311. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 311 to authorize the printing of a collection of the rules of the committees of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the mairchlt. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there are no bills at the defnlg i ask for their first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1070, an ablght to amend the securities act of 1933, to require the s.e.c. to exempt a certain class of securities from such afnlgt h.r. 1965, an act to amend the securities laws to establish

certain thresholds for shareholder registration and for other purposes. mr. reid: i now ask for a second reading of these two bills, but i object to both of them. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be read for the second time the next legislative session. mr. reid: i ask when the senate completes its business today, we adjourn until 2:00 p.m. monday, november 17, follow the morning hour be deemed expired, the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, follow any leader remarks the senate be in morning business until 5:00 p.m., senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each, following morning business, the senate will resume the motion to proceed to the job creation act. 30 minutes of debate equally divided between baucus and hatch. the cloture vote with respect to respect to the motion to proceed occur at 5:30 p.m.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the next roll call vote will be at 5:30 p.m., the motion to invoke cloture. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on monday.

>> road to the white house coverage coming up this weekend

on the c-span networks. here on c-span2, five of the republican president rnl candidates speaking at the ronald reagan dinner in iowa. we'll hear from rick perry, rick santorum, and congressman ron paul. saturday night on c-span, two gop candidates, newt gingrich and herman cain square off in a debate hosted by the tea party patriots in houston. >> house high norty leader, nancy pelosi, called on the joint deficit reduction committee to produce, quote, "a big, bold, balanced plan." she briefed us on capitol hill this morning for about 20 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. >> morning. >> speaking of morning and time, the clock is ticking for the super committee to make its report to the congress. the opportunity that the super committee has is historic. it's urgent, and we are hoping that the committee will take advantage of that opportunity, that it makes the intrerp nearly spirit of america its centerpiece, the jobs and growth are where the focus should be, and then decisions about revenue and savings and the timing of them should spring from how we can create jobs, which bring in revenue to the treasury, job creation, reduces the deficit.

as i said over and over again, we want a plan that's big, bold, and balanced. the only way it can be is if it's balanced. since the committee has been charged with its work, as you know, the president has put forth his american jobs act. our members of our ranking members of the committee had sent their report for suggestions to the committee. the americans counsel on competitiveness has put forth some of its initiatives on job creation for our country, and house democrats, as i told you before, have been engaged in conversations with thousands of small businesses to review the suggestions of the president's american jobs act and to hear their suggestions for what they think the super committee can do to support and strengthen and help create many more small businesses in our country,

hence, our entrepreneurial theme. we think that is essential to reigniting the american dwreem, to give many more people the opportunity to achieve it. today, i'm sending a letter to the chirps and members of the committee thanking them for their leadership and service to our country by the time and energy they have put into this work, and basically, we come down to five points of focus that we believe can reduce the deficit, create jobs honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of america. jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, you say how are we going to create them? we're going to create them with small businesses in the business sector throughout the country. in order for that to happen, we have to have a strong public sector with the education of our children, protection of the communities, and the rest, but

our focus on this immediate job creation is the private sectors. make it in america. you heard that before. we must stop the erosion of the manufacturing, industrial, and technological base. that is happening in our country now, and that is unsustainable. we cannot sustain our manufacturing base at the pace that jobs are going overseas. we are hopeful we can pull them back. improve access to credit for small businesses, this is a very big deal. provide a trained work force, access to capital, access to a trained work force, access to customers, increasing demand is very important part of our proposal, and building america's infrastructure, we said it ourselves, with the comments of the president yesterday about the need for us to build infrastructure. without going into detail on each of them, i call your attention to the provisions in the letter and the appendix that

accommodates it as to the specificity of our recommendations. again, this was labor intensive for our members on their time away from washington, they engaged in conversations either individually with businesses or in groups or in their neighborhood, shopping centers, and the rest to hear technology centers and the rest to hear what their suggestions were, so we're always in touch with our small businesses, but we wanted them to be current in light of the president's proposal and in light of the opportunity that the super committee presents. today, we're having another hearing with our small business owners to, again, be immediately current on what they're thinking on what we had sent to the committee and what the opportunities are. i was encouraged by the bipartisan letter that was sent yesterday to the committee,

strong bipartisan, large numbers of democrats and republicans signing the letter promoting a balanced plan. i think this can be helpful, these and other suggestions they may be receiving. most of the suggestions we've sent them enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, and that was part of their value, but they may have ideas of their own on how to, again, encourage enhancing the entrepreneurial spirit of america to create jobs and do so in a way that reduces the deficit as we make more americans ready to achieve the american dream as we reignite it which is part of what all of this is about. with that, i'll be pleased to take any questions you may have. yes? >> we talked about the super committee, but coming up on november 18th, the government effectively runs out of money. it's shown republicansment --

republicans want to attach policy writers, and do you expect there to be talk of a shut down again, and do you feel house democrats the last time they stuck together will stick together, drawing a hard line and not cave too early as many thought happened in the spring. >> as you know under the leadership of hoyer, 183 democrats signed a letter to the speaker and the republican leadership saying let's get the work done in terms of our appropriations bills, not use them as writers that could be an excuse for this kind of confrontation. the public needs us to get the job done, not to make every bill that should be the regular order of the house to be this kind of confrontation without a show down. we'll be passing the -- one of

the many bills, and then another, and i would hope that sanity reigns as far as this is concerned. we'll see shortly how long the next cr is, but it would be -- it would be a disservice to the american people to decide what should be the regular order of the budget process becomes a policy agenda that serves no constructive purpose. >> are you hearing things from the super committee, things they're giving you and maybe speaker boehner particular options, and then you're processing in your head, here's what we have to do because we have to sell this to our caucus, his to his conference to actually pass this? december sometime? >> well, as i said to you before, i sent three very distinguished members to the house. our caucus has given authority

to our assistant leader, jim clyburn, and ranking member of the budget committee, chris van hollen, to go to the house and speak for the democrats and the american people. we trust their judgments, they know our values, and they know if we're going to have a big, bold, and balanced plan, there's going to be responsibility taken across the spectrum by all of us, so it isn't something i get a record or the speaker gets a report. on our side, our people are not on a short leash. they have the authority to negotiate for the house democrats. it is hopeful that we will have a consensus, and so, you know, that -- everybody understanding that we have to yield on certain points will see the urgency of

doing so, but, again, has to be big, bold, and balanced, and that means it has to have a jobs component, a revenue component, and a savings component. go ahead. >> to follow on chad's question, some of the information leaking from the committee, doesn't appear to be encouraging at all, and i'm wound -- wondering anything you can say to instill confidence in those of us covering this and the american people. >> we said from the start we want an agreement, that it's important to the american people to see this committee can function, to recognize the opportunity that it is there. imagine 12 people at a table able to pass a bill, present a bill to congress, expedited procedures that can move quickly through the house and contain many of the provisions that we have in our jobs package and,

again, agreed upon savings that we have talked about whether it's on all commissions whether it's simpson-bowles, the gang of six, you name it. everybody has a balanced and big approach, so, you know, it's just this committee that seems to be having some challenges reaching that decision, but i don't, you know, i don't -- as i said, our people are there to speak for us. i'm hopeful that the time they are taking is time they are bringing us closer to a consensus. as we discussed before, i have not put any lines in the sand. it's big, bold, and balanced, many things are possible to reduce the deficit in a very significant way to take us into the future, the path of prosperity, honoring the

entrepreneurial spirit of america. we're optimistic something can be done, and when you say is there anything? well, when they have a plan, that's when we'll be optimistic. in the mean meantime, we have question, and we're trying to supply some answers that have had bipartisanship in the past, but it is the -- the time is drawing near. this is november 3rd, engineered back from there, and you have probably ten days or two weeks that the cbo needs, so probably the first or second day back after, which i don't think we should have another break, we should be here, but the republican schedule is not to be, but first or second day back, we have to have something to go to the committee for. now, it would be helpful, and we're not just, you know, sitting back waiting, but showing members what some of the possibilities are, and if it's going to be big, bold, and

balanced, and it's going to be a compromise, there's level of unhappiness across the board on our side and theirs, but hopefully that means that we all took the steps necessary. i'd like to see a $4 trillion package. i hark back, seems like a long time ago now, but the proposal that the president and speaker worked together on is a good model too. again, many of the members are not happy with some of the particulars in it, but the result that it gives us is a grand one, and i would hope to see that we can return to a proposal that resembled that. the speaker said it gave him 98% of what he wanted, so i would hope that we could get to a place like that, but we just have to encourage them, not snipe, not try to keep the rhetoric down about what's, you know, why aren't they doing this, that or that.

the fact is they have this responsibility. we respect the charge that they have. democrats, republicans, house, and senate, we wish them well and will be praying for them. >> possibility of failure? >> well, let me put that in per -- perspective for you. i know there's other questions to get to. when the president signed the bill, the $1.2 trillion in cuts, it was called for that there would be another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. that will happen. that will happen. how it happens depends on the table, the super committee. it can happen with, again, balance and boldness of the size that's good for the country, or it can be one at the $4 trillion level and with savings and

revenue and job creation that makes sense. .. but again, that is up to the super committee. >> i wanted to ask why you and your husband back in march 2008 accepted and participated in the

very large deal from visa. at that time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the task. did you consider that to be a conflict of interest? >> i don't know what the point is of your question. is there a point you want to make with that? >> what i'm asking is the think it's all right for the speaker to accept a very preferential stock deal and the time and there is major legislation affecting the company in the house? >> first of all, let me say this. we are talking about an industry. what we are talking about is the congress that passed for protection for credit card holders. you know carolyn maloney has been the champion on this to the point where the industry sent $3 million to try to tvd bet could be feet hurt last time so

the issue that you are talking about first of all what you are contending is not true but second of all, we are very proud of our record of what happened. with the congressman or senator durbin was able to do in the senate is quite remarkable and when he was able to achieve that, then it was on this same issue it was included by the chairman barney frank in the bill. it's when we had a president who could sign the bill and that's what we passed with carolyn maloney. there was no interest in the part of president bush to sign such a bill, but the fact is your basic premise is a false one and it's no use of spending any more. >> to participate in the ipo there was a house bill very unfavorable to the credit card companies. >> i will hold my record in terms of fighting the credit card companies and the speaker of the house or as a member of congress against any one.

the credit card holder bill of rights i don't know what you're point is treated you like one bill better than another built. no, this was a powerful bill and in fact we were able to achieve both once we were able to have a democratic president that's really all i'm going to say. >> if you decide that you are going to elaborate on a false premise it is not true, and that's that. i would act upon an investment. >> it's been one year since the midterm election. i suppose every day for last year he fought to regain the majority, when do you think the democrats are doing? >> i'm a temple marker. i always placed things in time. the clock is ticking. but i didn't want to bring up

the subject of politics but since you did it was exactly the midway point. since last year's election and this year and over 300 days since the republicans have been in power they have not produced -- they have not created jobs for the american people, and that is i think the measure that we want to compare the. >> one week and one day after the president made his inaugural address, one week and one day we passed the recovery act and the house and it was in the senate sitting or creating millions of jobs with american people. one week and monday. here we are over 300 days, no such legislation. from a policy standpoint i think it's really important to know president obama was a job creator from day one. was the ditch that we were in so deep when you're talking to people and they still don't have the job that that is any

consolation to them? no but i will tell you this, if president obama and congressional democrats had not acted we would be 15% on funded. again, no consolation to those without a job but an important point to make. this was a cloud over the last election because if you don't have a job you don't hear somebody say it could be worse, but it could be coming and the fact is we have to be on a path to make it better and president obama has made suggestions in that regard policy wise. from the political standpoint we are very proud of the complete end of candidates. we spent 107 candidates for over 70 seats here last weekend. i wish that you could see the general, the colonel, many

people service people men and women from iraq and afghanistan who want to serve our country in another way in congress to take the oath again of protecting. legislators from a small businesspeople, mayors, many women and minorities all with of the determination, determination to take us off the path the republicans have put on, so we are very enthusiastic about the recruitment of our candidates, not to talk money but we have reduced the republicans for the first three-quarters of the year. this is quite remarkable, and with the support of many small donors and idealistic progressives and democrats across the country we were able to succeed in adweek. so i don't -- again, if we haven't been successful in the recruitment and hadn't been successful in raising money you might make a statement of how on

earth do you think that you can win but we definitely put the house and play. i give all the credit to the chairman who is as clear eyed a chairman as we need to have to do that. so thank you for your question in terms of policy it is urgent in terms of job creation and taking a state have of prosperity that really ignites the american dream where everyone plays by the rules and wants to work hard can have a successful for them so they can achieve the american dream. we know we have work to do. that's it? okay. thank you.

>> house speaker john boehner held his own news conference this morning. he called on the u.s. senate to take up the 15 jobs and economic bills passed by the house of representatives. the speaker's news briefing was ten minutes. >> this week marks the one-year anniversary of a new majority here in congress, and i think we've got a long way to go but i think it's important to know how our members have changed the focus here in washington rather than debating about how much more we are going to spend the debate over the course of the last year is about how much we are going to cut and the fact we

are cutting spending the house is an institution and is more open and transparent than under the previous majority is, democrat or republican. and there are no earmarks' whatsoever. most importantly in the change from years past, the house is keeping the pledge to america by focusing on the top priority of the american people and that issue is jobs. american families and small businesses are hurting. 14 million americans are out of work and republicans are focused on getting our economy moving again. the house has passed more than 15 bills that are currently awaiting a vote and the democrat-controlled senate. last week the house repealed the 3% withholding tax bill and we also passed a veterans' bill again sitting over the united states senate. last month we sent the president's important trade

agreement that will boost exports and create jobs and this week we will pass two more bills based on ideas the president says he supports to give small businesses greater access to the money they need to expand their business and to begin hiring new workers. all of these issues are part of our plan to help american job creators. the fact is that we worked this plan all year we formalize it and we continue to work to get our economy growing again to get the american people back to work. but on the back we have got these 15 bills that continue to sit in the united states senate. all of the steps that we can take right now to remove some of the barriers to the job creation. i think it's fun time to find common ground and many of these bills are broad bipartisan support and there is no reason for the senate not to take them

up. unfortunately they are just allowing the bills to gather dust and i don't think that is acceptable. so, rather than pursuing the common ground, the senate this week is voting on another bill and was designed to fail. rather than highlighting our differences i think we need to focus on areas where we agree. the bill we will pass tomorrow to help small businesses have the support of the administration and the senate should take it up when we send it over there. the withholding tax bill that we passed last year has the support of the president. the senate should pass it. you have to have the act on the job skills where the republicans in the house and the president agreed what are they willing to do to help create jobs in the country? so i think americans are tired of the posturing and tired of the fighting and they want to focus on common ground to solve this problem. so i of the president will join me. i hope he will join republicans and call on the democrats in the

senate to to get the forgotten 15 so we can get this economy moving again. questions? >> with the administration's release of the members of the fdr cut in medicare next year is there going to be a deal of overhaul or will there be another mandate? >> i think the committee is looking at trying to fix the scr problem. how this effect will move i think is still up in the air. >> can you talk about [inaudible] folks on your side of the ogle are nervous -- are you nervous you can cobble together the votes to improve the deadline would is the attitude? >> i think the mood is one of

nervousness. i think there is pressure on both sides of the aisle on the super committee and frankly on leadership on both sides of the aisle and both in both chambers. we have to come to an agreement. we have -- it is important for the super committee to succeed. we've got democrats and republicans in this committee who have worked diligently over the last several months to try to come to an agreement. this was easy the would have dealt with in the last couple of decades. if the reason the president and i probably could have come to an agreement earlier this year. if it were easy senator reid and i probably could have agreed to something like this in july. i can't tell you how much i appreciate the work of all of the members of the committee and their effort to try to come to an agreement. we are going to continue to work

at this. >> grover norquist is on the hill this morning as a positive influence on your conference? >> our focus here is on jobs. we are doing everything we can to get our economy moving and to get people back to work. it's not often i'm asked about a random person in america i think. [laughter] is grover norquist a random person? >> i thought this was creating jobs, talking about somebody's personality. >> is a positive influence in your conference? >> the note tax hike under any circumstance is that positive for your conference? >> our confidence is opposed to the tax hikes because we believe the tax hikes will hurt our economy and put americans out of work to reverse the mckeithen huddling for the many members

while meeting with senator mcconnell. it does is coming down to once again leadership involved what is the holdup at this point? you talked about the important is the super committee succeeds so what is the holdup now? >> there are a lot of discussions under way and a lot of discussions will continue. we all know how hard this is. when you start dealing with a mandatory spending and dealing with changes and entitlement programs these are very sensitive issues. when you start talking about revenue, you are talking about another set of sensitive issues simple as that. >> speaker, 40 members of the conference yesterday said that they would be doing increase in revenues -- does that give you more flexibility this to the

creditors a bipartisan group of members including those that signed the letter yesterday who believe that we have to deal with this problem coming and we do have to deal with it. so, i appreciate their interest, their concern and their help in trying to make sure that we get there. >> do you believe members of congress and particularly the leadership should be allowed to trade in stocks in a time when the company has major interests before the body? >> getting plenty of rules about the house and certainly rules from the sec members should follow and i believe they do follow. >> going back to the health care industry or the health care debate we bought some insurance stocks right before you declared the public optioned it. did you make those based on the nonpublic information? >> i have not made any decisions

on the day to day trading activities in my account and haven't for years. i do not do it, haven't done it and wouldn't do it. >> what would you say the impact of the conversation focus has been on jobs in the last year? we have seen the stagnant job growth since january as the government spending decrease and austerity has treated this republican focus on the spending and all else what is the impact on jobs? >> i think the budget deficit and our debt serves as a blanket over the economy. it has every industry and business person concerned about whether we are going to do with this problem and that's why getting the deficit and debt under control think it's critically important because it will lead to a better environment for job creation of the country.

>> should the image of a crucial element such as extending jobless benefits for the payroll tax holiday? >> there are a lot of issues on the table and ensure all of those and more will be discussed as the conversations continue. thank you. >> [inaudible conversations]

white house coverage coming up this weekend on the c-span networks

and now a conversation from this morning's washington journal on the history of the vaccines and the world of the government in creating and regulating them. >> host: dr. stanley is university of pennsylvania narrative professor of pediatrics. thank you for joining us this morning. >> guest: quite happy to be here. >> host: as i mentioned as we begin to introduce the segment,

you have a long history in the work of vaccines and half from yourself, created a vaccine. tell us about the history of when two americans start vaccinating and what is the first vaccine? >> well, actually the first experience of vaccination goes back to the colonial days. member introduced which was called an early form a sort of prudhoe vaccination against smallpox, and george washington vaccinated the troops at valley forge, holding the army together against the threat of smallpox. the british troops had already been violated, so they were immune and washington realized that the army would have serious epidemics unless he did the same thing. but real vaccines began with edward jenner of the end of the

18th-century in great britain when he realized that milkmaids have very nice complexions not marred by smallpox and that's because they were infected by a virus called cowpox which gives a kind of cross protection. so he cultivated that virus and began to use it as a vaccine, and of course 200 years later that resulted in the eradication of smallpox from the world. the development of the vaccines in the 19th century was actually rather slow. france was the originator of the laboratory development of the vaccines and his laboratory and then american laboratories began to work on developing some early vaccines for example their

earliest vaccine against rabies and against cholera. it wasn't until the second world war that vaccine development began in earnest so to speak. after the second world war, a great number of vaccines were developed, many of the ones used today to vaccinate children and that process has continued in has become industrialized if you will. if there are universities, by new technology institutes and pharmaceutical companies that work on vaccine development giving us the wide range of vaccines we have today the used routinely not only in children but also in adolescence and even in adults. >> host: go ahead, sir.

>> guest: i want to that if the public wants to hear or learn more about this, there is a wonderful website set up by the college of physicians in philadelphia in the history of vaccines, www.historyofvaccines.org and have a tremendous amount of history on the vaccines. >> host: our guest is an adviser to the history of the vaccines project and also american professor at the university of pennsylvania and was the developer of the vaccine currently used. we talk about the history and the role the government played, and you mentioned that president george washington ordered mandatory for the troops in 1777. is that any indication of how the relationship would be between government and vaccinations to come? >> will communicative vaccines are of importance to governments

because they are responsible some ways for the health of people not only individual people, but people in general, populations of you will, and the government, the u.s. government has played a role in the vaccine development certainly in the 20th century and in this century when people have to appreciate that there is a very large apparatus to that begins with the fda, the food and drug administration that has very strict rules about what they will license. they work with the vaccine developers, they insist on certain criteria of safety and efficacy and demand that before a vaccine is licensed, large numbers of people have to be tested.

one of the vaccines i helped develop, for cybill, was tested and 70,000 children before it was licensed by the fda. and then after the licensor, again, there is a large apparatus, for example, to examine safety. there is a reporting system that every physician is supposed to report a possible reaction to a vaccine. there are -- there is organized surveillance of vaccine use and reactions and the centers for disease control in a land of continue to monitor the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. there is a committee of people who are experts in the field who meet three times a year at the cbc in a public meeting anyone can attend. they leave out the data that

accumulated in the last months about a vaccine use and this was discussed thoroughly to make sure that if there is any problem that can be ironed out, investigated and recommendations made as far as the use of vaccines. so, there is an air extensive relationship between the government and vaccine development and use. >> host: our guest is dr. stanley woo-hoo plotkin and you can join the conversation, 202-737-0001, independent phone co independent. wondering what you think about the controversy of concerns that americans have over vaccines, linking them to being afraid the essentially of what the side effects of the vaccines could be. >> guest: yes, well, you know, first thing i have to say is

that as in many other instances there is an awful lot of information on the internet that is false, a lot of rumors come a lot of ideas being retailed that have no basis in fact. just to take the autism issue this came up because of an article written by a physician and a prominent medical journal and so this idea that there was a relationship between that and got some began to be spread and people began to believe it. okay. will the terms of at the end of the day the article was written was based on fraudulent data and that physician has been disbarred, his license has been taken away in great britain. so the whole idea was false to

begin with, and abundant studies have been done, extensive studies have been done to disprove what was a fraudulent idea and there is absolutely no reason, no evidence -- indeed the evidence is against the idea that a vaccine could cause of his thumb. nevertheless, there are people who believe in our retailing that idea and so that goes back to a quotation i think from jonathan swift who said law is grundfest and the truth comes one thing after. >> host: in the "washington post" federal advisers endorsed testing the anthrax vaccine on children, a controversy will issue this week. a key panelist and advisers recently recommended the federal government sponsored a

controversial study test the vaccine in children to see whether the inoculation would protect young americans against a by a terrorist attack. what do you think about that? >> guest: well, it so happens that in my own personal history of the first vaccines fi worked on was the anthrax vaccine. the anthrax vaccine is a highly effective vaccine, but it has the unfortunate property that has to be given repeatedly. in other words, the protection doesn't last for a long time. unlike many other vaccines where let's say you can give the vaccine once and it protects people for life this is a situation where if there were an exposure to anthrax you have to vaccinate a lot of people

immediately in order to protect them, and the problem is that we have lots of data with the anthrax vaccine that was as you may know used or less routine against a biological warfare attack but we have no data on the use of the vaccine in children. so, the point of doing a trial in children would be to make sure it's safe in children. i have no reason to believe that it wouldn't be, but to have some data on which to base the possibility of a large scale vaccination, and of course to show that it is immunogenic it creates protection and children, which again i do not doubt, but you need data coming you need proof, and so it doesn't surprise me that the committee

advised that there be a trial in children in order that we have a basis to recommend mass vaccinations if such a terrible event would occur. >> host: let's go to virginia. gloria on the democrats' line. welcome. >> caller: good morning. i'm a first-time caller. thanks for taking my call. the question i have is how do you -- you said you did a trial on 75,000 children when you made the initial vaccine for rubella. how do you is choose children to take part in the trial? i'm thinking about the situation with fi tuskegee trial and so forth, and i'd like to know where do you get these children whose parents agree to let you vaccinate them with these various vaccines, and just exactly how do you go out of the country to africa, some place

like that, to test the vaccines or how do you get the people to agree that you vaccinate their children and that is the only question that i have. thank you for taking my call. >> well, so that is certainly a legitimate question and the answer is this. since of the tuskegee event which of course was deplorable, the field of medical ethics if you will has developed considerably. and so, certainly that kind of event would not be permissible today. there is the every university and the fda examined the ethics of a criminal trial, so before any clinical trial was done in this country there is a committee that looks to determine whether or not it is

ethical. okay. so now to come specifically to your question, enrolling children in clinical trials, a document is drawn up which explains why the test is being done and white children or their parents should agree to have children enrolled. in the case of the evo bella vaccine of course was to protect children against rubella particularly female children so that when they grow up they are not at risk of having a rubella in section during presidency which as you may know, i hope you know, has terrible effects on the fetus and creates a terrible abnormalities and it's infected during pregnancy, so when i did my trials, there

again was a document which was given to the parents to explain why the vaccine was being developed, with the possible reactions might be, with the advantages of being vaccinated could be, and those parents decided they would enroll their children and this process was many years ago, but this process has become even more complex. now parents get documents which frankly are not so easy to read because they are so extensive but i repeat no trial was done in children or adults for that matter without what is called informed consent. >> host: republican colored in columbus ohio. good morning. >> caller: i just want to make a couple comments and i try to make it quick.

dr. plotkin, i had the experience of having my 4-year-old when he was getting his fmr and chicken pox go through seizure night terrors. he had a total of six by the time he was 18 months old and that was horrifying to go through. my thing is that from then on, from the time he was 18 months i started to spread them out, and even by the cdc standards, they do not encourage the parents to even do that. it's like taking power away from the parent to choose either to spread them out or totally we them all together. and another comment i wanted to make is the had actually got my family practitioner to explain to me that vaccines, all the actually do is prevent or not present but lessen the effect of

disease once you contract for example influenza, and my question to you is why is it that we do not, and i say we, i mean the government deutsch a cdc do not all parents of the vaccines are actually made. i'm not a molecular physicist or geneticist, however i think that from what i research the rna and the dna on animals are used to make the vaccine. i'm not going to get into the particulars, i'm not looking at the paper work that i got this from or the book that i actually copied it from. but when you and use something like that into the bodies of little children, how is it we cannot believe that these vaccines are the catalyst for causing a number of genetic

disturbances in the body from psychological to gastrointestinal to physical >> well, madam, first of all, used a lot of statements and i have to say that all of them are misinformed. now i'm not sure exactly where to begin but let's begin with this business about rna and dna. you will have to understand that rna and dna are molecule's. they do not -- when you inject them they do not take over the genetics of the individual food. they are usually destroyed by enzymes in the body and specifically the animal are in a

and a dna it is impossible that that could occur so that one point. when you talk about manufacture of the vaccines you have to understand that that is extremely carefully controlled. again, the fda does not accept any process of manufacturer that is not detailed and studied for safety in an exquisite way. many animal species are inoculated with vaccines before they're put into humans and the safety of those products is demonstrated in a very thorough way so that's one point. as far as the possible reaction that your trial had, i don't

know the obviously the medical details of what happened to but i have to make this point and this is a general point that one has to understand that there are events that occur and they occur with or without vaccines. that is to say i might walk out of here and get hit by a truck. that is not to say that doing this program caused me to get hit by a truck and what you have to understand is that in deciding whether a reaction has occurred is the result of a vaccine or the result of anything for that matter you have to have a control group that does not receive the vaccine, so that kind of safety study is done for every vaccine so that one knows what are the real reactions and for the clinton told reactions to a

vaccine and in the case of fmr which i believe you are referring to specifically, there is no evidence that that causes any lasting near a logical problem so i'm sorry if your child has a difficulty, but i am unconvinced it had anything to do with a vaccine. as far as the statement of your physician is concerned, that is unfortunately false. the fact i can just cite an obvious point if there is no measles, no domestic measles in this country. there is no domestic polio in this country. the vaccine simply made the disease my old we would see the disease but we don't and we don't have any evidence that

they are circulating in this country. it's also the truth of rubella. that is the result of the vaccines. so, what your physician was dillinger was unfortunately not true. as far as spreading vaccine schedules out there are some circumstances where that may be advisable. what one has to appreciate that is also delaying protection, so if one wants protection as early in life as possible from spreading vaccines out is not a good idea i think i should stop there. i probably have covered every question that you answered but i tried to cover it in many points. >> emeritus professor of pediatrics at the university of pennsylvania that is where he is joining from in philadelphia. he's also been a project advisor on the history of the vaccines

project. i wanted to ask you and this may relate to the last caller her concerns over vaccinations as the "the washington times" say thousands entered california schools without vaccines not for the class of, for the kindergarteners at a record percentage of parents who use their personal belief exemption to avoid immunization requirements and the development it causes concern among the state officials. can you weigh in on this? and give us a sense -- you talk to the regulation of the testing vaccination but who in the federal government had the authority to require or mandate vaccinations? >> guest: that's an interesting question. actually there is a supreme court decision that goes back to the early part of the 20th century where the court affirmed that it is the right of the

state's to insist, to mandate vaccinations. it's not really a federal government issue it is a state issue. each state has laws but very somewhat -- the mandate certain vaccines. what is a philosophical basis if you will for that? the philosophical basis is that with the exception of tetanus where the protection is strictly personal, without exception, every vaccination exerts what is called the herd immunity effect. in other words, that if you have a sufficient number or percentage of immunized people, those who were not immunized would be protected because the virus of the bacteria simply can't find susceptible people.

there are some people who for medical reasons can't be vaccinated and they are protected by the vaccination of others. in addition, epidemics are disruptive to public life and all the economic side are very costly, so the courts have decided that within the public interest vaccine's come certain vaccines be required to. it is again going back to measles and how this country has rid itself of measles and how this country has rid itself of polio by insisting people be vaccinated. now there are religious objections in other words, in most states to a parent can say my religion doesn't allow my

child to be vaccinated. paulson sere that is, i don't know, but there are varying percentages perhaps one or 2% of parents who seek that kind of religious or philosophical objections of the vaccination. unfortunately, those people tend to be concentrated in certain areas or rural areas or towns, and there have been problems in those towns where a bacteria viruses introduced and causes an outbreak in that particular town, so there is a cost in attacking those objections using those objections. >> host: the tier from riga, democratic collar and chesterfield michigan.

welcome. >> caller: i may just drop the fire because i have a lot to say. i don't know if his name is richard but he's been totally vindicated his studies were proven true and also you keep talking about this information i think that you are one of the biggest ones. there's dr. lenni horowitz, richard block, sherry, all these doctors have researched and have looked into this and they are probably with the leedy was referring to and if henry waxman could see that mercury in the air causes brain damage of course in the vaccine mercury is also causing field some and the increase in the shot's going from 25 by the time they are to no wonder our kids are autistic.

>> guest: so, again, let's try to answer some of these. first of all, madam wheatfields and i have personally read all of the evidence of the legal, shall i say the legal issue in the united kingdom. weak field data were entirely false both his clinical data and his lover tridata or false. it could not be replicated, so the of media that he was vindicated is absolutely untrue. i don't know where you got that idea. the other people you mentioned there are of course vaccine physicians who don't agree with what i am saying i don't doubt

that but when you say they have evidence, that's nonsense. the have no evidence, they have no credible evidence publishable an acceptable journals that can be replicated by other scientists the opinions, anybody can have an opinion but you have to have evidence. >> host: how has americans or perhaps in other countries how has the opinions of the vaccines change over the years in the perspective how does the public viewed vaccinations? >> guest: it's interesting because in most parts of the world they are fighting for vaccines. they will hunt down as many vaccines as they can get because they still have the disease which we no longer have, and so

i was talking to somebody just yesterday about trying to get vaccines and to particular areas of the middle east where they are coming to organizations, philanthropic organizations and asking them to please find the introduction of some of the vaccines that they don't have. so it strikes me as ironic in this country where fortunately we have been protected. but in this country there are people questioning the value of the vaccines, whereas in many other countries they are fighting for them. so, and have i answered your question? >> host: you have. let's hear from another caller. mike from waldorf maryland, republican line. good morning, sir. mike, good morning? we will have to move on.

are you with us? >> caller: yes, i am. hang on, can you hear me now? >> host: we can hear you but we need to hear your question quickly. >> caller: here is the first statement. i'm going to make a statement and i want dr. plotkin to review it. as far as i can see there's been no testing of the multiple vaccine is altogether that have been given from the agent zero to the agent so that it's not even testing this on pigs, okay? >> host: what is your response to this, doctor? >> guest: well, mauney response is that is simply not true, that the -- when a new vaccine is introduced, one of the -- one of the pre-vaccination studies that are done is to incorporate that vaccine into a schedule so that as parents probably no many

vaccines are given at two, four, six months and then there are booster doses often given in the second year of life usually somewhere between 12 to 15 months. when a new vaccine is introduced let's say it's going to be used to, for, and six months, one of the studies, as i just said, one of the studies that is done is to put that vaccine and a schedule and a test children receiving the licensing vaccines together with of the new vaccine. so, you know, on the understand that parents don't like the idea of infants receiving multiple injections, and one of the ways that the industry is trying to deal with that is to combine

vaccines so that in one syringe you have let's say five different vaccines which means fewer injections to the child, but as of today we have absolutely no evidence that getting multiple vaccines at the same time is harmful and to make one remark because the previous caller talked about mercury, so the people out there, parents should know that first of all the amount of mercury that was in vaccines was really tiny point number two is there are now very few vaccines i think that tolino vaccine used in this country at this time has any mercury in it or if so an

infinitesimal amount so people should not be worried about injecting mercury because of that is not the case. >> host: i want to ask about the story in "the new york times" scientists promising vaccines for malaria. dr. plotkin, where is the sad and how revolutionary or significant would this be? >> guest: there has been over many years to develop because malaria is one of the world's great killers particularly of children, and there has been little success of until now and the reason for that is the malaria organism is not a virus, it's not a bacteria, it is a complicated parasite, and protecting against the parasite with a complex collection of

proteins and carbohydrates and complex lifecycle was not easy. nevertheless, workers mainly at the glaxo company have taken a particular protein from the parasite and put it on actually a hepatitis b protein. this is not living. this is totally inactivated, pure protein coming and use that as a vaccine and they have shown in efficacy about 50%. that may not sound as much by the house you combine that with the next and realize you can reduce the mortality due to malaria by at least 50% come of it is a very important advance,

so there are now of course to confirm this and to improve the vaccine so that the efficacy would even be higher than 50%. this could have a major effect in the developing world. >> host: wanting to look at some of the history of the vaccines back in 1736 benjamin franklin's son died of smallpox. in 1764, john adams received during the harvard epidemic of smallpox. back in 1777 come as our guest mengin come george washington ordered mandatory inoculation of the troops and you can see more of the history of the taxation and america there on your screen. let's go to a democrat caller in georgia. good morning. >> caller: good morning. dr. plotkin, i would like to know what you think about health care and medications in china and the rest of the world in the global health initiative in the trillion dollars towards malaria

instead of alzheimer's research where its cost united states trillions of three-year and the national institutes of health why not it would study and use it you didn't want congress meddling in what you studied. and i think that the united states should be the first priority and stuff bill gates getting a thousand dollars in and thus putting a trillion in and then him getting to put it on the stock market and reap the benefits. >> guest: well, i'm not sure that i am qualified to comment on that. like everybody else, i am certainly interested in preventing alzheimer's disease. in fact i might just mention a that there is a good deal of research on the developing of the vaccines against alzheimer's and some interesting development in that area.

when you question a essentially the idea of giving money to other countries to protect them the only comment i can make is that this is now one world, and preventing disease and other countries does have an indirect effect on the united states. that is it decreases the risk of importation, it protects travelers, so while i can't really comment on where the money should be put, i can say that personally i don't see anything really wrong in giving money for health needs in other countries. i do think -- i do agree we have health needs here and one would like to see those well funded as

well. >> host: dr. stanley plotkin emeritus professor of pediatrics at the university of pennsylvania also the adviser to the history of vaccines project at the college of physicians in philadelphia. the website is historyofvaccines.org. thank you for being with us. ..