also known as the american jobs that, on our featured links section at c-span.org. >> do you still believe the social security should be ended? >> we should have a conversation. >> we are having one right now. >> the issue is, are there ways to move the state's into social security for state employees bellow beaded that in texas back in the 1980's. i think that those kinds of conversations with america, rather than trying to scare

seniors, like you are doing -- ♪ host: with social security once again fronts -- front and center in the debate, 1000 tea party activists, one of the headlines is that rick perry was wearing able bold tie. what did you learn from the eight candidates? we have four phone lines this morning. for democrats, 202-624-1111. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-624-0760. we have a fourth line this morning for tea party supporters, a line this up just for you last night, 202-628- 0184. that is the fourth line four q party supporters.

we welcome all of your phone calls. to the articles first. homeone of rick perry's state newspapers, "the houston chronicle." new host: "the tampa tribune,"

has this headline. host: similar headlines in all of the papers we are reading today. before we get to the phone calls, here is another exchange. >> the idea that we have not had the courage to stand up and looked americans in the face, career professionals, kids that are my children to age, and looked them in the eye to say that this is a broken system -- it was called upon to scheme well before me, but no one has had the courage to say that this is how we are going to reform and transform it. we are going to fix it so that our young americans going out into the workforce today will know, without a doubt, that

there were some people that came along that did not lie to them, did not try to go around the edges and tell them the truth. >> i think that the term ponzi scheme is over the top, frightful to many people. the real issue is that writing his book, the governor pointed out that in his view, social security is unconstitutional. that it should be given back to the states. that view, and the view that somehow social security has been forced upon us over the last several years and that it has been a failure, this after 70 years of tens of millions of people relying on social security, is a different matter. host: "the new york times," put it this way last night --

host: pittsburgh, you are up first. jim, did you watched the debate? caller: republicans on cnn, it is backfiring for them both. doubleunded like trick, standard questions. the republicans sounded good.

second, michele bachmann. why did you not ask for more questions? he seemed to try to get rick perry and mitt romney to argue. host: why do you think? caller: the channel they were on? host: these channels are getting their audience? caller: personally, i would vote for tim came in the primaries, if he wins. if he is not, i would vote for any republican. host: that was jim from pittsburgh, pa.. another headline, this photograph of michele bachmann, mitt romney, but perry, but during the national anthem

before the debate. this is from "the st. petersburg times," "taking aim at harry." "7 republicans take turns aiming at rick perry." betty, democratic line, good morning. how caller: if you are a young person without any insurance, they would like to die. my second point is -- i would be ashamed to send either of them abroad to represent the united states of america. host: why? caller: i cannot even explain. they just did not have any sympathy for anyone. but conversations, they were laughing about things that were not funny and made no sense to

me. host: paula, a tea party supporter, new jersey. good morning. caller: i did not get a chance to watch, i just caught the clips this morning. i just have something short and sweet. my opinion about social security, stop giving it to the people that do not need it or should not be getting it. it was created for retired people. give it to the people who are retired. not the people that have disabilities that they caused themselves, like alcoholism, a couple of other things. ridley, it is designed for the people who are retiring -- really, it is designed for the people who are retiring. host: who do you support? have you had enough time --

host: -- caller: romney. romney. host: how come? caller: he is a businessman and, financially, we are in trouble. no one wants to say it, but that is where we are. host: robert. caller: those of the worst candidates on stage. romney is just another puppet for the world elitists. the media that gives americans nothing but mind can be, they are going to tell america that parry and romani are the front runners.

host: here is a little bit of what michele bachmann had to say on the economy. caller: i was one of the only people in washington next -- >> i was one of the only people in washington that said not to raise the debt ceiling. do not give the president another blank check. you have to draw a line in the san somewhere. the president wanted us to borrow money from countries like china to pay them back for stimulus. we have $1.20 trillion that has been earned by american countries overseas. a 0% tax rate, that is called repatriation, bring that in, you would have $1.20 trillion flooded into the system. permanently lower the tax code. repealed of frank.

repeal obama care. and it is not hard to turn around, if you try. you just need the back row to do it. host: there were many voices from the state's last night. and your calls, this one from cleveland, tennessee. caller: i kind of like mitt romney. host: how come? caller: sorry, newt gingrich. i just like the way that he talks. i thought that he and herman cain were a good team. no one is talking about the private sector. they have product for sale to earn dollars. the infrastructure is doing nothing but sucking money from the taxes. paid into the private sector.

i have not heard anyone say anything about that. it really bothers me. i think that private sector jobs are getting all of the attention. host: ok. newt gingrich, mentioned there. here is a bit from the four speaker in last night's debate. [no audio] host: we will do mr. gingrich in just a second. let's get a call in from james in harrisburg, pa.. caller: social security just needs a minor tweak to be solvent. is not as bad as what people say by making it major, all you are doing is making it a tax increase of america.

social security is solvent. if a minor adjustment is made. in the long run, they want to do away with it. if the united states government code social security $2 trillion, that is a lot more than they of china. by making that tweak, they will put america in the past. thank you. host: michael, independent caller, north carolina. caller: i did not learn much from them. to be honest, these debates two years out, it is quite strange. it is like we never leave the election cycle. host: did you watch bella caller: it is like going to the circus, pretty much. host: why do you say that? caller: i keep hearing the words

business, businessman, private sector. c'mon, america. who is at the root of bailing out banks? business. who has had a tax shelter for the last decade? of business. they are not hiring? why? you have people at the top. you know what, working people, you are getting the crumbs. i am an independent. i see things. where are the ideas from these people. all i hear is criticism, mockery, jabbing back and forth, but no positive ideas for how to turn this around. i will be honest, i would never -- when i stepped into a presidential office the way that this president did, with those problems? i probably would have quit.

host: we have a piece to speak to what you are talking about. here is a twitter message, twitter.com/c-spanwj is our twitter address. host: we have that piece now from new gingrich. >> in the particular worried about governor perry and the governor romney frightening the american people, when president obama scare's them every single day. president obama twice said recently that he could not guarantee delivering the checks to social security recipients. why should young people have politicians with power for the rest of their life to take away their social security? host: this from "the washington

post," --

host: back to the phones. eric, democratic line. what did you learn last night? caller: i learned not so much what the people said on the debate, but what i learned was the reaction of the audience. when they got up with that scenario and said -- let the man died of life-support -- that was a perfect example of the extremist republican party that must be fought. americans of all races and creeds, if they are working for a living in voting the public and, they are out of their mind, suicidal. thank you. host: ohio, good morning. caller: on the social security,

you have both parties willing to spend what this country owes to get a tax break. to me, that makes no sense. to give a tax break on the money coming in? you are hurting the system even worse than it is, which is not right by either party. host: did you watch the debate last night, scott? caller: yes. host: york take away? caller: they are not talking about the real issues. the only republican candidate telling the truth, romer, was not up there. thank you. host: chattanooga, tennessee.

caller: hey. first of all, social security is down. both parties will take it out. they are just trying to fool the american people. it is down. they will love me back. it will just fade out of sight. as far as the republicans go, there is only one man that could possibly run this country, that is herman cain. the rest of them, it is the same old, same old thing. as far as democrats, obama, this mandate for answers? that is out of hand. i do not think a politician can run in this country. we will see what happens. but i believe that social security is down. host: we will hear from herman cain later.

from cnn, the decision to host the debate was -- it was more willing. host: that is the "the new york times," right up on this debate. here is a look. >> we have gone from a pay phone world to a smart phone world. president obama keeps jamming quarters into the pay phone, thinking things would get better. if we are going to get this economy going, we have seven things we have to do. it regulations to work to encourage enterprise.

3, trade policies that work for us. four, energy security in this country. 5, executing rule of law, stopping the boeing decision. 6, creating a fantastic human capital. seven, balance the budget. people will not invest unless they have confidence. host: mclean, virginia. barbara. what did you learn less night? caller: it was an interesting debate. i am calling because i heard your commentary about the ron paul response on the question concerning social security. many have characterized his response on social security and health care as letting people die. that is not what i heard.

i am calling in to say that what i heard him say is that people should be responsible for themselves. if they choose not to buy health insurance, then they take a risk. if they take that risk, they should not assume the government will take care of them. what they should do is rely on charity. host: thank you, barbara. leonard, a democrat, cleveland. hello? caller: good morning. regarding health care and what they are talking about, people forget, the politicians and government employees, we, the people, paid for all of that, for all of them here the they have their own retirement plan. we paid for it.

as well as the medical that week, the people paid for. how can these numerous politicians be running for election, or re-election, when they are still on payroll in the government office? i think that they should not be in office, running another part of the state of texas, and still collect a payroll. when he is traveling to florida, iowa, trying to get on the ballot. host: more of your calls in a moment, but more of an exchange here between mr. romney and mr. perry. host: i think that governor perry would agree with me, four aces does not make you a great poker player.

the zero income-tax, low regulation, a right to work state, oil in the ground. by the way, there have been great jobs built in texas. under george bush, 3% per year. rick perry, 1% per year. those are all good numbers. texas is a great state. but if you think the country is like texas, someone like that is perfect. but if you think the company -- a country needs a turnaround, no. host: one viewer writes -- host: cameron, n.c.. good morning.

caller: i disagree with the woman from new jersey about social security disability. i am a disabled vet. i applied for social security, but it never came through. these guys in iraq, afghanistan, the gulf war, they come back injured and have no income coming in. what about those guys? host: thank you for calling, daniel. robert? caller: are you staying with these new telephone numbers? host: why do you ask? caller: they were switched just a few months ago. a loyal the work, it is good to know which ones to dial.

host: they are the ones for now. keep them in mind. did you watch the debate? caller: yes. host: what did you learn about these folks that want to become president? caller: that herman cain is very eloquent. i do not trust rick perry. host: why not? caller: he has a history of being a democrat. he supported al gore for president in 1988. he supported the hillary clinton health-care plan and the democratic officials from the early 1990's. i was impressed with governor romney's performance. ron paul's of views and mine do not cross paths very much. his libertarian outlook is not where mine is. i am not surprised that he is

getting pigeonholed the way that he is for the controversial comments that he made last night. but overall i thought it was an interesting and productive debate. i have not chosen a candidate yet, but so far i like what i see with mitt romney. host: thank you for weighing in. several have mentioned herman cain, the businessman who has declared that he is not a politician, so here is a little bit from him last night. >> i do not care what you call it. it is broken. here is my solution. optional personal retirement accounts. in 1981 in galveston, they opted out during a short window of opportunity. today when people retire there, they retire making at least 50% more than they would ever get

from social security. secondly, allow younger workers to have personal retirement accounts and options. host: more of your calls on the gop tea party debate last night. what did we learn? frank, good morning. hello. caller: i learned that [unintelligible] giving us any detail about what they would do. they would just rather get the nomination. i would like to hear the details of the program that they would have, if they were president. host: thank you.

denise? caller: why is it on social security taxes and medicare taxes, taken out of everybody's paycheck, did everyone forget that they were actually paying that? host: this piece from "the new york times," -- host: las vegas, the democratic

line. caller: my comment, people have worked for social security. it is a government thing. also, if the governors paid when they stopped working and got them off their money, if they did away with social security and pension, i think that they should do away with their pay. also, i would like to say -- when the republicans got in, and in 2001, they took people's money. they took the enron money that people had saved for retirement. i think that the republicans are very selfish. we put them in, we put those people in the house to work for the people, not steal from them. thank you. host: that was joy, from las

vegas. one twitter message this morning -- host: here is the front page of "the washington times," this tuesday. you can see michele bachmann in this photo as well. immigration did come up last night. it made some news. here is the texas governor and minnesota congresswoman on that issue. >> no one on that stage has had to deal with border security as much as i have. our federal government has been an abject failure at securing our borders. we have had to spend $400 million to send texas rangers down there. strategic fencing in the metropolitan areas has a role to play. but the idea that you will build a wall from brownsville to el

pass out and kill left for another 800 miles, it is not a reality. host: more time for your calls, 15 minutes left in this segment, but we want to step back and talk about afghanistan for a couple of minutes. this story from the associated press. an explosion in downtown kabul. this story just moving in the last half hour. patrick quinn is the bureau chief there for the associated press. can you explain to us what is transpiring today? caller: a group of insurgents

with assault rifles occupied a very tall building and started firing at the embassy, nato headquarters and offices of the afghan intelligence service. random rockets are being fired all over. especially the areas where the foreign embassies are located. there are no injuries at the embassy itself. one police officer and two insurgents have been killed so far. gunbattle are raging all over downtown, mostly in the area near the embassy. host: what other kinds of responses are there, for the folks guarding the embassy? can you speak about the push

back you have seen? caller: there is very little that i can tell you. kabul is an armed fortress. this is their third major attack in a month. they attacked a british diplomatic office just a couple of weeks ago. a number of people were killed there. and they attacked a major hotel exactly one month ago. right now the afghan police, nato and u.s. forces are fighting the police insurgents, hold up within. other than engaging them in this fashion, there is very little they can do. host: put this in perspective about what this means for the

situation there? give us your perspective, if you can. caller: it has become obvious that the insurgents and the taliban and attack at will, anywhere that they want. last weekend on the eve of the september 11 anniversary, a huge bomb was detonated outside of a u.s. outpost on the outskirts of the capital, wounding 77 soldiers. now, most of the fighting is contained in the south. and in the east, along the border with pakistan. the taliban can pretty much attack when they want and where they want.

it just goes to show that attempts to secure this country, transitioning it in 2014, it is not going as smoothly as people would like. host: you are saying that the taliban can attack it will, but can it ultimately get whatever it wants? what are they trying to achieve, at this point, in this situation? caller: what has happened is, we have kind of a stalemate between the taliban, other insurgent forces, and the military coalition of the u.s. it has become obvious that this battle will not be won on the battlefield. the u.s. and these nascent afghan security forces do not

have the firepower. what has to be done over the next three years, as the u.s. and nato transition out of this country, they have to find some way to talk to the taliban and reach some kind of a diplomatic compromise. it is obvious that neither side is going to win. but it is also obvious that al qaeda is not going to lose either. host: patrick quinn, thank you. appreciate your help. caller: you are welcome. host: back to the question -- what did you learn last night from the republican tea party debate? this is from "usa today," a

fairly recent guest on this program, richard lamb writes that rick perry is no george w. bush. if you look at "the wall street journal," today, rick perry is the one in the middle. moving the camera over to the left at that, "the capital journal." doubts about electability also shadowed reagan. a question that always comes up at this time. st. louis, missouri. mildred, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i was impressed by what was said last night.

the immigration problem -- if someone was in america for three years, they would get college from the state? social security going to the state? they are hollering at the federal level about how that government is messed up. have you look at your local and state and how they are taxing you to death? as far as businesses, they are passing laws where you have cut taxes, fees, and everything else. local, state taxes and all. you are looking at the federal, but you had better start looking at the state. the middle man is release supporting everything. the middle class has nothing to say. you are not going to get any help and all.

social security talks about personal accounts. are these going to be taxable? there are taxes on everything else. how is this going to be financed? government, like the state and local? will they be taxing them to death? and then, is it federal? no one is giving any kind of idea. is likes -- like throwing things against the wall to see if they stick. host: thank-you, mildred, from st. louis. a debate issue out there, as it relates to governor perry making more news. here is his response on that issue from last night. >> i would have done it differently.

i would have gone to the legislature, worked with them. what was driving me was obviously making a difference in young people's lives. cervical cancer is a horrible way to die. i happen to think about we are -- we were trying to do was clearly send a message to give the decision to moms and dads. parental rights are very important in the state of texas. we do it on a long list of vaccines that were made. on that issue, i made a mistake by not going to the legislature first. let me address ron paul for a minute by saying that i will use an executive order to get rid of as much of obama-care as i can on day one. host: jackie, louisiana. republican line. did you watch? caller: i did. thank you for taking my call.

i agree with some of the previous callers. there were no ideas. but then, that is not true. there are plenty out there. frankly, i could support any one. i would prefer anyone over a democrat. democrats have turned into a socialist, qualified as communist organization. social security was never designed to the dollar in, dollar out. going back to look at it, there was parallel legislation. guess what? they killed it. i think that a lot of bad ideas came out of there. thank you all for my call. host: there is a lot of capitol hill action going on. including special collections

around the country. the editor of "the hill," joining us for a moment or two. let's start with anthony wiener. what were the candidates there? caller: there was a republican candidate, bob turner, and democratic candidate, [unintelligible] two polls over the past week have shown that republicans and turner have had a real chance of taking his seat. the big names, battling it out. host: what about national implications for this particular debate? host: there are a lot of national implications. the obama approval rating is at 37%.

there has been some worry about how this will translate into the 2012 election. host: has congressman weaner himself been active or had any effect in the race? caller: he has not, actually. andrew cuomo has come out for the democrats. they have a heavy makeup of orthodox. joseph lieberman came out for the candidates. ed koch crossed lines, which is kind of a big issue there as well. host: as far as the senate appointment, who are the candidates there? caller: on the republican side

you have marko modi, and on the democratic side you have kate marshall. the democrats have not even spend any money on this. republicans are expected to hang onto. we do not know the results, but we know who voted. we know that 53% of the early voters were registered republicans. it did of indication as to what is going on out there. host: m. lowey, thank you. we will track the results tomorrow. here is the tea party debate from last night, we want to hear what you learned, if anything, from the candidates.

caller: who wants to go back to the last eight years? as far as the borders go, maybe if we were not having a permanent war forever, if they came here to guard the border, we could. i am sick of the word socialist, communist. and mixing religion with government, those are separate -- separate issues. religion is a personal thing. government as everyone. they are driving me crazy. i think this is too early to debate this. host: let's get one last call from marty. caller: how are you? host: doing well. what did you think of the debate? caller: i was very impressed by ron paul. i am not a supporter of his, but

i feel that he is educating people. i have heard rhetoric throughout the debates, but what really impressed me was his accountability of the twin towers and how it was so beloved of the people. we have no right, and especially the situation that our country is in, for us to go into other countries when we cannot take care of ourselves. host: let me give you a couple of program notes. every wednesday, in our last hour, we will feature a recent magazine article. tomorrow, the recent cover story from "mother jones magazine," on informants. trevor aronson, the author, will

join us. you can find the article there, or on our web site. wednesday, you can e-mail or send twitter for your message and questions for our guest. c-span.org, of course, is our website. issues in congress, we will be speaking with for democrats, 202-624-1111. , republican -- we will be speaking with doug lambor, from colorado. we will be right back. ♪

>> watch more video of the candidates. c but political reporters are saying. track the latest campaign contributions with our c-span campaign 2012 web site. easy to use, it helps you to navigate the web site -- the landscape with the latest polling data and links to media partners in the early primary states. all of it at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. look for funding to continue into september. follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across the country.

it is all available to you on television, radio,,, and social media sites. search, what, share any time, and we are on the road with our local content vehicles, showing events from around the country. c-span networks. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> follow what members of the deficit reduction committee are saying on twitter. it is easy. use on who is dedicated twitter list. it is easy, from the twitter page, click on the profile and follow the ones you want to see. get the latest message from members. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at the table, first visit to "washington journal,"

doug lambor. welcome. here is "the washington times," with a headline on budget cuts. budget cuts seem to be covering all the talk in washington. what are your thoughts on overall spending and the prospect of reductions in defense? guest: much of this comes down to the super-committee and whether they will be able to come up with $1.20 trillion in cuts. if not, we will have defense and security issues on the other hand. i am secure -- concerned that we have to sequester money that is stretched in the defense budget.

in the last two years, the president has cut defense by $408 billion. the rest of the domestic budget was increasing by 20%. the sense is that we have already cut too much today. -- to date. host: what about the suggestion that folks would rather cut defense than raise taxes? what do you think about that choice? guest: that would be a difficult choice to make. i would like to see us move within. we are spending less than four% -- less than 4% and i think we can afford to have strong national defense. host: i want to get the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our guest, doug lambor, here to talk about the

future of the defense budget. for democrats, 202-624-1111. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-624-0760. the congressman is in his fifth year in the u.s. house, a member of the tea party caucus. this colorado district is quite the district when it comes to defense and military related matters. the air force academy is there. for carlson. norad is located in chicago. the u.s. northern command. the missile defense agency. the missile defense operations center. quite a list. host: that way i see, every day, what is going on. i see the people at their rush restore. at school, at church. i know a lot of people were

doing great work for our country. we have a wonderful military, the greatest in the world. host: what do you see in this current debate, moving up to the end of the year? guest: veterans will have to start to pay more as we cut defense. most of all, for the future, cutting the procurement for the advanced systems. we purchased only one quarter of what the original purchase was coined to be. america has the ability to have the best technology in the world. when we cut programs like the f-42, we are going backwards. we might not be able to do the original law on those. the technology of the future that makes them unique and gives

them an asymmetrical aid -- edge. host: are there any cuts that you would expect -- accept? tesco we can always be more efficient. there is bureaucracy involved, no doubt about it. maybe be enforced more competition amongst vendors. that way we would not sacrifice our capabilities for the future. host:? , republican, good morning. caller: what i see the most, they can hide money and do not have to be transparent. the other agencies do have to be transparent. i think that they are hiding their failures in the money they have lost.

there is a helicopter pilot over there, in grave danger. host: please offer your comments and perspective, congressman. what is she getting at? caller: -- guest: they have not done an audit. it gets a little frustrating. there is no doubt that they can be more efficient in how they spend the money. at the same time, i want to make sure that her son -- thank you for his service -- has the best protection, the best colleagues to support him. that is what i want to make sure. sometimes it is not as efficient as it should be, let's make it more efficient. most of all, make sure that your son has everything he can.

host: what do you make of the mansion -- mission in afghanistan? and the potential strategy? guest: i hope that the drawdown is based on military advisement, but just an arbitrary time line. doing it in september is troubling, because i do not think that that is what the commanders have suggested. host: bombings, rocket fire this morning, more commonplace. firing on the u.s. embassy, we had a reporter on who said that this is a stalemate. politically, where do things need to be headed? caller: we want a country of afghanistan to be able to support and stabilize itself

without american soldiers. i hope that we can reach that point. we may have to conclude sunday that that is not possible. we do not want it to be the kind of failed state that it was 10 years ago, when the taliban was running things. host: cincinnati, a democratic fund. welcome to the program. caller: i have a comment for the congressman. plus a criticism of c-span. host: ok. caller: i have told you all, i am a retired journalist the one thing over the past two years, and i am a religious watcher of sees them, so this goes to you and all of the moderators, the one thing i have never heard about medicare, but one thing that it did, it integrated the

hospitals in the united states. you could not receive medicare or medicaid, and i know that in cincinnati, because the hospitals here, catholic and protestant, are segregated. i wish that you guys -- i am talking about your entire staff -- would do a better job of going back into the archives and seeing some of the good things that medicare and medicaid did. that is number one. getting to the congressman, i am all in favor of making sure that countries remain safe. at by the same token, i am concerned. once we have moved afghanistan,

destroyed the taliban, this is one thing i cannot forgive the republican party for -- it was unnecessary. you all have a nice day. guest: the decision to go into iraq in the first place had bipartisanwe all agreed that sam hussein was a bad man. we all agreed there was some weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, which he used on his people. so that was of bipartisan decision. host: doug lamborn was an attorney, a colorado state representative and a state senator until 2006. this is your third term in the u.s. house.

thank you for waiting your you are on the independent line for the congressman. caller: this relates to the other two callers. i was in the navy, so i am a liberal. i think they build up these things and scare people. this iraq fein that he said, it was bipartisan, but it means nothing when you do not have the actual people. we could not afford this. then they come right back and say that we are broke. this is just ridiculous. we had something bad happened to us and we reacted in a totally unnecessary way. and it is really costing us big. that is why i did not watch the debate last night. you will hear the same old thing. there is only one guide preaching what we need to do, and and that is ron paul.

and they will make him sound like a crackpot. some think we are the baby sitter for the entire world and we cannot afford it. that is what will bring this country down. guest: we do not live in the same world that we used to. i like a lot of what ron paul says about our monetary system but i do not agree with him on foreign policy. the oceans are not as big as they used to be. we are a small world. look at 9/11 10 years ago, when those people brought devastation on our planet and our country. we live in a different world and we cannot ignore the rest of the war. we did not provoke 9/11, they came to us. we were not in iraq or afghanistan. i think we have a dangerous world out there. the world has shrunk and we have to monitor what is going on

around the globe. where necessary, we have to help the good guys prevail. host: did you get a chance to watch the debate? guest: i watched the whole thing. host: it was put on by the tea party, for folks like you. guest: i really like rick perry but i think there are many candidates that will be a great match for barack obama. there will be a stark contrast between whoever the eventual nominee is an barack obama. i think it will be a great campaign next year. host: what you make of the debate over social security between rick perry and mitt romney? the whole thing about ponzi scheme and the future. guest: we have to level with the young people that we need to reform. in order to save social security, we have to restructure, and the same goes

for medicare. we need to work on the benefits because we cannot do everything for everybody like we perhaps intended to, perhaps well intended, in the past. there is not enough money to go around. with entitlements, there have to be reforms and we have to look to the long term. and i do not think we can add of fourth major social program, obamacare. i hope that we can nix that in the budget before it takes effect. going to focus specifically on defense spending because they triggered cuts might be happening if the so- called super committee cannot agree on a plan. let's get baltimore in first, and then we will come back. it is jevon, is that right? you are on the republican line. caller: i watched the debate,

and pretty much i was for ron paul. that is not the first time i have heard him say that he wanted to let people go. if a hurricane or an avalanche whatever comes, ron paul says if you're going to die on your own. but he made another comment where we are in too many places and we have our hands in other people's pockets. that is why they keep attacking us. i would agree with that. but what i would love to say is that george bush, we went into a make war, and a scam does. there is nothing that we can do about it. the republicans say cut the democrats money. since the republican voters do not 1 obamacare, let's get them some good old republican care, which means nothing at all, no

help, and they want to cry about cutting the programs. let's cut all the programs for all the republicans. they do not want it in we should not shove it on them. we should get a shovel-ready jobs for the democrats because the republicans just want war and shooting the guns and killing. host: we get the point. republicans just one shooting and guns and war. guest: he maybe should have called in on the democratic line. i think there was a mix up there. i think that policy has failed. we spent $787 billion two years ago and i voted against it. only $30 billion went toward the infrastructure that we thought would be the case, like bridges and roads. and then it was stretched out over years. the president told the joke that

they were not shovel-ready like we thought they were going to be. i am skeptical about the infrastructure urbane as a part of the american jobs act that the president just sent over to congress. i think it will be two slow. to have any effect in the near term, to help revive the economy, a lot like to see american taxpayers -- i would not want to see the taxpayers on the hook as a loan giver unless it is absolutely critical. i am skeptical about that point. host: there is a headline from the "washington post." wealthier families would pay more. hill republicans voice immediate opposition, it says here. what does not work for you? guest: i think we can find common ground in employee

incentives, to hire people. it can be structured better to make a long-term effects. when you may get a temporary tax, it is hard to plan on it. that part could have been done better. but we could find common ground on some of those tax cuts that the president has proposed. i think that the house will support some but certainly not all of the american jobs act. host: harris is on the line. caller: all like to know when the republican party will take accountability for this economy. they had control of the senate and they can make policy and help create some kind of job creation for the country. and the fortune 500 companies, when will they start spending all this money that they have in their bank accounts and put

people back to work? the republican party has a responsibility to the country, to get the country working. host: anything about the defense budget? caller: yes, there should be cuts in the defense budget and there should be some tax increases. the bush tax cuts should be eliminated. host: thanks, harris. this viewer writes that osama was a bad man, but does that mean the entire country has to be messed up? guest: saddam had a strong baath party that helped destroy the country. it was not simply one man. when it comes to taxing defense

companies of the fortune 500 companies, right now america does have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. of the top 30 countries. i think the tax rates are already high enough. if you want to talk about creating jobs, and i think we are all here to make sure that this economy produces jobs and gets us out at this recession, higher taxes will not be the way to do it. i do not see how high are taxes on job producers creates more jobs. it is as simple as that. host: how did you vote on the debt ceiling? >> i boded no. i've voted for the first person that had ever acquired balanced budget amendment. but when it was no longer of requirement, i did not like it.

i did not like the sequestration, the billions of dollars that we just talked about. host: this deficit reduction committee is being formed from this whole debate. what you make of the idea of the so-called super committee and its mission? guest: in theory, they will come up with a bipartisan plan. there are six and six. i am an eternal optimist and i hope that they come up with something. but i will have to wait and see the results before i can support it not. i know there are people on it that will try their best. i will keep my fingers crossed. threatenedof them has to quit if there are future defense cuts made, senator kyl.

guest: we are going to miss him when he retires next year. he is so strong on the defense issues, he is so passionate about it. he is a great man. his commitment to defense is based on protecting our country. that is the first obligation, the first responsibility. people have disagreements about how the war on terror was conducted, but we were not attacked. our homeland was not attacked by foreign sources over the last 10 years, so we're doing something right. host: the next caller is on the independent line. caller: [unintelligible] host: let me stop you and ask you to turn the sound down on your set. caller: i am sorry.

we have 737 installations all over the world. that is marines, air force, and the other two. you know, we need to bring some of them back. some of these places have golf courses and they take planes down to the bahamas. when bush went into iraq, he allowed halliburton and that all down there making -- bechtel making tons of money. there were many officials from lockheed martin alone in the bush administration. they wrote a new constitution for iraq and took the economy over. through freedom and democracy, they took over services, banking, agriculture, investment. the list goes on and on. but mostly it was for oil.

we had our major oil corporations jawing oil and taking it to china and europe. we need to get some of these installations back home and get them on the mexican border. when we were raised we stayed within our budgets. the administration should stay within theirs. when you do not have enough money, it is not backed by any gold standard. you need to cut back and that starts in the government. we do not need to see how fast shrimp go on treadmills. host: let me add that tweet to that and get your response.

guest: they are not paying attention to what is going on with missile technology, nuclear technology. we have proliferators like north korea and iran trying to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles and the nuclear technology to make warheads to put on those missiles. i do not think we can ignore the rest of the world. you can shoot a missile over a border with eight pence on it. we have to pay attention to what is going on in the world. host: going to danville, indiana next. caller: so many things to talk about that this defense budget -- i was a veteran of 22 years of the navy. i went through cuts during all those times. the military is doing much more with much less. there should be no cuts to defense. when you cut your defense, you're cutting the security of

this fine country. as far as the people who blamed bush about going into a rack, the entire congress agreed to go over there yet i remember right and do what we did over there, and what you do not hear from the media is the tons of uranium found at the end of that war and the convoy of things that were going into syria prior to our attack into iraq. i think people need to step up before blaming george bush. it is not just him. a lot of things are going on, ok? you do not go out and tell your enemy what date you are leaving. last night, with this hpv maxine, ovarian cancer is a very dangerous thing. if you had an opt-out to not allow that to your child, that

is ok. what about the abortions that children are getting through their schools, where the parents are not even formed about -- that is ridiculous. guest: thank you for our service -- your service in our navy. 20 years ago, since the end of the cold war, we cut harshest dented 288, about half of what it was. the air force is gone from 82 flight squadrons to 39. strategic bombers, 350 to 154. we have half of the inventory just 20 years ago. and it is older, by and large. the most current the 52 was made at a century ago -- b-52 was made half a century ago. we have an older force. thank you for your comments.

host: nashville, on the democratic line. caller: i fully agree, i was ex- military. i was involved in desert storm years ago. we had no choice but to go in. and we need to give our troops that support. number two, we were taught in school that the word two options 1 9/11 happened. unfortunately, and my heart will always go out to their families, we should have used our own planes before they hit those towers. we did not have a lot of choices. as far as our troops go, we need to give them the support but also consider that after 10 years and the losses and fall,

we need to bring them home safe. guest: thank you for your service in the army. we want to bring them home state. we want iraq to get to the place and afghanistan to get to the place where they can protect themselves. i wish it could happen tomorrow. host: the chairman of the veteran affairs committee pointed out, budget-wise, what are you most worried about in terms of veterans and their service? guest: veterans and retirees will have to pay more for the services they receive. insurance, copays will go on a monthly basis. that is inevitable. with the budget cuts in the pipeline, i do not see any way around it.

i hope we do not cut back on the leading technology for medicine in the better and hospitals. -- in the veterans' hospitals. host: a twitter looking for perspective. guest: i do support it but i do not want you the taxpayer to be on the hook for. -- fort it. i think we can help the state to do a better job of highways and bridges in their own state. i do not think the federal government should do, and we have seen it certainly cannot do everything. the focus of the stimulus was on infrastructure and it was a failure. we did not go down to 8% unemployment. we have been 9% and high of 46

months now. the stimulus has failed. as a way of stimulating the economy, it is not going to work. it will build some infrastructure as time goes by and there is a certain amount of good to that. host: what is reasonable in terms of help? guest: the federal facilities like the highway system, things like that, but the federal government has an investment, that should be protected. but there are state projects that can and should be done by the states. i go back and i hear from both governments and colorado, and they want to do the best job that they can, they want the federal government to be anything that they are willing to do. so there is no end to the demand on the federal government, which is basically, the person who

called in the question. it will come out of their pocket. we have to balance the budget and get our fiscal house in order. we cannot do everything for everybody. host: let's hear from lebanon, tenn.. caller: i hope you will not cut me off. i'll try and make it brief. in china they are making those bombers, 300 bombers that will be ready by 2013. we have like 82, and they have to pull them down and work on them. and then they outnumber our ships -- i do not know what i saw on the news station that china is outnumbering our naval ships. to me, that puts us in danger.

and to put the soldiers in danger tried to protect us, to cut the defense department, of, my goodness, that is ridiculous. and here are the facts. they are bringing 10,000 soldiers home -- they are saying they will, and they are leaving 3000. they're going to be a target to be killed. does that make sense? we must protect our soldiers. we have these soldiers without legs, you see their faces blown off. it is awful. we will not have a country if we do not have our soldiers in the defense department. guest: she made some great comments about china. we have to watch what china does. no one really knows what is around the corner. the last four presidents have had an unexpected war break out.

we live in a dangerous world and do not know what the potential threats are that could materialize. donald rumsfeld said that there are unknown unknowns and we have to be ready for them. i agree with ronald reagan, no one has ever been attacked because they were too strong. weakness invites aggression. host: what you make of the operation in libya? guest: i am glad to hear that gaddafi is on his way out. we did not show the same consistency with going after bashar assad of syria. he is actually worse than gaddafi ever was. host: there is a headline in the

"new york times." they have raised the estimate of the number of protesters killed. guest: as bad as gaddafi was, he gave up his nuclear technology after we went into iraq. he was working with testified al qaeda. in some ways, -- to fight al qaeda. in some ways, he was horrible beyond belief but he was cooperating with us. syria is cooperating with the iranians. syria build a nuclear facility that the israelis bombed, that was supposed to be secret. syria has been a bad actor. so i do not see a consistency in our middle east policy. host: brian is on the phone from

raleigh, north carolina. caller: i was concerned about a couple of comments that he made earlier, talking about how we have not been involved in iraq. i am going to move past that. we have been involved in iraq since the 1980's, the iran-iraq war, some aggression against iran. a long history there. back to the defense budget, something i do not understand about the figures. i do not understand why we have multiple dozens of bases in europe still, hangovers from world war ii. we need a presence in the world, but maybe not the same as it was back then. when we go war, -- go to war, but we have all volunteer army. would it not be a good idea to

have a war tax? if you go to war, would it not be important that the democracy we live on, that every citizen is actively engaged day today saying that i am paying for this, every day that we are over there? and then they would reengaged when we are done, we've paid enough, no results, and you would see people saying, this is their democracy. we would like to vote on it. i will leave you to think about that. guest: and interesting suggestion on the war tax. i thought our taxes did support the national defense, but that is an interesting idea. on military places in europe, i was at the air force base in germany and the hospital there. that is where our soldiers come from iraq and afghanistan. they get the kind of treatment

that keeps them alive before they can come to the u.s.. their wounds too serious for a field hospital in afghanistan to take care of. it is a blessing that we have that available in germany. some of what was done in libya to support the nato mission that barack obama initiated, it takes place out of that same air base. you have capability through a place like ramstein that is simply irreplaceable. and there is a good reason for it. should we keep things to a minimum and pared down things that are unnecessary? i agree with that. but we have had some of these major bases overseas. host: one view or from twitter wants clarification on syria.

guest: i am curious about the word humanitarians. when you need to intervene. i want to be careful that everyone would agree today that we only want our soldiers to go in harm's way under the most pressing of circumstances, only when it is the most absolutely critical. on humanitarian bases, we can provide aid but i do not want to see boots on the ground in libya, or syria for that matter. we supported some of missions through remote areas like isr, refueling in the air. we can support our allies and they could not have been done any other ways, without putting boots on the ground. host: linda, a democrat. caller: you need to stop the military.

shame on the american government. we slaughter the entire world. the whole congress needs to be on trial for war crimes. host: one last call, michael from jacksonville. caller: i am listening to all of this stuff and we are not going anywhere. we have to fix our country first. we are the gatekeeper of the world, in every country, and all we do is a subset everyone's religion or what not. if we're not coin have a revolution in this country, we have to clean up our own government. -- if we are not going to have a revolution in this country, we need to clean up all -- our own government. enough with your benefits will retired people get nothing. guest: we lived in the greatest democracy in the world and i have heard a variety of voices.

it is interesting to hear what people have to say. but america has the best way of life. i i think we live in a dangerous world. we do not want the bad guys to come after russ like they did on 9/11. we cannot put our heads in the sand and ignore the rest of the war. we have a way of life worth defending, worth paying some money for. 4% of your gdp is not too much money, and it is going down to 3%, to protect the best country in the world. host: our guest is been doug lamborn, a member of the air -- armed forces committee. guest: good to talk to you and your listeners. host: we will take up a short time out and we will let you know about a couple of segments. we will meet dr. ellen wright clayton of vanderbilt university. the topic is vaccines.

we will learn what the response to the report was, what they found out. we will get your questions and comments. we will also talk with a member of the transportation committee, a democrat, about moving legislation for. in the meantime, some news from c-span radio. >> more on vaccines. republican candidate michele bachmann in an appearance earlier today says it is very clear that crony capitalism could likely have been the cause of texas governor rick perry's executive order mandating of vaccine for schoolgirls. she went on to say that his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for merck. rick perry said that he made a mistake by doing that by accident -- executive order, but he will continue to "air on the

side of life." more from david axelrod, speaking earlier on abc, saying that none of president obama's republican challengers have much to say about how they will create jobs. he added that rick perry and mitt romney support the same economic theory they got this -- got us into this mess and the first place. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> if any given night in america, more than 640,000 men, women, and children are without housing. >> it we have a problem, we have a network, a family, a network of friends or maybe a church or school. we have people who will hold us up if we fall down. a homeless person has lost all of those contacts. >> the most common stereotype is that people are homeless because

they are not trying. they are lazy or victims of their own lack of initiative. >> should the federal government spend our tax money to help these people? >> there is an important role for government to play in ending poverty and homelessness. some feel that the government should stay out of social service worker. the churches should be doing it all, or people should just be on their own. i really do not believe that. >> that is one of the winners from last year's studentcam competition. you can see all the videos online. the website is sarah shourd -- studentcam.org. >> american history tv telling the american store.

watch personal interviews on "oral history." some of the best known history writers. the 150th anniversary of the civil war. is it college classrooms during "lectures and history." and the presidency looks at the policies and legacies of past american presidents. get our complete schedule at c- span.org/history. sign up to have that he mailed to you. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guests now, nick rahall, democrat from west virginia, ranking member on the infrastructure committee in the house. there is a new effort afoot as relates to the faa funding and highway funding emerging. what is happening? guest: good things are

happening, believe it or not, and we're working together this week, anyway. the current authorization expires this friday so it is incumbent upon the house to act this week on that extension. it will include no policy writers, no bills so troublesome for us on the house side during the july talks. and it will be an extension through january 2012 at current funding levels, no cutbacks at other than what has been cut back in one program. no poison pills on the national mediation board. it will be a clean extension around the faa continuing to provide safety inspections for aircraft and allowing construction at airports to continue. no more furloughs of construction workers. it is a very good thing that has happened while we continue to work on the long term reauthorization.

host: the highway funding is another biggie. guest: the current highway funding and spirit -- expires at the end of september 31. we will do another extension on the highway program, highways, transit, until march of next year. this is a good extension that will allow certainty for our businesses and construction workers and for the american economy, for our highways. allow them to continue projects currently on going and repairing our nation's transportation system. host: let's put the phone numbers on the screen for our guest. congressman nick rahall, 18 terms in the house now. guest: call bill, west virginia.

host: the conversation will broaden out to the larger budget but we welcome your phone calls to the congressman. this short-term deal, the merging of these two big items, how did it come about? guest: i believe the republican leadership in the house saw that the tactics they employed during the summer months, of trying to send messages, of trying to put poison pills into legislation that otherwise in the past always was clean of such poison pills, they decided that the polls are not favored to their tactics. there has been a marked change on the republican leadership, and the chairman has consulted with me in this whole process. i think he has been in favor of

this clean extension within his leadership ranks. host: what you make of the terms overall? is there enough to get past? guest: yes, i believe the house will support those extensions. the underlying bills will still be contentious. we have to do a long term faa extension and a robust transportation bill. i hope it will be of six-year, had robust levels. the ryan budget as a past they house is devastating to our transportation needs. it only provides $620 million for west virginia. that is a pretty drastic reduction for a small state like west virginia. it has very tough terrain over which to build roads.

good means very many of transportation available. host: before we get the calls, it is good news but it is a short-term extension. we hear that word extension quite a bit in this town. like kinfolks not come together and come up with a longer-term deal -- why can folks not come together and come up with a longer-term deal? guest: there was an issue with how those are counted on the mediation board. there is a dispute between democrats and republicans on that issue. that is the bottom line. their disputes over the funding levels, overall funding levels, and essential air service, but it is important recognize that during the couple of weeks of a layoff of faa construction

workers, it cost the american economy and taxpayers some $400 million in lost tax receipts from airline tickets. that is 20 times more that would have been saved from the proposed service that the republicans were trying to put in that temporary extension. this did not at that, and as the ranking republican -- this did not add up, and as the ranking republican said, it did not pass the smell test. it did not save money. it was about putting a poison- pill to get the senate to go along. that is good, but now the games are over with. for those workers laid off, it was not a game or trying to score political points. that is their job and that is our economy. host: look for action in both

houses. pennsylvania is our first caller. wayne, a democrat. been writing the highways for the last 30 years. when you do that, i am not trying to be prejudiced, but you see nothing but white guys on the highway working. how could a minority get a job on the highway? guest: in past transportation bills, and i have served on the transportation and infrastructure committee in the congress, we have had minority set asides for road contractors in which they are required to use a certain percentage of federal funds for the hiring of minorities. this is in line with legislative initiatives that we have had all across the board set aside for minority hiring, bettering hiring also in the long term

bill, for a hiring are returning veterans. -- our returning veterans. these various groups, it is incumbent on the state's one they received the federal money to comply with the federal law in hiring minorities and using the money in the way that we intend on the federal level. host: a republican. caller: hard to get through but i appreciate c-span. the worst thing i see is that every time i turn around, politicians on both sides talking about social security. congress took trillions of dollars out. you do not want to get our money back. i am a korean veteran, 77 years old, and it is ridiculous. both sides have to straighten this out. there is no reason for one side

to be one way and one the other way. another thing that i do not like, when you see the politicians i supposed to be in meetings and they are not there. i cannot think, i'm just talking. i hear it on the tv all the time, the quorum that they have, they are always waiting for quorum and i can understand that. i'll take your answer off the air. host: not too happy about the way things work here. guest: understandably so. i thank you for our server in your -- your service to our country. in regard to social security, you are right on target. i believe that social security is a contract that the american people have with their government, that cannot be broken. you paid into social security through years of years of hard work and it should be there for you when you are retiring.

social security has not contributed to the deficit. i understand the point the caller makes about the funds of social security being used for other purposes and that should not be. it is off-limits for this super debt committee set up under the debt limit talks. i think we will protect social security, certainly for those currently receiving current benefits. you will continue to receive benefits from social security. host: taking us back to transportation. you cannot agree on when some triggered cuts take place. what might that affect? guest: like anything else, transportation would be cut across the board. it would be devastating. defense would be cut across the board. as i understand the structure of the super debt committee,

everything except social security and in the medicare it would be providers that would suffer across-the-board cuts. i worry about jobs and helping us recover from this recession. i worry about putting the american economy back on solid footing. look at what our competitors are doing. china, india, they are not waiting for any super committees, and no political gamesmanship or elections around the corner. they are going fullscale ahead with infrastructure spending. we cannot afford to wait. we should go forward with the massive transportation bill that will put american -- the american economy back on the right foot and put american workers back to work. when workers are working, they are paying taxes and help reduce the deficit. that means it can come for our treasury. every $1 billion that we

creates -- we spend in transportation supports billions of dollars in economic activity. that is what we should look at. host: we talked about faa and highway bills being temporary extensions. what would be your suggestion for someone making -- getting a temporary job based on these bills? guest: let's take what we have got right now and consider it a victory. current levels should be considered a victory, thank you very much, in comparison to the cuts in the republican budget that i referenced earlier. our transportation infrastructure has been non- partisan for some many decades. there are no republican bridges or democratic bridges, there are american bridges. the same goes for highways and our jobs and our economy.

in that same spirit of bipartisanship, we should work together to enact a six-year robust transportation bill that gives our planners and economic developers the tools that they need to do their job of putting americans back to work. host: back to the phones for congressman nick rahall. a democrat, go ahead. caller: i wonder what aviation is always separate. it is expensive and inefficient. rich people fly. and their bills are always separate from high wage deals. and where is the high-speed rail? know it can fly at train into anything. -- no one can fly a train into anything. host: she mentioned airport's

first. guest: why is aviation considered separate from highway funding? i believe we may be doing both together today or tomorrow in the extensions that we do. but there are aviation issues with regard to the ticket tax collected every time a passenger travels our airways. an airport improvement fund is a separate fund from transportation, from highway construction, in that it improves the projects at our nation's essential shareware programs. it is alston -- often the economic engine and a small community. there are many that are usually done in a separate federal aviation administration authorization bill, as opposed to the federal department threat

-- of transportation. high-speed rail is an issue that i certainly support. we have seen secretary ray lahood and the obama administration be supportive of these projects, but we've also seen some government reject the money for high-speed rail once their state had been awarded the money. that is certainly the brought above the state or the governor of that particular state, but i do not understand why they would turn down that money from the federal government. high speed rail needs to be supported, but not at the expense of transportation on our amtrak's system and our rural rail system. it is so important rural areas like i represent who have no other access to major markets. host: west virginia received about $15 million in federal funding from the faa federal airport improvement fund. guest: that program helps

modernize our airports and ensure our safety and our nation's airport, that that continues to be improved. it ensures that our air traffic control with the next generation system is being put into place, and provide security in our airways and helps ensure that our air traffic controllers continue to do a better job. they are a very professional group but they need the tools with which to do their job. that program is very important in so many different respects. it means a lot of construction around our generic -- our nation's airport, that is aif funds. caller: i will have to disagree. i see more of a need for defense

spending can i do for transportation. i know that california wants to waste an ungodly amount of money trying to build a high-speed rail project that no one will ride. it does not go to any major systems. it is in the middle of the state. pretty much, all i see it that federal and state levels are government employees, bureaucrats, career politicians circling the wagons, trying not to obey the will of the people. the will of the people right now is saying that you guys need to downsize to an affordable level. it is to the point, i love love to see a new president, which are really hope that there is one, i like to see him hired donald trump. donald trump could start a new reality tv show and travel throughout the country, and

going to different state and government offices and firing government bureaucrats and government union employees who do not generate anything and are pulling us all down. host: an interesting approach to the operation of government. you could talk about the broader issues. guest: you cannot run a government like you run a business. i remember ross perot, and despite all of his money, he was not successful. you cannot hire and fire at will in government like you can in the private businesses. government has different responsibilities, government has different functions and roles to play that the private sector cannot fulfill, nor should they be expected to fill. -- to fulfill. we may be in a difference of philosophy which is certainly

debatable, but you cannot run the u.s. government like you run a private business. in regard to defense spending, certainly i am not for subtracting anything that our troops deserve -- god bless them and thank them on this 10th anniversary of 9/11 for what they do in this country and abroad. i believe that when it comes to defense spending, we all want to be strong. we are the only superpower. but this is making us stronger around the world. it is making a strong here it home. i believe in home town security and homeland security here in the united states. i believe in rebuilding this country. i believe that we should be out building our competitors on the international scene, not rebuilding our competitors. that is where rebuilding

america, our infrastructure, putting people to work kirit home, it is just as important for our security in the defenses of his homeland, as the money we spent on actual defense itself. host: our guest is the ranking member on the infrastructure committee, congressman nick rahall, from west virginia, former chair of the national resources committee. he has been here for 34 years. before coming to congress, he was a businessman and served as a staff assistant for then- senator robert c. byrd. cincinnati, good morning. caller: i like to him for their -- to run for the democratic side. except bring home more people before you cut the defense. and leave social security alone, he said he wanted to leave social security alone. he said all lot of things that i cannot put my finger on.

but i have been listening to him this morning and i appreciate what he has been saying. also, why isn't there another candidate running for president for the democrats? i cannot understand why not. i think he should run. his name is nick something or other. host: nick rahall. caller: he should run for president. guest: i appreciate the collar's comments. thank you for calling. host: one viewer writes that air travel hat -- air travel had become more trouble than it is were -- worth. guest: that would be a question for john mica.

that vsa works under tremendous burdens and difficulties and i happen to believe they do good job -- the tsa works under tremendous burdens and difficulties and i happen to believe they do a good job. people are testing the system, but i believe that our airline'' flight systems today are safer than they were before 9/11. we're not 100% there nor will we ever be, but people are much more secure than they were before 9/11. let's continue to help the tsa perform where reform is needed, to make corrections, and let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. host: back to surface transportation, from twitter.

helpless follow the money. -- help us follow the money. guest: whenever a citizen pumps a gallon of dance, -- of gas, the tax goes into a federal trust fund. it is set up the spend money on chester station improvements around the country. with a bipartisan part of our committee, we set up fire walls around the highway trust fund guarantee that there be trust and that trust fund. every penny they goes in would go back out for transportation. this new crowd in town, one of the first acts that they did in their reform rules, was to break down those fire walls. there's no more ironclad

guarantee that money going into the highway trust fund will go out to transportation. it may go to other purposes like deficit reduction. that is not keeping the trust of the highway trust fund. and not only gas taxes, but diesel taxes, and other transportation-related taxes going to that highway trust fund. that is how our transportation system is supposed to be funded. because people are not driving as many cars, and conservation has been the buzzword, there has been less gas bought in the fund is broke. it is borrowing from general revenues and that puts this in the predicament we are in today. we will have to borrow once again in 2013 from general revenues if we want to keep spending on transportation.

that is how funding for transportation is supposed to work, through that highway trust fund. it is supposed to be so scared -- like social security and the aviation trust fund. you take that tax receipts that go back out to those kinds of programs that we talked about earlier. these are not spent for the purposes for which taxes were collected. they are used to make the deficit look smaller on paper. they wanted to hide the true spending of the vietnam war. we need to get back and have the separate budgets and not have them rob or used for other purposes. host: colorado springs, good morning.

caller: my question is -- why do you feel like trains -- when i ride the trains, you see lots of people on the trains. they are not putting enough money into it. why is that more important than people? we have people on the hill. they are up there. why can't we have what we want? guest: you are speaking to one who happens to be a strong defender of amtrak. i believe we have been penny pinching amtrak for quite too long. not allowing them to do what a normal business would do in their efforts to make profits.

profits should not be the sole determining factor about whether we keep amtrak or not. there is a service that amtrak provides. senior citizens rely upon amtrak to get to hospitals in major cities. amtrak is doing better. they are not quite making a profit in the rural parts. if we were to privatize the northeast rail corridor, as someone to do, i fear that rail service would suffer a devastating loss if not total elimination. they are doing better. we need to give amtrak breathing space and to help them. they are doing better in scheduling -- scheduling is

being changed. they are offering incentives to attract travelers. this is all good and helping to increase their ridership. let's continue to support amtrak. host: we have a question by twitter. guest: i believe they are referencing the high with that mexican trucks have been coming in on. they did not undergo the same safety instructions that u.s. trucks are expected to pass. that was set up under nafta. secretary lahood has read some agreements. some agreements with the mexican truckdrivers to allow them to come in and be inspected.

that is something that secretary lahood has been working with the mexicans down there. we have been watching very closely. we have been in consultation with secretary lahood on this issue and we have been monitoring the safety program. host: we have another question about the pending free-trade bill. guest: i have concerns that these free trade agreements -- we're all for fair trade. but we want to ensure that these countries to which we enter these agreements have the same standards for their workers that we have in this country. that they have the same health and safety standards for their products so that our markets are not flooded with unsafe products

or unhealthy food items. i'm not taking a definite position yet. there are consultations i am sure with labor groups as we speak to insure -- ensure that the standards are met under the fair trade deal. host: ellen, thank you for waiting. can you turn the sound down on your set please? waiting for ellen. caller: hello. good morning. mr. rahall, you're the most informative person i've ever heard. we need jitney service in some areas. i think transportation in this country is deplorable.

i think the trains are wonderful. i like the local better than the speed trains. i do not know what they're doing the speed train between ithington, new d.c., and is new york? you are trying very hard and i'm proud of you. i have been disappointing in the lagging of information that they give to the public about what is going on. i appreciate your hard work. keep it up. guest: i think the caller for comments. the first part what referencing jitney service, i believe. that would be up to the states to use their allocation transportation dollars as they would see fit if such a service

were warranted in a particular state and that would be up to the state department's transportation service. caller: how are you? i was watching cnbc the day after the president's speech. 80 party member was talking about a six-year infrastructure bill -- a tea party member was talking about the bill. this would be long term. guest: i agree we need a six- year transportation bill that has enough funding to be able to do a job of preparing our crumbling infrastructure, not a bill that reduces funding by

1/3, not a bill that has no money with which to do the job. funding is the big question. how would it be funded? that is why we of not daunt a robust six-year bill -- that is why we have not done a robust six-year bill. funds are supposed to go back out for transportation. those receipts are lower today because of our conservation of gas. there is no guarantee those funds will go back out because of fire walls have been broken down by the republican leadership. that was one of their first acts. there are various options that are out there and are on the

table. public as private partnerships, for example, that we've done in my home state of west virginia. indexing the gas tax to inflation. i'm not picking one above the other. there are making nations that we could examine it and find a workable and a bipartisan fashion, the most workable mechanism that will fund a robust six-year transportation bill. host: down to our last couple of minutes with our guest. george, a republican. caller: i have a question concerning the commercial rail transportation system. we live in a competitive world for goods and services. it seems the rail system is

inefficient. i understand there is several critical bottlenecks because of a lack of bridges. we moved a lot of bulk items -- for example, coal for our power plants. guest: the buzz word is intermodal was some -- intermod alism. that is because we are making progress in providing a smooth transition from our nation's seaports where goods, and in go out of, to surface transportation, piggybacking our cargo containers on top of trains, sending them into the heartland of america. we're building the park land

corridor -- the heartland corridor. this is important for moving our state.n and out our we do this through tunnels through which tunnels travel and work with the railroads. we need to allow these double stacked containers to move through and transport our goods more efficiently and quicker to the major markets. this will help alleviate the congestion point that do exist in our railroad, real traffic network in this country. we are making tremendous progress. that is part of the transportation funding, our infrastructure that is so important that we look at in a

robust six-year transportation bill. host: back to the effort this week in congress. what is the timing of the house and where might the senate be this week on the bill? guest: the senate is waiting for the house to pass both extensions, which is expected today or tomorrow. most likely today. host: so this most likely gets done this week. guest: correct. i'm not sure about the senate's schedule. we have additional work for the last week of this month. we have to do this week or next. host: i have a question about the super committee. they have some tight deadlines to work with. do you believe in the mission

that they have? guest: we have had committees and committees before to come up with recommendations for reducing the deficit. the bulls since and commission -- the bowles-simpson commission. this is nothing new for washington. setting up a committee and kicking the can down the road. i believe this one is for real. i believe the committee will come up with some salt recommendations that will be tough for both sides to swallow. i believe there has to be revenues on the table. we're all for deficit reduction and we recognize the need to trim the fat. we didn't get in this mess

overnight. there has to be a gradual bypassed to reducing this deficit. we must eighth nonot throw off e muscle while trimming the fat. the muscle is job creation. host: have you had a chance to look at the president's proposal? guest: i think there is a lot that should be taken and passed by the congress. he was very smart in using ideas and legislation that has been introduced by democrats and republicans at one time or another on capitol hill. there's a lot in here that is not new. each not take anybody by surprise. it has been vetted through hearings and legislation that

has passed in the past. let's take we can't agree upon in a bipartisan fashion and move the ball forward. the republican leadership to not throw this out after the president's speech is a good sign. let's take that and work together and pass parts of the jobs act that work for america. host: one last call, sam. caller: hello. my mother is from mulllins. i have a simple question. i need help in trying to figure out a simple question. there are 300 million people and 10% of them are not working. does that mean the economy hinges on 4% or 5% of three and

2 million people -- 300 million people? guest: the 5% that you quoted are not paying their fair share. the president has called for tax reform. there are areas of tax reform that is needed whether it is general electric or the exxons of the world that are making reference -- record profits. that is not right. warren buffett has said the republicans have coddled the rich long enough in this country and it is time that they pay their fair share. it has been impossible to fight two wars and provide a tax cut for the super wealthy. the numbers do not add up. it does not pass the smell test.

we have to look at the upper income. to raise it from the two injured $50,000 -- $250,000 level, fine. people say tax cuts and you hit those who create jobs. where are the jobs that they claim they are creating? where are the jobs? they have had this tax cut for 10 years. that should be on the table for this deficit cutting commission -- committee. host: representative nick rahall, thank you for stopping by. guest: good to be with you. host: we will look at a steady

about vaccinations and plenty more time for your calls. some news from c-span radio. >> an update on the embassy in kabul. a spokesman says insurgents have fired rocket-propelled grenades and small arms at the building. the staff has been ordered to take cover. there are no casualties at this time the amount and the c personnel. at least one afghan police officer has died. this is the third major attack in the afghan capital since late june. mach mod ahmadinejad says the two american quakers could be freed in a couple of days. he says it is a humanitarian gesture. there was an arena in court that set bail at half a million dollars for each. they were arrested more than a

two years ago. the move clears the way for the release. the third member of the group was already released. the president heads to ohio to promote his jobs plan. this comes one day after officials say they plan to pay for the legislation with higher taxes and some spending cuts. you can hear the remarks later today on c-span radio. >> any given night in america, more than 640,000 men, women, and children are without housing. >> you or i, if we have a problem, we have probably a family, a network -- a network of friends, a network of maybe a church or a school. we have people who will hold us up if we fall down. and a homeless person has lost all of those contacts. >> well, i think the most common stereotype is that folks are homeless because they're

not trying hard, that they're lazy or victims of their own lack of initiative. >> so should the federal government spend our tax money to help these people? >> i think there is definitely an important role for the government to play in ending poverty, ending homelessness. some people really feel like that the government should stay out of social service work and the churches should be doing it all, or people should just be on their own and there shouldn't be any help for them anyway, and i really don't believe that. >> that's one of the winners from last year's student cam competition. and you can see all of the winning videos online at studentcam.org. now this year's student cam is under way. the topic -- the constitution and you. get more info at studentcam.org. >> every weekend it's "american history tv" on c-span3. starting saturday mornings, 48

hours of people and events telling the american story. watch personal interviews about historic events on "oral histories." our "history bookshelf" features some of the best-known history writers. revisit key figures, battles, and events during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. visit college classrooms across the country during lectures in history. go behind the scenes at museums and historic sites on "american artifacts." and "the presidency" looks at the policies and legacies of past american presidents. get our complete schedule at c- span.org/history and sign up to have it e-mailed to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is dr. ellen wright clayton. she's a study chairman in terms of vaccine research. she has come to talk to us about

a new study about eight vaccines. we know the viewers will be interested. what made to embark on this study. guest: the national vaccine program was put in place in the 1980's, congress mandated that two studies of vaccine safety be done. the was a fairly long hiatus of a comprehensive review. there was a comprehensive review of the adverse affects of eight different vaccines. we were asked to assess the scientific evidence about what adverse affects these eight vaccines could cause. the eight vaccines or they measles-mumps-rubella,

influenza, all the tetanus- containing vaccines, hepatitis a, hepatitis b, human papillomavirus, and meningococcal vaccine. we did a comprehensive review of the scientific literature assessing whether these vaccines could cause adverse effects. host: we will continue to list these vaccines and we will take your calls in a couple of minutes ellen wright clayton for wright. what to do find? guest: we looked at more than 1000 scientific articles and we looked at a total of 158

different potential adverse effects that could be caused by the vaccine. but we found was that there were a number of adverse affect the we concluded were likely to be caused by vaccines. these included a lot of cases of allergic reaction cases of invasive chickenpox diseases, particularly if their problems with their immune system. very really the measles-mumps- rubella can cause chronic brain inflammation. we found there was some evidence but not all want, hpv and the acute allergic reaction, temporary joint pain and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in women and children. a case of the influenza vaccine

causing a very rare syndrome which was seen only in canada and which went away when the change the food vaccine. there were five cases where we thought the evidence was quite strong that the vaccine does not cause a particular adverse affect. number one was that we thought the evidence was quite strong that the measles moms rebel vaccine does not cause autism. -- the measles-mumps-rubella at the-- that the measles-mumps- rubella vaccine does not cause autism. the float vaccine does not call -- the flu vaccine does not cause wheezing nor bells pausy.

some strong evidence of things that vaccines do not cause. a lot of uncertainty in the middle. the take-home message and the good take a message from the study is that despite our looking at this liturgy quite intensively, it is remarkable how few side effects vaccines can cause. a majority of the side effects we did find are ones that are relatively easily treatable. that is the take-home message. host: let's go right to calls for dr. ellen wright clayton. allison, texas -- dell austin, texas -- galveston, texas.

caller: have you found -- i am in the military. i received a vaccination and i started having symptoms that ultimately i was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at the age of 50, which is kind of old for that diagnosis. i looked into the literature and if on these articles about individual vaccines. but i'm curious whether the immune stimulation from multiple vaccination's might have stimulated an autoimmune reaction. host: multiple vaccines. guest: that is an enormous question and one we don't have the scientific data to address. it is heart because most people get vaccines in a bunch as opposed to one at the time.

to askt have the data the question -- to answer the question that you asked me. i would say also that the particular things that we were asked to address -- vaccinations given to children. adults get a lot of vaccinations, particularly tetanus-containing the vaccinations. i would imagine a number of vaccinations you got in the military were ones that were not on the list of vaccines to steady. i do not know what the data is about those kinds of vaccines that you got. host: can that question be applied to children? guest: absolutely. we don't have the kind of data that is going to allow us to answer that question.

everybody gets exposed to thousands of antigens or things that can cause a response. every single day. i would say that young children are prone to be exposed given if they do things like the things off the floor and other things that little children do. i think that's there is some evidence of being too clean may set you up for some kind of adverse reaction. we have to look at this in the terms of the larger context. we get exposed to lots and lots and lots of antigens every day. i want to frame it that way. the honest answer to your question is that we don't have the ability to enter the question about multiple vaccines vs one at a time at this moment. host: warrenton, virginia. caller: a different john.

the accumulation of data is that the public does not trust the federal government. my personal opinion is that i do not believe -- if there were side effects in vaccines, i would not be told because i think the federal government looks at the bigger picture, like you just stated a minute ago. they are willing to sacrifice a few for the good of the many. last night in the debate, what can up was the hpv vaccination that rick perry mandated for the state of texas, i believe. could you please tell us, is that hpv vaccine still given to little girls in texas, and do

you know if it was safe or if the was pulled from the market? host: the caller does not seem to trust government. guest: i know there are many people who feel that way. i want to talk about the institute of medicine. the national academy were established during the civil war to provide independent advice to the government. and so if you look at the institute of medicine as part of the national academy, we are independent of the government and if you look at the makeup of the people who are on the committee that i have the privilege of directing, we went through a very elaborate conflict of interest process. what i can tell you is that we did find some things that vaccines cause and we were very clear about saying that.

and that we try very hard to do that. we are independent of the federal government. i'm putting that out for you to think about. the issues about what -- these are made by people other than myself and our committee. those are beyond me. every single intervention we do in medicine has potential side effects. some of the diseases that we prevent with vaccines are ones that were catastrophic. i remember when polio was still around. my parents remember when fdr was president. i remember being kept inside when i was a little girl because my mother was afraid i would get polio. when the oral polio vaccine came

out, people lined up around the block to get that vaccine. they were so thrilled to get it. polio has almost been eliminated from the face of the earth. i think that is amazing. with regard to measles, another one we could potentially eliminate from the face of the earth. my mother would take me to make sure i got measles early because young children tend to do better than older children or adults with that disease. paltrow but do not need to get that disease. but we still have outbreaks and children still die from measles disease. we have to look -- our committee was focused on the issue of risk, we have to look at the rather dramatic effects of these immunizations in reducing some

of the things that used to terrify us. in regards to texas with hpv, that has not been withdrawn from the market. we did not look at that vaccine. there is some evidence that hpv vaccine can cause acute allergic reaction. more data is going to come. we looked at the data that was going to be available. there are alive symptoms we caned to look and s-- say things about the measles-mu mps-rubella vaccine because mmr has been around for a long time. snippetre's a short from the debate last night.

>> if i had to do over again, i will have done it differently. i would have gone to the legislature and worked with them. what was driving me was making a difference about young people's lives. cervical cancer is a horrible way to die. i happen to think that what we were trying to do was to send a message that we are going to give moms and dads the opportunity to make that decision with parental opt out. parental rights are very important in the state of texas. we have a long list of vaccines. but on that issue, i made a mistake by not going to the legislature first. let me address ron paul by saying i will use an executive order to get rid of as much of one can on daycan't on d

one. guest: governor perry made an error. there were issues of conflict of issues on his part. the purpose of the hpv vaccine is to prevent cancer. these issues are things to get worked out in our political context. there are some things he said that i agree with. these are things we should work with our legislation about. host: back to the phones. caller: my question is, how you establish the immune status of a child before give the vaccine? guest: thank you for that great question. we look at them clinically. by the time we give the live virus vaccine, which is

varicella and measles-mumps- rubella, the child is about 1- year-old. by then we should be able to see other signs of immunodeficiency. the good news is that a year two ago, another branch of the federal government made the recommendation that we should be doing newborn screening of our children for serious forms of it in a deficiency. -- the serious forms of immune deficiency. we can treat them and save their lives. a side benefit of doing this newborn screening would be to identify those children for whom giving the varicella vaccine or the mmr vaccine would

be a bad idea. so think there are -- i think there is hope we may be able to identify the children who are at risk of having these adverse effects. clinically, many of these children are ready symptomatic of the time it comes time to give those vaccines. not all. these are things that ought to be thought of. wonderful question. some states are doing at. this might be a way forward. host: dan is calling on the line for democrats. caller: hi. my name is dan. i haven't autistic 14-year-old boy -- i have an autistic 14-

year-old boy. he started to have -- he started to go downhill after the vaccination. that is a common story with a lot of parents that i've talked to and on together with. what the evidence is that this is not happening because of the vaccine? at that time, what was in that vaccine? did it have any mercury in ait? that's my question. guest: thank you for that question. linda summarize the evidence and give you some -- let me summarize the evidence. we look at all the studies that have been conducted to date. this report is available for freight to be downloaded as pdf

at the institute for medicine website. you can download it for free. there is the best index i have ever seen. you can go to the pages that address what the evidence is for each particular adverse affect the we've looked at. you can read it online if you want. it is about -- that part is about five pages long. let me summarize it briefly. we looked at five studies that were conducted in very large numbers of children. the risk of optimism -- autism essentials was not different between the children who got vaccine and the children who did

not. police in the case of the m -- at least in the case of the mmr. all of them pointed in the same direction. that is where our data is. epidemiological data can never prove a negative. it can never say that a particular vaccine can never caused a particular adverse event. what can say and what it does say in this case is if it does happen, it doesn't happen very often. we're seeing lots of parents who of concerns about immunizations and optimism -- autism. we didn't see that evidence. i want to be clear about what our evidence was and the limits of what we can say about that particular vaccine and that particular -- and optimism --

autism. you can look at those in the study. all the others -- we felt like we did have enough evidence one way or the other. but i really urge you to look at what the data showed. the other thing i would urge you to look at is that in chapter 3, we had a discussion, if you page discussion about brain development. the issue that we talked about in there is that there are a number of things that to cause autism. some of them are genetic. and so we know that brain development is extremely

complicated. i think the challenge before us is to find out what the particular things are that can cause autism said that we can address it. the missing one thing about mmr. it never contains mercury. you cannot have a live vaccine with mercury because it would kill the vaccine. other vaccines did have mercury in them in small amounts in . other committees of specifically at the issue of mercury. the earlier committee found a lack of connection between mercury and vaccines and autism. that is a complicated answer to your question. it is a complicated, complicated

issue. that is what our data was. we need to rethink how we're approaching the issue of what causes autism. the evidence is not there. host: next call is from tampa, florida. caller: i have a question. whenever a person has a reaction from the vaccine or a joint medication whereby they have joint pains, is that caused by the body making antibodies against the joint tissue? what is the exact mechanism going on? guest: that is a wonderful question. we address that in some wine at various parts in the report -- we address that. it can be also in chapter 3,

exhaustive discussion of the various mechanisms by which vaccines or anything else can cause the kind of side effects that you are talking about. it can be antibody production. it can be a direct invasion, particularly in real life when you get rubella or german measles, as we used to call wit. sometimes that virus in the natural state gets in the joint. it can be a direct invasion of the joint or antibody invasion. it can be a variety of things. as we look at some of those cases, we asked the question -- do we have evidence of antibody production? do we have evidence of direct

invasion by the vaccine virus? there are a number of ways by which that can happen. the report has a nice discussion about that in the context of our discussion about whether the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine can do that. that is a wonderful question. host: our guest is dr. ellen wright clayton, educated at duke. she has a law degree from yale. she is a pediatrics and law professor from the vendor build institute in nashville. here's a twitter question.

host: any thoughts? guest: i do not know the answer. yeah, i do not know the answer. that's a question for the food and drug administration. they are responsible for insuring that our drug supply is safe. so, sorry. host: north carolina, melanie. caller: i have a question concerning siblings. if a child shoats and auto immune deficiency -- if a child shows and although immune deficiency, is a research on that? guest: thank you. i know a little bit.

take this in context. there are a number of forms of auto immune deficiency. if you have an affected sibling, then the other sibling has a one in four chance of having the same disorder. some of them are prominent in boys, and the risk of recurrence is one in two. it is likely that if you diagnose one child with a serious form of immunodeficiency, you look at the other ones to make sure that they don't have it as well. the idea of the second one would have the worst is probably -- that is probably not realistic. the risk of recurrence for the inherited forms is pretty clear. i would think that an

immunologist would be the person that would be caring for a person with a serious immunodeficiency, and it would be alert if there were other symptoms in a subsequent child and would surely be looking for the same disorder. host: richard from kansas, a democrat. caller: i have a question about a disease which i developed six years ago and then slowly recovering from. i was in the united states army and we were on strategic reserve and we had possibilities of deployment to the middle east and to the orient, to other areas in the tropics as well as standing by for right patrol in the united states. we just got a series of vaccines of all different kinds to cover

diseases that might be prevalent in these various areas. and then later, i had a series of influenza vaccines during the concerns about all the various strains that were coming into this country, and surely before developing the disease, i have the shingles vaccination. i wonder how much research has been done between vaccines and the disease and what bindings -- what findings you might have about possible connections. guest: thank you for that great question. the answer is a lot of research. one of the challenges -- there are many challenges with regard to that disease. not the least of which is that it is seasonal, so it tends to lead and more in the winter rather than the summer. it has a lot known causes. in number of different infections that can cause it.

so that is a challenge. the influence it vaccine changes every year because the actual virus changes every year. if you look again in our study, we summarize all the literature that has been looked at with regard to an slants its vaccine and shingles. there is a lot of it. the majority of it suggests there is no connection. but it is hard to say. the 1976 vaccine did cause the disease. but since that time, the evidence has been pretty lacking. we also looked at the 2010 vaccine, the age 1 and 1 vaccine -- the h1n1 vaccine.

i don't know the data but the study it to death. we summarize all of that. you probably got a lot vaccines that were not looking at and that are not given to children. so i cannot answer your question completely. people are concerned about vaccinations and that disease. people are steading that very seriously. at least in the case of influenza, the evidence tended to show there is no connection between flu vaccine and that disease. we look the other vaccines and they did not rise to the level to say the trend in a particular direction. this is an important question. some things cause it -- so many

things cause it. host: what do you want to know five or 10 or 20 years down the road? guest: we will be asked to do the first -- this was comprehensive review since the early 1990's. we were not asked to say what we wanted. i would say that we would like to see is more evidence of the mechanisms by which the diverse effects occcur. so that it is possible to do to see whethershup it is the vaccine in vault or something else involved. i will be controversial about this. if we had more access to clinical records so that we

could do even more complete studies about whether vaccines can cause adverse effects, we would have more data on which to base our analyses. we have some great surveillance studies going on now. but with the expansion of the electronic health records, we could do more than what tells more about this. we want more complete ascertain and of who is having these adverse affects. and then we would love to know more about the mechanisms by which they happened so that we can do the workshop that we need to see if the vaccine is responsible for them. that's what we would love to see. there is has been some progress in that area already. that's the great thing about science. if we can do the science even better, we can offer people more

definitive answers, which is what we would love to do. host: time for a couple of more calls. bonnie, a republican. caller: i would like to know -- i read a story in "reader's digest" about a doctor who had studied a young man that had autism. he said he was a friend to the mother of the boy. he had found out that the boy had severe allergies. are there any studies that have gone along with that? guest: thank you for the question. i suspect you read that article about 10 years ago or maybe 15. there was a doctor in the uk who

proposed the notion that he was recovering measles virus from people and was proposing a link. his papers have all been retracted by the charles the publish them. he had his license to practice withdrawn in the united kingdom. so i think that the scientific validity of that work has been called very seriously into question. there have been a lot of people -- people are looking very, very hard to find out what is causing autism. this is a terrible thing. would love to know the cause so that we can prevent it. but that study has been completely discredited. host: wilmington, north

carolina, melissa. caller: you stated that one of the possible side effects of the mmr vaccine is brain inflammation. could the brain inflammation be what causes autism or other neurological disorders? guest: thank you for that question. that effect is very, very rare. that occurs in people that have serious immune disorders. it was detected by funding the vaccine in places it was not supposed to be. the message i would ask people -- that is a wonderful question and i understand the question. what we're seeing from mmr cannot account for the amount of autism we are seeing in the

united states. that is a wonderful question and a reasonable hypothesis. it just does not account for what we are seeing. that is my conclusion. host: rebecca, could morning. -- good morning. caller: i have been researching vaccines. i encourage people to do their own homework. no vaccine has never been tested to see if it causes cancer, including the vaccine given for the hpv virus. i would go to the website and order a book which was written in 1889. it has been republished. check things out for yourselves.

they will not admit the death and destruction. host: thank you, rebecca. a final minute or so. wrap this up in terms of the study, if you would. guest: the takeaway message -- we did the best possible job that we cut looking at the scientific evidence about whether vaccines cause adverse affects. we found some. and so i have to reject the idea that we are hiding our findings because we did not. we are independent of the federal government and we told the story as truthfully as we could. the take-home message is this. vaccines can cause adverse affects. by