attack. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: 5.5 million viewers watched the republican candidates for president debate in las vegas tuesday. yesterday, texas gov. rick perry at the western republican leadership conference came out in support of a flat tax. that is our discussion topic this morning on "washington journal." rick perry proposes a flat tax. 202 is the area code for all of our numbers -- of course, you can contact us electronically as well be a email --

here is rick perry yesterday at the western republican leadership conference. >> scrapping of the 3 million words of the current tax code -- starting over with something simpler, a flat tax. i want to make the tax code so simple that even timothy geithner can file his taxes -- taxes on time. host: from "the financial times" this morning --

that is from "the financial times" this morning. ian "the wall street journal" on this issue of the flat tax --

mr. perry hinted the direction he would take when he criticized mr. cain's idea -- that is an "the wall street journal." 202 is the area code -- john is an independent in lancaster, pennsylvania. caller: it has not worked. nobody has really come up with a good idea. steve forbes drive this many years ago and it did not work. herman cain's thing is ridiculous and perry i think is grabbing at straws. we need tax reform. what the republicans are doing

is trying to get taxes so low that social services will be curtailed, everything will be privatized, so they can just go hand-in-hand with private business to get campaign contributions and then in turn they will be reelected. crony capitalism at its worst. host: you said the flat tax has not worked. it has not been tried. what is it about the flat tax that you don't like? caller: the way steve forbes said it up -- it was not tried, you are right. but he talked about it. he still talked about. and pat toomey is talking about it and that you have to be suspect of right away. the way cain did it or has it, it is basically a flat tax. host: that was john in pennsylvania. next is john, a democrat in fairfax, virginia.

caller: the wealthy have doubled their wealthy and the last 10 years -- wealth in the last 10 years and a flat tax would increase that. it might work if you combine it with a wealth tax, the top 1% pay 1% back. it's not that, i don't know how we can get the rich and the people who get income from gray areas to pay. host: thanks for calling in. a front-page of "the washington post" --

josh, republican. jacksonville, north carolina. caller: good morning. it seems as if rick perry is jumping on the flat tax bandwagon. granted, i think you can jump on a lot worse bandwagons. but it is hard for me to take him seriously when he has been so far behind every other presidential candidate as far as forming his economic plan, tax plan, a jobs plan. it seems very suspect to me.

it seems he is a little too slow. host: as a republican, who are you currently supporting? caller: i like cain. i think he has bold economic ideas. i was doing the math just the other night during the debate and it is really hard for me to understand why so many people, and even some in a conservative- minded people, are so nervous about the 999 plan. it seems to me the more money you have in the pockets of consumers, the better the economy is for consumers. host: as a conservative, what makes you nervous about a flat tax? caller: nothing. host: so, you could see yourself supporting a flat tax? caller: sure, absolutely. as a matter of fact if you go to herman cain's web site -- i am not part of his campaign, i was actually hoping for mitch daniels -- but if you go to his

website actually than 999 is a bridge toward the fairfax -- fiar ta -- fair tax. host: thank you. >> edward from miami. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. if the conservatives are for this flat tax than i am entirely against it. if people like g.e. don't pay taxes. my position is close all the loopholes and what the conservatives and people like boehner and mcconnell squirm when they do. host: that was edward in miami. this story is from "politico" this morning --

again, that's from "politico" with the headline "deficit super committee starts to show signs of life." >> headlines -- -- next headline --

that is "the washington post" this morning. senator chuck grassley will be here in a half hour or so and he will talk to us about the super committee and its work. ron, democrat from new york city. what do you think about rick perry proposing a flat tax? caller: i think rick perry is very disingenuous but i still like the idea of a flat tax. probably at double the rate that rick perry is talking about. it is like c-span is becoming the utopia channel because this

sort of an idea is never -- we need to look at what we need to pay our bills. it would be so easy. what do we need to pay essentially our outgoing bills and tax accordingly and eliminate this of loopholes. here i am, back on the utopia channel because with the left the way they feel and the right the way they feel there is very little room for discussion. i would like to just ask you one more thing when you get grassley on what the super committee -- with the super committee. with growing health-care costs, opening up medicare, letting people buy in -- healthy people, young people -- i don't hear enough talk about it on c-span. i think that the health care costs are the biggest problem we have. host: are you in favor of younger, healthier people being able to buy into health -- medicare?

caller: it is a no-brainer. thank you for c-span. you do a great job. i don't hear enough about opening up medicare. it's got very low administrative costs, 2% to 3% versus the private health insurers. and if you could ask mr. grassley about it and continue to talk about it on c-span. host: one of the senate finance committee's proposal is to overhaul the health-care system and the medicaid system. we will talk about some of the proposals of which -- some of the committee proposals of which he is a member. michael comments -- another comment --

and republican in pacifica, california. good morning to you. caller: how are you doing today? host: what do you think about rick perry's proposal for a flat tax? caller: i totally disagree with it. i think maybe perhaps in the future but as of right now it would be a horrible situation because the lower and middle- class individuals would and that possibly paying more. and-those who have been -- and i think those who have been over indulgent and it received loopholes throughout, corporations have had loopholes where they are able to accomplish tremendous amounts of

money. they need to go pay their fair share now and they need to go and have a higher tax, and it might be staggered a little bit. host: as a republican, who you like right now? caller: i don't like any of them. i am so dissatisfied with the republicans right now. host: what about president obama? caller: i think that he is doing pretty fair job with what he's got to work with right now. host: philadelphia. michael on our independent line. you are on c-span. what do you think about rick perry's proposing of a flat tax? caller: i think it is a bad idea. i have two quick of this to make. if we look at wages by earnings class, they have separated -- some earnings classes have had stagnant wages and others have had wages go up incredible

percentages -- so flat tax could be regressive. if rick perry is serious about solving tax problems, what he should do is allow more funds to go to certain departments. that audit people who hire money in -- hite money in tax savings. host: harry reid looks for jobs vote this week. from "the hill" newspaper this

morning -- back to your comments on the flat tax. this is on our facebook page. nathaniel -- this tweet --

ed ward in woodstock, vermont. what do you think about the flat tax? caller: i am confused about herman cain's claims that the cost of goods is going to automatically lower because the embedded taxes would be eliminated when he goes to the 999 plan. i can understand -- i am a florist, a business owner of 24 years -- i can't understand. there is going to be now, if this plan went forward, automatic 9% on top of the taxes that i already charge my clients from the state. i am dealing with a product that is discretionary spending to the average american.

to me, it seems to me than 999 plan will be doing nothing but hurting small businessmen. maybe the embedded taxes will lower prices on other products that are mass-produced -- [no audio] how you enforce the embedded taxes with trickle-down to the consumer and not become an added christmas bonus to the ceo of that company? how would we guarantee the prices would lower? host: thank you for calling in this morning. on the front page of "the new york times" is this picture of some secret service agents guarding a farmers market. the president's visit one in hampton, virginia. he said them -- you see them all lining up between the pumpkins. the next call comes from colombia, south carolina. the democrats' line.

what do you think about a flat tax? caller: who is he going to tax. there are no jobs. there's no jobs. this is the same man that wants to fly the confederate flag on a license tag and you are complaining about taxes? didn't he sign a statement that everybody gets minimum-wage. people don't have jobs. he wants to fly confederate flags on license tags. thanks for accepting my call. host: calvin from columbia, south carolina. also on the front page of "the new york times" --

that is just the beginning of the story. if you are interested, thenewyorktimes.com is the website. from "roll call" --

that is again from "roll call" this morning. from "politico" --

202 is the area code -- if you want to comment on rick perry's proposals for a flat tax. steed in brunswick, maine. democrat. you are on c-span. caller: what people want to real -- have to realize is that ronald reagan changed the way the 1% get wages. now you want a flat tax.

the flat tax is on wages. if you take $1 in wages and the rest in stock, how much tax to you think you have to pay? it is not the mexicans, not the minorities. these rich white guys are killing us down here. somebody has to figure it out. host: jana in mississippi. what do you think? caller: i think it is a great idea. the flat tax or the fair tax. i don't understand why so many people are against this. fair is fair. just like the previous guy said -- if you make $1, you pay a percentage, if you make $10 billion, you pay the same percentage. what could not be fair? it seems to me the only people who are against this tax system are those who don't pay any tax now. get in the game, pay your

share, and stop your griping. host: who do you like so far? we will never know who she likes in the republican primary. mario is an independent in tampa. are you with us? go ahead with your comments. what do you think of the flat tax? caller: like i said, people think it is pretty but they have never seen it in action. it does not work that way. host: what do you mean? caller: for example, right now they are giving all of these tax breaks to the rich, for example -- i mean, corporations. they are not getting nothing in return. i think what they need to do is, you want a tax break, let us go one fiscal year to the other. if you hire people, at the end of the year, the next year, during that fiscal year, you

have so many people for six months or more you get a tax break. the way it is going now, people are just getting the money but they are not putting it back to the economy. the last 13 years has been the same thing. they get the money -- and where are we at? 9.1% unemployment. that is what i am talking about. going back to the flat tax or 999, it is pretty to mention its but it goes back to supply and demand. how much demand you think is going to be when people have to pay 18%, 19%, 20%, when they add the national tax or 23% or 24% across the board. people don't understand, they might have more money in the pot

of the things will be higher because of the taxes and it will hurt the economy -- they may have more money in their pockets but things will be higher. host: tax revenues failed to rebound. michael cooper writes --

illinois. david is a republican. what do you think about rick perry's proposal of a flat tax? caller: it is kinda funny that every time monopod comes up with an idea if it's a good response from the public -- every time ron paul comes up with an idea it gets a good response. he is the one that came out with a 10% flat tax. a good response. now everybody who is running for

president is trying to do what he says. host: that was david from illinois. it is being reported that cnn that muammar gaddafi has been captured in libya. as soon as we get more details, we will bring those to you. back to your facebook comments on rick perry's proposal of a flat tax.

again, that was jeff commenting on our facebook page. from "roll call"-- that the din was in "roll call." kathleen, democrat. what did you think about rick perry's proposal question of

caller: did i hear you say gaddafi was captured? host: that is being reported by cnn and we will keep an eye on it. caller: ok. if these people would let this president do as good a job that he does with foreign policy, if they let him do his job over here in america we would be on our way. but getting back to the subject, and a body that is working poor, black, yellow, green -- anybody that is working or, if they anticipate anything that the republicans put out a flat tax, if they vote for anybody who has the label republican, they need their heads examined because the republicans are not for working people or the poor. just as the people in wisconsin. just ask the people in ohio. they have buyer's remorse. it is so bad that working people and poor people vote against their own interests. the republicans are strictly for the rich. thank you for taking my call. host: that was kathleen, a democrat from chicago.

in the business section of "the new york times -- barbara in annapolis, maryland, about 40 miles from here, republican line. what do you think about rick perry's flat tax proposal? caller: i think that he will probably do what ever he can to get the votes.

i certainly did not support him or romney. both of them, including cain would continue the status quo, global businesses and banking buying our politicians. it is those people does control the money and the businesses that basically dictate policy in washington. and i am extremely bothered by the fact that ron paul does not get the media attention he deserves because he is the only candidate out there that actually has good ideas and is against the establishment and would end corruption. i am so tired of this country being sold out to global business entities and the banking interests. it is a disgrace and we will all pay a big price for all of this because they are all bought and paid for. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: reuters is also reporting gaddafi is captured and wounded.

captured and wounded in both legs. "he is captured, wounded in both legs. he has been taken away by ambulance," says the senior national transition council official, but that official told reuters by phone. missouri. neil is an independent. talking about the flat tax. rick perry's proposal. caller: the last caller was really heartwarming. but when it comes to talking about taxes and no myself, i have studied a lot of history and have studied politics for years, it is really kind of hilarious because we see nothing but a tax cut after tax cuts for the rich and we keep hearing republicans saying tax cuts

would lead to prosperity and create jobs but as we can see in, wages have remained the same, if not limited due to inflation, while corporations make more and more money. the last caller saying politicians have been bought. i say one word, congress. congress has been bought completely. a lot of our democrats even are voting in favor of a huge tax cuts and they will refuse to raise taxes on the rich and corporations. you look at ronald reagan, he raised taxes i believe somewhere between seven and nine times and george h. bush was kicked out of office because he did raise taxes. look at our economic situation that actually had two wars, iraq and afghanistan. who is going to pay for these wars. where is the money going to come from? like i said before, wages have remained the same. average americans can't even

afford to pay federal taxes. where it is of this money going to come from? host: we will leave it there. on your screen is a picture of cake edwards and dr. trevor upton's -- kate edwards and dr. trevor upton. on what promises to be a soft, southern fall afternoon, ms. edwards, 29, will be escorted down the aisle by her father john. that will celebrate the marriage with family and friends at the sprawling home for parents built in a country site not far from chapel hill, north carolina. everyone close to the family knew that mrs. edwards will not see this day, she died of breast cancer two weeks after the

engagement but the mother and daughter died into wedding details while they still had time. "i felt so lucky to share the joy with her, leaving through bridal magazines and to talk about whether." she wrote this for the november issue of "glamour." in the last week she told me she was comforted to know i set forth on my own life plan. the wedding offers family and friends chance of joy and celebration after years of turmoil and that that played out dramatically on the public stage. back to your calls. margin is an independent from florida. what do you think about rick perry's proposal of the flat tax? caller: thank you for taking my call. back in the early 1990's when ross perot was on the political scene he proposed 17% flat tax. in the mid-1990s is one i received my masters in public administration from the university of maryland. the flat tax was a hot topic in

our classes. it is a regressive tax because somebody making 40,000 vs somebody making 200,000, more portion of their income is utilize, they have less income to purchase necessary items. so it is regressive. one thing i always ask my professors -- 17% flat tax sounds like it is fair, and i don't know what the percentage rate is that rick perry is offering but i do know -- i do question people when they mention herman cain's 999 plan. i always understood that 17% was the minimum that could be a sustainable flat tax. i always throughout, what about charitable donations? if you do a flat tax is it less incentive than for the wealthy to not give to charitable

donations. also, i would like to say, former gov. buddy roemer and former governor of new mexico gary johnson, they both have their hats in the ring republicanntial election next year. buddy is not being invited to the presidential debates. i don't know why. former new mexico gov. gary johnson, he boycotted the las vegas debates because, one, he does not believe in what they are trying to do in moving up of the primary dates. host: margin, thank you for calling in. got some emails on the flat tax proposal. tom in red wing, minnesota --

lou in highland park, illinois. would there be -- and dw in seattle -- jan ness who goes by the moniker momness1 on twitter -- judah, and republican. caller: i do not think it is

necessary. there are several opportunities to bring jobs and prosperity back to this country, simply by thinking outside the box. a perfect example -- even though the amount of aid we give it to countries boost our gdp, it is not equal. however, every country that receives foreign aid from u.s. taxpayers should be forced, there should be an agreement that they buy american-made products with that money. so, if we send billions over to egypt, there should be a system set up to make sure that for the egyptian welfare system -- clothing, all of these things are brought here.

washers, dryers, irene's, made here. this is not mean-spirited, either. they get what they need and our tax dollars come back here. no longer depleted of factories and jobs. and at the same time, once the policy is implemented, american companies to simply keep their headquarters here for comfort and luxury must bring those damn jobs back home. host: we will leave it there. the next call comes from canton, illinois. roger is a democrat. whoops -- roger, are you with us? sorry about that. caller: good morning, c-span. i am not in favor of rick perry's but i am in favor of cain's 999 and i think if people really understood the process of that, it would be a favorable tax.

one thing i would like to say is 75% -- i hear all of these people saying tax the rich. but 75% of the middle class, they did not even pay their percentage of taxes with their loopholes and deductions. i made over $175,000 a year for the last 25 years and i paid zero income tax with my deductions and allocations. host: what is your secret? caller: knowing the tax laws. you get tax write-offs for children, investments, supports. if people would take the time to read the tax bills and the laws, they would understand. believe me, i have been audited seven times and they said, wow, we didn't know that. i have advised lottery winners on how they don't have to pay

taxes on their winnings. host: do you do this for a living? caller: no, it is a hobby of mine that i decided if i wanted to make my income go the furthest, that you have to understand what you are doing. can i say one last thing? i have been a democrat my whole life and i got a message for the president, and my message is, cut up the credit cards. quit spending money you don't have. all these college students out there protesting today and all of these young people, they don't understand that any money that is being spent trying to help them, it is only 1% that is going to get that help and then it will be half of that 1% is going to the unions. host: thank you so much. very quickly, this tweet -- twitter comment --

gossip column in "the new york post." that is in "the leader post." "the los angeles times" as a political story on its front page. tribune" -- "the boston globe" has this

story -- democratic leaders in the u.s. senate are speaking with their money in the primary. harrisburg, pennsylvania, eric on the independent line. your comments about the flat tax. caller: i am absolutely in favor of a flat tax or bank a graduate of flat tax going from 0% if you are making 150% or 250% of the poverty line all the way up to 25% if you are making $1 million or $2 million a year. eliminate the irs, eliminate everything. no deductions. if you are broke, you pay zero and if you are wealthy, -- the government should not be entitled to any more of 25% of

your money the matter how much you make. you work for it. i understand the government provides services and goods and all this happy stuff, but there is no way they should be entitled to more than 25% of your money, even if you are making $1 billion. one-quarter of the money going to the country you live in and provided so much, it is absolutely perfect. i am not wealthy. i am not even the working poor. i am the unemployed poor and i am still in favor of this. host: we have to leave it there. thank you for calling in this morning. from "politico" flynn case you are interested. in case you want to read the whole story, it is on politico.com. from c-span.org -- romani holds town hall on economy -- mitt romney old town hall on the

economy. you can watch it live on c- span.org. it begins, i believe, at 8:00 a.m. this morning. of course, i lost the time. but it will be live on c- span.org. coming up in about 45 minutes, representative don edwards will be here to take your calls. she is a democrat from maryland. coming up next, senator chuck grassley of iowa. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> because i am a businessman, and just incidently i am very proud formally connected with a large company, in opposition they have attempted to picture me as an opponent of liberalism but i was a liberal before many of those never heard the word and i fought for the reforms of theodore roosevelt and woodrow wilson before another rose about adopted and distorted the word liberal. >> he was a member of the democratic party for over 20 years, switching in 1940, he saw and won the republican

nomination for president and although he lost the election, he left his mark on political history, speaking out for civil rights, becoming a foreign ambassador for his former opponent franklin roosevelt. he is one of the 14 men featured on c-span that a new weekly series "the contenders." live, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend, six republican presidential candidates travel to do maureen for the idea what freedom coalition candidate forum. watch live coverage of herman cain, newt gingrich, rick santorum, as well as gov. rick perry and representatives ron paul and michele bachmann. starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on saturday. >> this weekend on book tv on c- span2, live coverage from the texas book festival with one williams on political corruption -- political correction -- political correctness and

robert morgan on westward expansion. throughout the weekend, panels on india and pakistan, mexican drug cartels, the art of nonfiction and the arabs spring. look for the entire schedule online at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: senator charles grassley, republican of iowa is on your screen and he is a member of the finance committee. the senate finance committee submit its recommendations to the debt reduction committee. what was some of the main points of the finance committee recommendations? guest: first of all, can i differentiate between the finance committee and how we made recommendations as opposed to how the agricultural committee i sat on made recommendations. the biggest difference is, the agricultural committee recommended a specific dollars of savings, like $23 billion of savings on farm programs and

other programs. whereas on the finance committee, we didn't say you ought to cut x billion dollars from this are that program. we started with a theme that the super committee has that we ought to do these things that promote growth, competitiveness , overall the whole project here is to build confidence in the future and to preserve responsible programs. and so, we looked at social security, for instance and said that you need to make sure it does not affect anybody, any changes made, anybody older than 55, or i suppose you could say older than 50 but we chose older than 55 because you got to get people -- give people an opportunity to adjust. anything you do with medicare, the same thing. and we didn't suggest, like the house did their budget, block granting medicaid, we suggested

that we ought to have maybe more stayed up already so that they can try different things to save money and eligibility and things like that. we did not come up with you ought to save $100 billion or $200 billion but a very basic principles like increasingly age, almost like everything is on the table. but increasing age would be an example. but you what to -- what to do for people who are over 55. and maybe even more basic -- i should have started with this -- we ought to preserve medicare and social security because it is part of the social fabric of america. so, when seniors get nervous about us talking about social security and medicare, they get the opinion that maybe you are going to do away with it. in no, just opposite. it has been for 70 years for social security and over 40 or 50 years from medicare, part of the social fabric of america.

it's got to be preserved. but also at the same time -- and if i am talking to long, say so -- at the same time, if anybody said just leave my social security alone or just leave my medicare alone, maybe they don't realize it but they are saying after 2021, there will not be any medicare unless we do something to preserve it, as social security after 2036, the young people today will only get 70% of benefits whereas people today are getting 100% of the benefits. those of the basic premises of what we suggested. one more thing if i could say this -- it seems like, unlike the agricultural committee, where we are trying to get a bipartisan agreement about what to do about these various programs, in the finance committee, the senate republicans suggested things to the super committee and i presume, but i don't know for sure, that the senate democrats on the finance committee are going to propose specific things to the committee.

>> of corning -- host: according to the senate finance committee, a gop recommendations include income tax rate for individuals and corporations no higher than 25%, repeal of, health care law and the tax increases, for repeal of the alternative minimum tax is another proposal that the republicans on the finance committee have made. when it comes to medicare, address the eligibility age, evaluate the impact of supplemental coverage, strengthen efforts against fraud, waste and abuse, and with medicaid, give states the find budgets and flexibility to modernize eligibility, implement provider reimbursement system. when it comes to medicare, we have a caller earlier who wanted to ask the question, why don't you open it up for younger, healthier people to be able to buy into medicare in order to help support?

guest: it would probably be better if you want to help people with a government program to allow them to buy into the federal health-insurance program so that those people who say, why can we have them -- program like federal employees? it would probably be a more viable program to buy into their than to buy into medicare because i think it suggests the regularly annually much more than you can adjust medicare. see, if they bought into medicare today, it would be just like -- let me start over again -- it would be just like 1965. why is medicare in trouble today? because people in 1965 when they wrote medicare, the average age was about 74 years old as people are living. now it is 79 or 80. nobody anticipated the longevity you have now. you cannot expect them to do that in 1965. but today, we have to make up for the fact that in 1965, they did not really realize people

were going to live longer, etc., or that will help would keep people alive longer or you would have these sustaining things of life in the last year like we do now. and so, we have to compensate for those things now. but the important thing is that medicare has got to be preserved because it is part of the social fabric of america. host: before we go to calls -- and we have the numbers up there so we can get right to those -- i want to ask you take a separate questions. earlier about rick perry's flat tax proposal, what your thoughts? caller: it is the second -- guest: it is the second-best proposal congress could consider if they want to throw out the existing code. 70 percent of the people -- most congress to not talk about this like the people do, but we all realize it -- it has become -- and makes our economy very uncompetitive, it stifles individual on it -- initiative

and it needs to be thrown out. i would prefer a flat rate income tax. but if you don't have a flat rate income tax i would support a national sales tax. the point is, don't have a sales tax on top of the income tax. it has to be one or the other. host: have you endorsed in the gop primary? guest: no, and i did announce today i am not going to endorse anybody. if your question is, if i will support the nominee, i sure hope i can and i intend to. the reason why i announced, that is, i believe we have some of the good candidates, and quite frankly, it is very difficult for me to choose among them. secondly, i think we have a system in iowa where we make presidents. president obama would not be president of the united states if he had not beat clinton in iowa. president carter would not have been president had not come to

live in iowa a couple of years before he was nominated. so, we make presidents. maybe you can say that about george bush as well because he did well in iowa. since we have a system where the cream tends to come to the top, i think i am going to rely on that system. host: is there any sense -- chance of the january 3 date could move now that nevada is looking to push back their caucus to february? guest: in that case, i don't believe so. because we have to do -- we had to do it because of florida, so let's blame florida first. but we had to move hours from february to january 3. then the question is, can new hampshire, and 10 days or so after ross and then still time for nevada. if nevada is going to move later in january, i think we are pretty firm at january 3 in iowa

host: what are your thoughts that muammar gaddafi has been captured? guest: wonderful. it seems like is 10 or 15 years before they get convicted of anything. host: we invited senator grassley to talk about the proposals for deficit reduction and his own personal proposals for deficit reduction. we start our calls with john in pennsylvania. a democrat. caller: good morning. i would like to ask if you're still getting the government subsidy on your family farm? guest: yes, that's right. i feel like if i'm going to be a farmer from iowa, i should participate in the farm program and not be an absentee land

owner. i can't share -- i crop share. you pay for half the expenses -- fertilizer and everything that goes into the production of the farm. i get half the crops and so i get half the government payment. corn is $7. the only government payment has been the direct payment. we have very firm recommendations in the farm program for saving $23 billion that we're making recommendations to the debt reduction committee. one of those would be to do away with the $15 billion of direct payments. if that goes into effect, then charles grassley as a farmer would not get a direct payment. host: silver spring, maryland,

peggy. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am independent but i lean more towards the republican party because i am a conservative. i have a few comments and some questions. one is regarding -- farm subsidies. these are the problems. is the write offs that are the promise. number two, the promise is not social security and medicare. the people who created the system are very smart. the problem is the congressman and senators who have been there forever who are corrupted and are not particularly smart. all they do is spend, spend, spend.

host: we got your points. guest: where she suggested we do away with the mortgage deduction -- was she suggesting we do away with the mortgage deduction? that is what makes the tax code so complicated. she is right. with the flat tax, we would do away with all of those and end up with a flat tax. there's some suggestion that you have to have a higher rate. preserve the mortgage deduction and the charitable deduction. if her word of corruption is violating laws, i hope she knows that i know that if you violate those laws, you're going to go to jail whether you are a congressman or not. host: a few more of the

proposals from the senate finance committee. this is what the senate finance republicans have proposed. changes should apply to younger workers. host: senator, tubes conflicting newspaper reports this morning. "the washington post" sang the debt committee was going nowhere and politico said there were making progress. guest: they have kind of taken a blood oath that they're not going to say too much about what goes in there because they do not want to be negotiating in the press and the do not want

the lobbyists in town coming down on them when some rumor gets out. so even in our republican caucuses, it is difficult to get our three members that are on the committee to say exactly what is going on. but they do talk positively about getting a result. they talk positively from the standpoint -- they encourage us to not be -- how would you say it? -- and not accomplishing more than the $1.5 trillion which a diaz simon for right now. -- which has been assigned

right now. this is about 60% of what everybody knows it needs to be done. it put some off into next year. if you want to build confidence, and that is one of the goals of the super committee, then you want to do enough to build confidence, but if you try to do it all at once and don't get it done, then you could do more harm than good. host: we have a tweet from ronald. guest: the reason you would not take that -- we have had the highest tax rates of any country in the world if we were to do that. what does it accomplish if

you're going to have billionaires pay in on every penny they have and they draw out accordingly? then what you accomplish? on a ponzi scheme, in a sense, this is what it is legitimate to call it a ponzi scheme. but i did not use that word. i'm not going to complaint with anybody that does use that word. i drop 100% of benefits out of social security today. but my grandchildren will only draw 70% of benefits. the reason for that is that once used up, the law says you cannot pay out what the cash flow is. it is a ponzi scheme when people

that are paying in today are not going to get out according to what i get out, compared to what i paid it in my lifetime. host: republican from iowa -- next call for senator grassley comes from a republican in vista, california, jules. caller: hi there. i'm from iowa originally. guest: when did you leave iowa? caller: 1956. guest: you need to go back to fairfield. caller: i went back about eight years ago. what i saw was it didn't look that prosperous to me. all the factories have closed down. all the things that i knew as a

youngster were pretty much gone. guest: you would be surprised a number of entrepreneurs -- caller: i have to argue with you about that. do you remember a college? do you know what it is now? it looks like a compound. it doesn't like a college anymore. host: what is your question? caller: social security depends on how many people you got paying into ait, right? i come from a family of seven. i assume -- i hope there will all pay into social security.

if you have one or two children, how do hope to collect? guest: he is bring up a key point. today, dobie after 2036. today there are about three are-- today, that would be after 2036. it would be worse in the united states if we do not have the legal immigrants coming into this country. and if we did not have some illegal immigrants. i do not like illegal immigration. we're not as bad off as your europe. 1.3 per family.bout

japan is even less. china was a tremendous problem. we have people that want to come here and work and be productive and pay taxes, so it is not quite as bad. he brings up an important points. host: we have an e-mail from new jersey. guest: it is a simple matter. when people who of worked for 40 years pay into the system, they don't have time to adjust. we suggest 55 or even 50, and

any changes will start affecting them at that age or younger. if you were 66 today and tomorrow we would change the retirement age to 67, maybe you would quit your job. what are you going to do? you can get social security for another year -- you cannot get social security for another year. caller: i wonder if the senator has any economic predictions. i'm hearing the commercial budget office is predicting unemployment rate will remain 9% for another two years at least and that economic growth will be anemic 1%, maybe be ane2%.

is the sinner concerned about this -- is the senator concerned about this? guest: i am not an economist. there is some private economists that would say we will have unemployment getting below 8% in 2013, but it will still be relatively high. you have to create a least 150,000 jobs every month so does not get worse. he says his question, am concerned? yes. that's why i concentrated at the beginning of the program at the what the super committee has to do and what we have to help them do, we have to promote economic growth and have tax policies and

regulatory policies and fiscal policies and trade policies that promote economic growth. if this economy does not grow, you're not going to create these jobs. the caller calls and and lot of people are calling in and think, let's put people on the government payroll. hire more teachers. government consumes wealth. you are not going to get economic growth by putting more people on the government payrolls. you have to great private sector jobs. that is where the growth comes. you have to have competitiveness to do that. that is the tax policies and spending policies that the debt commission is going through. all this build confidence in the future. so i would say to the caller

from michigan, one quantitative measure of the fact that government has to create a better competitive environment is the fact that there are $2 trillions in corporate treasuries and they are not making any money on that. it is just sitting there. they want to hire people. they want to build plants and equipment. they're not spending it because they do not know what government is going to do to them. we have the highest tax increase. we have -- we have 66,000 pages of new regulations out of the administration just this year. we have this big budget deficit that congress is responsible for. all of this overspending and all

this consequences of the tax policy coming down the road and the big health-care reform bill, corporations are not hiring because they do not know what congress is going to do to them or what the president is going to do to them. we have to build confidence. we have to say that taxes cannot call when we have a recession. the president said that before he was sworn in. we are expanding our trade. that is a positive thing to do. host: muammar gaddafi dies of wounds in libya. reuters.a story from write he was wounded in both legs as

he tried to flee in a convoy which nato airplanes attack. guest: is better than an arrest and trial -- it is better than an arrest and trial. this will keep libya from unifying. i believe this will bring about a stronger libya and hopefully a more democratic libya. they will not have him as a ruler for 42 years whether he is behind bars or in some foreign country. maybe we can go back to the pro-gaddafi years. that is what many people are hoping for. host: any thoughts if you were shot by nato airplanes? guest: nato is legally into it based on the u.n. regulations. if there's any question about

whether that's right or wrong, we were involved there under international law bank legallle. france and italy. host: senator grassley is learning this as we're learning this. those are preliminary remarks. we don't want to force him to keep his remarks in case he has other ones later. please go ahead. caller: on social security, president obama this year it has cut fica tax for the employee by 50%. the jobs bill next year cuts the fica tax by 50%. if you're out on the table bleeding out four pints of blood a minute and you're only in fusing two pints of blood a

minute, how long do you think you have to survive? as far as job creation -- host: how was senator grassley killing off social security? caller: he is not. president obama is. you create jobs if you create a demand for the product. you spend all this money by giving tax breaks and anything else you want. until the company has a product to sell, they do not need to hire anybody else. host: what about the remark that president obama is responsible for killing off social security? guest: i disagree with that. on demand, he is right that point.

president obama's plan and congress, if we go along with it, the amount of money that feet 2% reduction in the payroll tax for one year is going to be taking out of the general fund and put into the social security fund. the total amount of money will remain the same. host: next call, we have about 10 minutes left, elizabeth, new york, frank. caller: good morning. a pleasure to speak with you. there are incentives for large corporations to move jobs to foreign countries. the reasons for that -- there

should be a penalty of some sort for corporation that is doing well here and has built a reputation and made a lot of money in the united states shipping your job and my job to perot, canada, wherever -- to peru. social security under the new deal was never meant to be a primary retirement system. it was meant to be a base, a basic system where you had something when you retired. would you agree that maybe as families and as americans, we're not planning properly? we're depending too much on what was meant to be a social safety net? we're depending on it to guide us through the long years of our

life. guest: he is right on the last point, that people are not saving enough and social security was meant to be one part of a three-part savings plan. it was meant to dovetail in with the second leg for pensions. the third would be personal savings. the extent to which people are not involved in a retirement he is right, they are not saving enough. there is more savings in the past six years than in the past three years before that, but it is still probably not enough to supplement it. about a third of the people and retirement that get 100% of the retirement from social security.

so they did not save beyond that. it is difficult to tell frank in new jersey that if caterpillar is moving eggplant overseas because labor is cheaper and they want to be able to manufacture a better product, that john deere could not do that. we don't have laws in this country that say that if peter, if you retired and you wanted to find a lower tax country to move there, will not pass a law saying you could not move to another country. that is not how we operate in this country. we believe in political freedom and that is applicable to corporations as well.

we could keep more of these corporations in this country if we take care of some problems that we have in this country of white people go overseas. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%. even socialist countries are reducing their tax rate to corporations. we have a lawsuit regime in this country than most other countries do not have. manufacturers have to build that cost into the product. tort reform would help. the cost of health insurance programs are expensive. if we do something about that. all the government regulation we have makes it difficult for our manufacturers to be competitive sometimes. there's a lot we could do in this country to make our manufacturing more competitive. i think you see that in agriculture.

we have become competitive in agriculture and that is why our products -- we export about a third of our agricultural products and unfairly competitive basis. host: the deficit reduction committee is looking for $1.4 trillion. the committee must vote on a plan by the wednesday before thanksgiving. host: there are some schools of thought that perhaps it would be the easier way to allow the automatic cuts to take place. guest: it would devastate the defense operations. it would make the united states very -- all we do through

military and the protection it gives to the american people would be hurt if that happened. that is a big reason the committee will come to a recommendation, i believe. host: we have a tweet. guest: no. we're looking for a competitive environment. small business creates 70% of the new jobs in america. much of the people that make more than the $250,000 that the president proposes for a big tax increase at the end of next year are small business people. small business people create 25% of the jobs in america. so why if you want to get unemployment down what you want a tax employment?

that is what you would be doing in the case of small business. it is necessary to follow the rule if you tax something you get less of it. you don't want to tax employment. it is small business operates on cash flow. you increase taxes on small business and it takes money out of cash flow. there will be less money to hire people. corporations can borrow and float more stock. small businesses don't have the leeway. host: ted in hammond, oregon. caller: this is mr. sweet spot, mr. plummer. we have talked before. let say congratulations to the

nato air strike. i'm an old air force veteran. a remember when the f-111 flew to libya to drop bombs on gaddafi's tent. i understand that senator kyl and senator coburn, they are due to retire. when i was in the air force, i would not have to go 20 years for retirement. i guess the base wage of a senator is $175,000 and change a year. democrats and republicans are due to retire. do you think a senator is worth that much money on a pension?

guest: they would have to serve more than 20 years. so kyl and kay bailey hutchison would not qualify for the maximum. coburn was just reelected and he is not going to retire. the maximumw retirement is $139,000. some people get crazy information of the internet that says, if you served in the congress six years, one term as a senator and you're going to retire at full pay. that is absolutely wrong. should a retirement of congressman and every federal employee be changed to some degree?

everything should be on the table when it comes to deficit reduction. host: last call for senator grassley, from albany, new york. lynn. caller: good morning. i want to ask two questions. one is about the flat tax. my concern is that businesses take deductions for salaried employees. the ceo's making $30 million a year annually -- that is a business expense that is written off. is that adjusted or businesses going to continue to be allowed to deduct salaries that are outrageous? guest: the flat tax is on personal sales at the retail

level. so whenever the national sales tax is, that is -- no. she is talking about the income- tax. i'm sorry. the flat tax -- there would not be any deductions except for personal -- like for a family of four, the first $35,000 would be deductible. the flat tax applies to personal income. it would not affect the corporate tax. you could have a -- we're talking about individual tax. the corporate tax would not be affected if we have a flat tax individual. you are wrong about the 13,000, if a ceo gets paid $13,000.

the tax law allows $1.5 million to be deducted as a corporate expense. that was put in in 1993 with the idea that would limit corporations from paying their ceo's $30 million, as you suggested. it did not stop us because they found other ways of getting around it. -- of paying their ceo's $13 million. we will pay them a lot more even if we cannot deduct it. or we will give them the ability to buy stock at a low rate. it is impossible sometimes to necessarily accomplish what you want to. we thought we were accomplishing no ceo getting paid more than $1.5 million.

but sometimes they are worth more than $1.5 million and we have to happen to protect the work force we have and to protect the stockholders host:. senator chuck grassley was just reelected with 65% of the i will vote -- of the i will vote. -- of the iowa vote. guest: i have to move to the next committee i was most senior in. i am the first non lawyer to be ranking member of the do this year committee. host: to seize personal proposal or the agriculture committee's proposals to the debt commission, you can go to is website, grassley.senate.gov. thank you for being on tehe

"washington journal." guest: they will find more recommendations. there's a lot of ways we can save specific amounts of money. . host: coming up, dr. norman coleman, he is in charge of medical preparedness in case of a nuclear attack. we'll talk to him about those issues after we speak with representative don edwards -- representative don edwards -- donna edwards. >> muammar gaddafi was trying to flee sirt when he was attacked. some reports say he was captured and wounded in both legs. other reports say he is dead.

the state department cannot confirm media reports on the capture or killing of muammar gaddafi. sounds of gunshots being heard in the capital tripoli. people are cheering in the streets. secretary of state clinton was in libya a day ago. today she is in afghanistan where earlier in a news conference she call for a new three-way partnership between the u.s., afghanistan, and pakistan, outlined a fresh fight strategy ended at ending the war in afghanistan. secretary clinton will soon lead a delegation in talks with pakistan in leaders. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> it is to me obvious that

until further notice, every decision the government makes, every close call should be made in favor of economic growth. every tie should be broken. >> he worked as an adviser in the reagan white house, and as governor of indiana, he implemented spending cuts they're produced a billion dollar budget surplus. sunday night, mitch daniels on his new book and its decision not to run as president. >> because i am a businessman, of which i am very proud and was formerly connected with a large company, there has been opposition. they have attempted to picture me as an opponent of liberalism. but i was a liberal before many of those men heard the word, and i fought for the reforms of theodore roosevelt

and woodrow wilson before another roosevelt adopted and distorted the word "liberal." >> he was a member of the democratic party for over 20 years, switching in 1940. wendell willkie sought and won the republican nomination for president. and although he lost the election, he left his mark in political history, speaking out for civil rights, becoming the foreign ambassador for his former opponent, franklin roosevelt. wendell willie is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series "the contenders," live from indiana, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now on your screen is donna edwards from maryland. what your thoughts about the death of muammar gaddafi? guest: this is been a long haul.

the capacity of nato to provide the kind of air cover and technical support that allows to make a determination and that is what is happened here in libya and think it will be a new day for libya. host: that is donna edwards talking about muammar gaddafi. we invited her also to talk about the debt committee. -- u.s.member of the sent letters to the debt reduction committee talking about what you would like to see done. one of those included no changes to medicare. atst: i think we're looking medicare and saying if you confine ways in which you can strengthen medicare the reforms, that is one thing. but not to cut benefits.

asking seniors are those with disabilities to reach more deeply into their own pockets to pay additional amounts for medicare. i think we can do that and still meet our obligations. on the revenue side, if weak dollar rid of the tax cuts for the wealthiest one% and 2%, it frees up a lot of money or we don't have to have seizures and those on disability to meet cost they cannot need. host: there is a school of thought about whether the automatic cuts should go into place if the committee cannot agree and congress cannot agree as well. what do you think? guest: the way the law was structured, equal cuts for defense and non-defense discretionary spending. i do not want to show the american public that we continue to be dysfunctional congress that cannot figure about how to

manage our budget and spend our resources. i would rather get to making the appropriate cuts and making sure we have a balance of revenue so that we can meet our obligations. host: the reproval rating of congress is that 13% -- the approval rating. guest: i started reading a biography and reading about some of those times and thinking that in terms of the vision that all of our founders have had for the government, a vision that was representative of people. we have to get back to a time where people have confidence in our decision making and confidence in us as leaders. i think we ought to the american people to do that. host: we will put the numbers on

the screen if you like to call in and talk with donna edwards. 202-737-0001 for republicans. 202-737-0002 for democrats. 202-628-0205 four independents independents.nde where are your strengths when it comes to taking back congress or increasing your representation? guest: we're talking to the american people about our values and about creating jobs in this economy and focusing on what is good for americans and not just what is good for politics.

i have been participating and we have dozens and dozens of candidates across this country running in competitive districts. i am confident we will regain the gavel for nancy pelosi said that we can't put it in the hands of someone -- this is an exciting time. there will be a lot of activity in the states. host: you need to pick up 25 seats. guest: there are a couple of seats where we have strong candidates. our governor has finis redistricting in maryland and i felt confident we'll be able to there, ase you see ta seat well. host: roscoe barlett.

guest: and in other places around this country. some of our members who were defeated in the 2010 cycle are coming back. people like ann kilpatrick in arizona. these are strong candidates in places where there's a compelling place to be made for democrats. host: donna edwards is our guest. sun"s a map "the baltimore this morning. if you could talk about how this affects you personally. your district is number four, which is just south of washington, d.c. how has your district changed? and looks like its name

throughth the green. is that how your district would change? guest: i describe it as a parrot with your moear muffs. there's a state along a road way that goes over to anne arundel county and moving over towards the east. i can explain that. i look forward to running in the fourth congressional district and learn moing more. host: how much does this change your current district? guest: it does not changed that much. i think it drops about 12 points in democratic performance. it picks up anne arundel county which is more conservative than the district.

i have all of montgomery county. i had a concern about the map and concerns about the representation of montgomery county. there is diversity in the county out senate was the, d.c., -- outside of washington, d.c. we will get three democrats in those congressional districts. host: donna edwards is our guest. go ahead, tim. caller: it is h street to talk with you -- it is a treat to talk with you. i think that we to tax the rich in this case. that is where the money has gone.

they have cut back on profit sharing, they of cutback people's hours and benefits. i know that you notice, but people do not know that you have to understand where you're coming from to know where you're going. a lot of people to realize that the things that were done in the past in the new deal times, other black people cannot participate. therefore they could not get the middle class values of the middle class education necessary to participate in the economy today much less the coming of the future. i hope that congress in the future will look at ways of doing something where everyone can participate. ut no that was dr. king's

dream envision, that everyone would be able to participate. guest: there was a thoughtful statement. many of us understand that you can learn from your past. that's why i'm in favor of a robust investment of our nation's infrastructure in rebuilding it. this time we make sure there are jobs and opportunities for all americans across a number of sectors. if you make $1 billion in investment, you create 35,000 new jobs. that is why i support the president's american jobs act. we have to get the economy rolling again. it is not fair to ask 90%, 99% of us to bear the burden when others have shared in the wealth

but need to share in rebuilding the nation. that seems like a fair portion. host: the c-span 2012 bus is in texas today and visiting stony point texas about 20 miles north of austin, texas. we have a group of students on the bus the want to ask you some questions. these are honor students and we're going to start with a question a fromle alex gray on the c-span campaign bus right now. good morning. caller: good morning. the occupied movement has gained national and world wide attention. do you support this movement? what you propose to address their grievances? guest: thank you for your question.

we get more thoughtful questions sometimes from our young people. in pursuit ofding " reason," a biography of thomas jefferson. one of the early points in the book says that thomas jefferson and patrick henry and some others decided that it would engage in fasting in support of their compatriots in massachusetts who were protesting the taea tax. the idea with this mass movement is really a deep part of our history. it is calling attention to the gaps that a been created by people who of made a lot of money, whether on wall street or this economy. it has been at the expense of working people and the expense of young people who do not have

the ability to see their dreams. host: michael is a republican in atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning. calling from generations of farmers, i was felt simple solutions work best. do you feel that -- this can be found in a government program? if everyone was working that most of our problems would be eliminated, if americans built superior products, everybody america.nt midamericmade in guest: what a great question. thanks to our farmers.

it is true that i think you can find ways in just about anything. i work in the private sector and i have worked for nonprofits. none of us wants to spend import taxpayer resources on things that are inefficient and wasteful. there are things that government can and should do that will benefit the people. i will give you one idea. if we invested more heavily in research and development -- we used to have the highest research and develop credit in the world and now we're down to number 17. what if we were to make those investments and we were to marry that with manufacturing? then you would get a benefit because that is a value to the american people. then you put americans back to

work. people are working and contribute to social security and medicare and our roads and bridges and infrastructure and i think we'll have a better nation for it. host: donna edwards went to wake forest university. now we go back to texas and our next didnstudent. caller: good morning. what is your opinion about the amount of government subsidies that are dedicated to the development of an varmint approval of the economy -- of the environmental approval of the economy? guest: one of the things we focus on our how can the united states government make deeper investments into scientific

research that will improve our ability to compete in a greek economy? most of the technology -- compete in a green economy. most of the technology for the solar panels came from the united states. we invented the technology. all the work and life sciences and earth sciences the contributory understanding about what it means to be green -- i have been interested in the idea of green infrastructure to make sure that we have saved water supplies. these will help us be more competitive and more efficient and do great things for our environment. host: what do think about the investigation into solyndra? guest: there is none of us that

would agree that was a bad loan. i was just out at the home of the washington redskins were another company installed 8000 solar panels. they were the beneficiaries of one of the same loans. they're building and installing solar panels. just because of one bad apple does not mean you throughout the program. when we spend taxpayer money, we should do in a smart way that we don't do it based on politics. more power to the investigation. host: frank on are independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. good morning. gerrymandering is strange indicative of the kind of politics we have going on today.

you showed the map earlier. i have not been a republican since 1992. i believe you have to start playing dirty because people on the other side are coming out of the sioux ewer. i believe the democratic leadership has to be stronger. we need people who are strong in there. guest: what a great point. i do not mind gerrymandering whether it is republican or democratic. i think there's a difference between republicans and democrats in the direction that we want to take this country. i think we have to be forceful and in fact about what those differences are. when we point out differences to the american people, we allow

them to make better choices when it comes to the polls. i have the values that i share with fellow democrats about protecting social security and medicare and medicaid. i think these are important argument to make to the american people. adon't think anybody calls me patsy for a fight. host: we are pleased to have 10 students with us on the c-span campaign bus, which is making a stop in texas. . is our next student. caller: i was wondering what message is being used to fix this economic distribution.

guest: another great question. i don't know we're doing the right thing to make sure that we secure the ink, and equality. 22 million people are children that live below the poverty line. we have the lowest median incomes that we have seen in a couple of decades. the gap between both sides is growing wider. look at a tax structure that rewards the kind of wealth. we have to flip that. host: all in the, virginia -- arlington, virginia. caller: good morning. thank you figure service -- to what for your service -- thank

you for your service. you mentioned the biography of thomas jefferson. i was hoping you would comment on the founding fathers and thomas jefferson's view of the role and size of government. guest: thank you for the question. i think the founding fathers intended -- they created a constitution that could be amended and we have done that to correct our imperfections. i think there recognize there's a balance between the role of the federal government and the state government. they tried to incorporate that in the constitution. we should reflect on what that balance should be. there are things like our social security system, where we recognize that it was important

for all of us to be able to contribute into a system that had a baseline for americans for their retirement security. it did not mean all the retirement has to be in social security. there was a baseline. this is the kind of baseline our founding fathers are striking and is a debate of our history and will continue to have that debate about the relative role or not of the federal government. it is important for our structure and sometimes we get it right and sometimes we do not. host: rachel is the student adviser and we thank her for help and we think our cable porter down there, time warner, .or setting this up -- caller: the midterm election was the first time that women had not made substantial gains in congress. why do you think that congress. why beeping that is?

guest: it was really disturbing. i know when i decided to run for congress, my son was grown and ready to go to college. i think people make decisions in different ways. i have been on the recruitment committee for the democratic congressional campaign committee. we were looking for women candidates who may not be in politics but they may be in business or academia or in other areas, that we need to draw them into the political process. and then the money raising. it is a real challenge. i don't come from money. i did not have money to contribute to my own campaign. when it costs a couple million dollars to run a congressional campaign you need a lot of good people. if we can fix our campaign finance system we would have a lot more diversity. host: what did your campaign in 2010 cost? guest: i really did not have that much competition but the campaign i ran to defeat a long time encumbrance -- income than

the cost a couple million dollars. i started out having to make phone calls. even now, so many of us are calling people asking them for money, i think it takes us away from the business of government. this is the hand we are dealt. we have to play it. but i think this is a system that undermines what we could do for the american people. host: according to the most recent filings, the democratic committee, a congressional committee, republican congressional committee has raised about equal amounts of money. guest: they have. again, it is the system we have so all of us play in it and i do all i can to help the democratic congressional campaign committee so i want to win but i do not think it is a system that necessarily serve as our american people or the process. i would like to see clean elections where candidates can go out and they can get signatures and get a baseline of money to run for congress.

but a system where you have people on the phone hours and hours every single week of every single month calling people and asking them for money really is no way to run a government. host: c-spanjunkie tweets -- of course, the report just came out today about d.c. having the highest wages in the country. guest: washington, d.c., itself also has met third highest poverty rate in the country. you can see even here there is a significant gap between the people who are really struggling and those doing really well. even in the metropolitan washington suburbs, i mean, you do see that the income gaps are really huge. i think that is true all across the country. even though we may be fairing slightly better in terms of

employment. host: donna is a republican in hampton -- in hampton, michigan. caller: i would like to ask you two questions and don't -- please, don't cut me off a bank. do you think the liberal democrats have destroyed the black african families -- i don't like to use the african- american because we are all americans. the second one is, abraham lincoln was a republican who released the slaves, that the southern democrats created. host: got her two points. guest: these are interesting points but i think -- i guess i think most americans get up in the morning and they don't think of themselves as a democrat or republican but they pick themselves as an american. they want to take care of themselves and their families. if they see a road or real -- bridge that needs repair and a do not say it is a republican

democrat bridge. i think we need more people in congress and bali -- body politic thinking like most americans. proud to be african-american, proud to be black american, also proud to be americans. i know you are from hampton and i know the first lady and the president were down there -- host: hampton, michigan. guest: different hampton. i think we are all proud to be americans and i am proud to serve the 4th congressional district and to try to figure out what is best for the american people and working people. host: keith is an independent from long island, new york. caller: i believe the congress woman mentioned she was on the science and technology council. i had a quick question about how that works and how information is passed to congress in general. i am in mathematician. this climate change and the parameters involved.

it kind of disturbs me how it seems like a lot of politicians have a lot of leeway to change the fact or reinterpret them when it seems like there is consensus, whether co2 is a factor or not on how much of a factor. i am curious if you could explain if you guys render some determination, that this is the state of things, please discuss. host: thank you. guest: another good question then i serve on the science and technology committee and we have hearings all the time about these issues. it also happens i live in a county home to the daughter space center where some of the most and for research is taking place across the country -- goddard space center, where some of the most important research is taking place across the country. i believe the body of signs believes there is a human factor. a respected, we are having a problem with climate change and the united states has to do

something about that and we have to figure out ways we can conserve energy, produce more efficient products and not using so many fossil fuels that creates the destruction of the country. we have to believe the science. host: a viewer tweets in --i believe he is referring back to the overseas assassination -- guest: what i will say is i have long been concerned that in the time since 9/11, 2001, we have without fail given up a lot of our rights and ceded those either to the department of justice or defense forces without a lot of examination. i think it is time for us to reexamine what it means to have national security or bank act and the security of the unite

states, but also balance that with our obligations as the citizens and our constitutional rights. i think this is the right time for examination because i think it has disturbed me as well as others, that even though he is a bad guy, he is an american citizen and there is something distinct about that as opposed to going to other bad actors around the world. host: we will return to high school. we have 10 minutes left. allison is our next students. >> good morning, representative edwards. i saw that you voted against nafta -- nasa's expansion. guest: i do not recall that. i have been a supporter of nasa and our space program. long before i came to congress i was a systems engineer working

for lockheed martin at nasa so i feel really strongly that investments in nasa actually really pay off for the future. i have been a really strong supporter of our investments in the space telescope, which some in congress recommended cutting, because i think it is in the cutting edge of astrophysics, and we have to make those investments in technology that resound to other kinds of technology and innovation in the larger economy. host: sometimes campaign commercials such as so and so voted against this or for that and you can't remember this -- where could have possibly have been that allison found this information? guest: i don't know. it could have been an overall budget package where there were other budget issues. i think if you go back to my record, every time there have been proposals to cut various

sorts of nasa funding and programs, usually it takes place in an amendment process and i probably voted against them. i am going to go look it up. i know my staff is listening right now and they will do the same thing, because if i think if you would ask people at nasa, both in the private sector and agency, i have been a strong proponent. host: alison, thank you so much for that question. sam is another students at stony point. your question for congressman edwards. >> what specifically does the democratic party planned by -- to accomplish when described by the "new york times calls " that big business and the worker are suffering -- will be the ones to spur economic recovery? guest: you have to strike a balance between the things we have to invest in as government and ways in which the private

sector will jump on. we are in a tough economy and i think it calls for government investment, for example, in infrastructure. i described it as before. if it is the roads and bridges and water and sewer systems and broadband and those sort of things that then began to spur of the private sector economy. we also have to call on business to release their capital. i want some of these financial institutions to make loans to the small businesses that are in my congressional district. those are the businesses that want to hire people but they can't because they can't get the capital. host: boston, massachusetts. don edwards is our guest. caller: good morning, ms. edwards. i would like to talk about how we got to where we are. right after world war ii, the american taxpayers produced the marshall plan which financed and rebuilt europe and in doing so america also placed a protective umbrella over that whole

continent, protecting those countries, which allowed them the luxury of not having to pay for a standing army because we protected them. as an abundant -- unintended consequence, america subsidized europe's ability to produce socialized medicine, to produce free tuition in college, and in certain industries, four to six weeks of vacation, and a litany of other candidates. consequently, -- host: we got the background. could you give us your question, please? caller: what i would like is -- i will finish in about 20 seconds. host: we need the question or that we have to move on. i apologize. caller: i feel that although we have no more money to spend and

we can't finance anything anymore, in the mid-1960s we produced the great society and we elevated the debt limit 70 times to pay for it. host: we got the point. guest: part of the point that bill and other raise is what is our relative role in responsibility with the europeans and then meeting more of their responsibilities, but it also gives the question of what our role in response the the is in places like afghanistan, where we have been there 10 years and trying to rebuild their roads and infrastructure. i think americans are saying we need to rebuild our roads and infrastructure and focus on that. not that we can't pay attention to what happens in the rest of the world and can't play a moderating role but it is time for us to focus on rebuilding this country, making us competitive, getting people back to work, making things in the united states, and then we have

much more to do the kinds of things we want as the premier leader of the world. host: rachel johnson is another one of the international baccalaureate honor students. guest: good morning. my question is, do you think technology in the classroom wall held education become more effective and less expensive? guest: oh, my goodness, rachel. of course it is. i have been a huge but to make sure we have the latest technology in the classroom. what disturbs me is there are schools and our congressional districts that don't have broadband. it is across the country in urban areas and rural areas which prevents the students from using the 21st technology they need to compete. we have to upgrade the classroom

so we have the best available technology in the classroom, making sure our teachers are really trained in those fields and they can get the training out to the students. and i think then we will prepare our young people to be competitive in this century. host: if you could get your reaction to this. the number of people applying for unemployment benefits declined slightly last week, leaving applications above levels consistent with a healthy economy. the labor department reports weekly applications dropped 6000 to a seasonally adjusted 403,000. applications are slowly moving down. guest: i think this is good news for the administration, the president, and for americans, as we continue to be -- although slow growth, on the road to recovery in this economy. now the question is whether the

united states congress will have the courage to come forward with programs and things that will really stimulate the economy. so, that is really good news. i know americans would actually see those numbers even more robust as we move forward in the coming quarter. host: we have three students we have not had a chance to talk to. we will try to get one more in. this is steven, a student at stony point. caller: good morning, representative edwards. i question is, many companies are moving to foreign countries for more efficiencies and production and increase profit margins and keeping their profits and foreign banks and not bringing them to the u.s. did to the 30% high tax the have to pay and they want a lower tax rate in order to bring their money back into the u.s. the you think the government should lower the tax rate for these companies in order for them to bring their money back to the u.s.? guest: it depends.

i think it depends on how the money will come back and whether it will actually be invested back into the economy where it will be held. i don't have a problem with figuring out a way to repatriate that money, but also to make sure there is real and messman made into this economy. it may be an important balance to be struck. host: let's go back to politics for the final question. president obama, his approval rating is down, lower than it has ever been before. a couple of front page political stories in the local newspapers about how senate democrats are steering away from him in the next campaign. the front-page story this morning about your fellow progressive and maxine waters causing trouble for the white house. what do you think about his political fortunes and those of the democratic party? >guest: one, i think how the

president does is important for how we do in regaining the house of representatives, and i think my focus is really making the case, as the president does, about the need to invest in jobs and in the american public. i think when we made the case strongly, and while the president of's approval may be down now, i actually think that these numbers coming out, for example, from the department of labor, and the more we focus on rebuilding the economy, the stronger we will be, politically and economically. i am looking forward to present a bomb at the top of the ticket and i know all the candidates across the country will do the same thing. host: don edwards is in her third term, democrat of maryland -- donna edwards. and we want to thank the students at stony point high school in round rock, texas, and a student adviser and a cable

partner time warner for helping put the students on the air and ask questions of congresswoman edwards. the bus is 20 miles north of austin, texas, but by tomorrow it will be in austin, texas, because this weekend is the texas book festival and booktv will be live from the texas book festival all weekend. you can go to booktv.org to get a full schedule of events will be covering in austin. one more segment, and it is a look at the preparations the u.s. government is making and the case of nuclear or radiation fallout. that is our next segment after this news update from c-span reappeared >> unemployment figures in this hour shows the number of people apply for benefits declining slightly last week. the labor department says weekly applications dropped 6000. still, application's need to fall consistently below 375,000, and they are now under 400,000,

-- over 400,000, to signal stable core -- job growth. an agreement reached between delegates to an informal conference between relation between north and south korea recommends the rise in the past agreement to cooperate on food aid, reuniting families and recovering troops missing in action. the announcement comes as the obama administration gets ready for a new round of talks. greece is set to get another $11 billion bailout from the european union to help with its debt crisis. the greek parliament votes today on a new round of austerity measures. more than 10,000 people have gathered near parliament and clashes have broken out, leading police to fire tear grass and sunday -- stun grenades on this second day of a general strike that has virtually paralyzed the country. >> it is just to me very obvious that with all the priorities we have -- and they are all worthy

-- until further notice, any decision the national government makes, every close call, should be made in favor of economic growth. every tie should be broken in favor of growth of the private sector. >> he worked as an advisor in the reagan white house, 01 b director in george w. bush paucity of ministration and as governor of indiana he produced a billion dollar budget surplus. sunday night, mitch daniels on his new book, the economy, and his decision to not run for president in 2012. 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> because i was a former businessman and formally connected with a large company, the opposition have attempted to picture me as an opponent of liberalism. but i was a liberal but for many of those men have heard the word, and i have fought for the

reforms of theodore roosevelt and woodrow wilson before another roosevelt adopted and distorted the words liberal. >> he was a member of the democratic party for more than 20 years, switching in 1940. he saw and won the republican nomination for president. although he lost the election, he left his mark and political history, speaking out for civil rights, becoming the former -- foreign ambassador for his former opponent roosevelt. one of 40 men featured on "the contenders." live from indiana, live at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is dr. norman cole and, with the health and human services' office of preparedness where he stands -- norman coleman, with the health and human services department. what is it that you do?

guest: my primary drawback hhs, a senior medical advisor, which means i am a scientist. a permanent job as with the national cancer institute where i am still involved in basic science research, and my expertise and radiation by law -- biology -- i am a cancer physician. in 2004 they needed someone to put together a plan for radiologic nuclear response. since 2004 i have been working 75% jobs, almost two jobs at hhs, but together plans for the nuclear and radiologic response. host: in putting the plan together, what are the building blocks? guest: because the cold war had ended a there was very little investment in radiation and very little to worry about with nuclear attacks.

in 2004 we were asked to do this, there had not been very much done. we put together -- it is a very complex system. we put together a plan that puts everything, the idea from the most basic science of radiation to what people should be able to do if an incident happens, to how to orchestrate the response. how to develop tools for responders that can actually do what they needed to do, to where we could actually get individual care down to any person in a recent event to needed it. it is a very complex system in the past seven or eight years, where the country has preparation now for a nuclear response. host: would this be in response to a leak like what happened in japan for an attack? guest: the approach was interesting. we figured if you could take care of the most difficult problem, you could subsume more of a lesser problems.

the responses to declared that nation, one of the 15 scenarios, and we figured if you have the tools to take care of that you could certainly use these skills and tools elsewhere. the answer or is, we would like to subsume all of those of the experience in the united states and developing a nuclear and radiologic plans was very helpful when the incident in japan came. host: if you took a nagasaki- type bomb and exploded that within 20 or 30 miles of washington, what would happen? guest: we have had a lot of modeling. what is interesting, a lot of the nagasaki bomb information and nuclear bomb information from the cold war was -- the nevada test site. we are working with a really superb people at the national labs and the threat reduction agency. we actually have models of what a 10 ^ ton device would create

if it went on in an urban center. takes into account all the buildings and all of that. we have very, very good models on which to build a response plan. so, if something happens -- they are all disasters, obviously. right in the center we had the severe damage with infrastructure damage. realizet people don't is there would be a lot of injuries that have no radiation at all, from the effects of the blast, loss and the power grid, car accidents, broken glass. the radiation itself may go out the half a mile in the blast, the shock wave will go out farther, and then a radiation plume what the fallout that would go in a certain direction. part of the planning, which is quite interesting, is casualties

with injury but no radiation and a certain number of people potentially exposed to fallout but have no casualties at all. value with people with multiple injuries is true for some but not for a lot of people who could be potentially affected. host: if that bomb were to hit washington, how many people would die and how many people do you predict would died later of radiation exposure? guest: so, it depends, it depends on the size of the device and where it goes. probably 60,000 up to 100,000 immediate casualties. a lot of people potentially in the plumes own, 40,000 or 45,000 people in the plume that would have potentially high enough radiation those who would actually died of radiation. the other people further down wind would have to worry about the later effects of radiation. the immediate at facts and the

later of facts. a lot of are planning has been how do you get the best treatment -- how you set up response so responders know what to do, the medical devices know what to do. how do you said everything up so you can meet the needs of the different subsets -- those with combined injuries, radiation only to, those who have trauma only. a very complex system but we have come along way toward organizing this. host: we are going to put the phone numbers up on the screen if you would like to talk to doctor: -- coleman -- dr. coleman, you were recently in japan after the tsunami. what did we learn from that nuclear accident? guest: this is the first time in

major nuclear accident happened that was monitored in real time in a very sophisticated country. the japanese did a spectacular job. the number of dead and injured is 15,000 people killed by the earthquake and a tsunami and another 5000 loss. but the real disaster was the earthquake and tsunami. what we learned is how the radiation incident plays out. some of the most important things we learned is people don't really understand radiation. it is hard enough for us experts so you cannot expect the public to understand it. a lot of what we ended up doing is really education. how we can measure it, how to detect it, what people can do to protect themselves, and to answer questions of legitimate concern. it was very informative in that regard. the other thing that we learned is that despite whatever the catastrophe is, these are

really health and medical events primarily. when bad things happen, people worry about their health. the way we did decision making in medicare was really different from how it is often done in other sectors. for medical care, you have a situation, you have to analyze it and make some decision and you have to move forward. i think we learned a lot about management and communication from this. host: dr. coleman got his m.d. from yale in 1970 and received his undergraduate from mathematics at the university of vermont and he spent time as a professor of oncology at stanford university, and this was in the late 1970's and 1980's. how has the study of oncology changed from 1978 when you started teaching, from today? guest: it has really trained tremendously. i did my initial training at the national cancer institute and i

am trained in medical and radiation and ecology. we knew some of the cancer biology. we did sort of the best you can. we put together a combination of drugs just been developed. where we on -- are now is beginning to understand the blueprint of what cancer is. we understand at the molecular level what are lesions and what is driving them. for example, breast cancer is not breast cancer, there are many subsets' based on how it looks under the microscope, but also as you profile lead and take it out and study the genes. personalize medicines it is one -- is one area, if you can understand a person's disease at the clinical level, where it actually is, and also at the molecular level, driving the mutation, you can begin to have the treatment that is much more specific for that patient rather

than all breast cancer patients getting one treatment or another. it is a long way to go. it is spectacularly interesting. it is almost a whole new level of complexity that we understand this disease. host: in japan, how many people actually got radiation sickness or how many people died of radiation? guest: the answer is probably zero for both, interestingly. the japanese did -- a nuclear power plant gives you a warning. it does not all explode at once. it begins to melt down. or for the reactor to begin to spillover. you do have warnings. the japanese, and we would do, and that the way the area right nearby. get people out of the way before the flume gets there. and then have the interdiction zone where you say, you can stay there, but don't drink the water or don't need the food until we check out to see if there is

radiation. the japanese did a superb job, considering their infrastructure was destroyed by a tsunami an earthquake. they evacuated people only other people left were the workers in the power plant. they had maybe three or four people who had doses even close to that. as far as we know there has not been a single death, there has not been a single person who needed to be treated for a cheap radiation syndrome. there are some people worried about exposure to radiation -- a radioactive iodine. they need a potassium iodide. very little acute injuries from radiation. surprising to most people. host: dr. norman coleman, serves as a senior medical advisor.

peter on our republican line. you are on with dr. coleman. caller: good morning. i am old enough to remember the world war ii f x of atomic radiation. has there been any use of the studies made in the 1960's on radiation -- chernobyl, three mile island, and for the japanese earthquake and radiation fallout from the plants, the effects of that situation will not be available for 20 years, as was the result of chernobyl and what were ii and three mile island. there is no sense making predictions today on what will happen 20 years from now and complimenting people in japan on the great job. the effect will come out in 20 years, good and bad. guest: thank you for that question. the answer is, we have made incredible use of all of the information from what were ii, chernobyl. the people who are most expert on the brake -- radius and effects are the japanese.

the question i was addressing is whether there were acute deaths from radiation, and the answer is there were not. what one worries about next is the probabilistic and sex of, if you had radiation exposure, does it enhance any other chronic illnesses, does it enhance your risk of having radiation-induced cancer, and a big study is being done to follow that. so, the japanese -- we were just in full buchy malware they were planning these major studies -- they are planning to study about 300,000 people who are potentially exposed in or around the zone. you are right, as we say end radiation, late at facts -- effects occur late. they're doing as good a job as a can to follow the people to see if they have any late effects. host: what about his references to chernobyl and 1986, i believe, and tmi in 1979?

guest: we learned a lot about -- we learn there are -- what the potential consequences are. low dose radiation exposure in the environment. it is always better to avoid something than to have to treat it. that is why you set up the introduction zones, where you don't drink the water or eat the food and sunday -- places evacuate it. when i was in fukushima we drove across the no-man's zone, and 10 miles of land not occupied. it is stunning, the effect it has, but the japanese are beginning to occupy some of that. some might not be occupied for many years. some places people are coming back to now. it is a huge social disaster, economic disaster. some of the more important consequences are not from the region itself but the stress of the incident.

people being displaced from homes. a lot of the long-term effects will begin with the potential stress outcomes on people during this incident. host: jim tweets in -- guest: thank you for that. to my knowledge, chernobyl probably is one of the biggest, from the radioactive plume effects. i am not an expert enough of what has happened locally in chernobyl. i was there and it was striking to see the amount of damage in the land not occupied. there is some land that is occupied but i am not of x -- and expert enough to comment. host: is a completely deserted?

guest: the reactors are still working. as far as i know, there are some reactors that are working. the ones that know the down, they are enclosed in a sarcophagus structured to close it. there are people working in the reactor. the town that had the heaviest dose is pretty much not occupied. but it is coming back to life -- there is a wild life. host: are we seeing radiological a facts -- effects? guest: again, i am not the world expert but i know some of this. there were some abnormalities'. the risk of chernobyl is getting into the milk supply, and until they began to cut it off, some people drank the radioactive know, which gives them fired at the melody so you get high

incidence of thyroid abnormalities. but actually a small incident of thyroid cancer. the bad news is you have thyroid cancer, but the good news it is as durable as any other cancer. so the deaths from chernobyl have actually been quite small at this point. one has to keep watching. we know secondary cancers from radiation's on clinical therapy or exposure can come years or been decades later. so, you do lifelong studies. the previous caller asked -- from the hiroshima and nagasaki, life span studies. we are still following people 60 or 70 years later and the information we have is very, very valuable. to approach an incident like this where we approach our own nuclear planning, we take all of the epidemiological information and it goes into the algorithms will develop on who needs to be treated, who needs to be followed. host: do you know how many

survivors of nagasaki and hiroshima are still around? guest: i don't know. they are in the thousands, though. host: he won the 2005 gold medal award from the american society of therapeutic radiation in an apology. florida, rick, your honor. caller: c-span, i just wanted to say this is the most wonderful format for everybody that can speak their mind to the country. it is a beautiful example of democracy. i have a bunch of stuff for you. you being a physician on the front lines of this topic that is usually not addressed, one of the things we really did not want to encounter. one, is the public view of the

blast radius one of the criterion that you want to alert the people to? host: when do you mean by public view? caller: there is security, there is security, and there is protocol and then there is what is disseminated by the people -- you know, getting their news reports, ok? if i had a blast plume coming towards me, i really want to know if the wind direction is going to contaminate meat. i want to know that. second, how are you going to deal with the triage? host: great, let's get an answer and let's walk through what h h s has developed? guest: thank you for those questions. the immediate advice would be to sort of go win, stay in, to in, and that you should try to get

into some kind of reasonable shelter. the major risk is radioactivity carried in the fallout, so you can avoid radiation by time, distance, and shielding. if you have a structure that as good as shielding, it will reduce radiation. if there is a short amount of time, the farther away you can get from the region is better. the one recommendation would do say is if you are in a good house, go into the basin. host: doesn't make a difference? guest: a huge difference. if you are inside one of the major buildings in the basement you will get about 1% or less of the radiation dose you would get if you were out in the street. in fact, you may be stuck in an enclosure for awhile but you may get a very low radiation dose. even people in the hotter zones,

if they were in a good shelter, they may have to stay there for a day or so. it decays -- fallout decays rapidly. so, it goes to about 10% -- every seven hours you are down 10% the level you had before. if you are inside in a reasonable shelter, you really avoid a lot of the radiation. we will get weather patterns information very quickly, so the weather pattern information, we will know which way the wind is blowing. a lot of the radiation that is going to fall down, high-end of dose for acute radiation syndrome for a nuclear blast, would be one hour or an hour and half but after an hour and have you will know the zone of the people at risk for dangerous levels and you will have a lot of information. it is part of our plans.

we developed a protocol called med-map so we know where the plumes are and we develop them -- for medical responders. for triage, that is a big issue. what i think as been particularly good is we take all the information we do and publish it in. -reviewed literature -- peer- reviewed literature. we just published a whole issue ended journal called "disaster medicine and prepared this" and it addresses the scarce resources issues, is how you manage the medical response when there are not enough resources to go around. we deal with triage, even try to bring it down how you can triage

one person depending on the radiation dose, their trauma, and so forth. host: dr. norman coleman is our guest, talking about potential radiation fallout and the government's plans to mitigate that fallout. one of the things he developed in your response plan, in the first 24 hours of that plan, establish a decontamination site, access radiation injury, begin treatment of obvious radiation casualties, activate victim tracking system and activate mass fatality plans. anything there that you can speak to to give us more information on what it means? guest: we expect most medical responders will not spend a lot of time learning about nuclear incidents because it is something they are really very unlikely to face, almost zero probability. what we have developed is what we call just-in-time tools.

whether a website called radiationemergencymedical management -- phe.gov, or if you put in remm google it comes out on top. it has every detail you can and mention about how to manage -- details about medical management, counter meadows -- countermeasures, decontamination. we worked with a group of the radiation injury treatment network, which are medical and he matell logical experts that provide advice and medical care for rhodesian casualties. we try to set up networks of people who that day jobs, but if something happens they can quickly keep in in response mode. host: texas, bud, you are on with dr. norman coleman. caller: i would like to throw as an area out. we have a lot of nuclear power

plants in the east coast, even biological and chemical facilities. recently the canary islands were active volcanically, and there is a scenario that exists where on one of those islands there is a split and it is about to expel a bunch of -- like a year she landslides -- into the ocean. -- like a hero shima landslide into the ocean. eight hours, what do you do with all the nuclear power plants and biological facilities on the east coast, you have a 200-foot tsunami coming your way. guest: thank you for your question. what was interesting in japan, the nuclear power plants actually behaved like they were expected to be saved. they all went through their shutdown procedures. what the real problem was, was the loss of power. so, the earthquake and tsunami

that knocked out power prevented the people from being able to cool the reactors. what we do -- and we have, through health and human services and other response agencies, which had exercises we run through various scenarios. we have a nuclear power plant exercise. in fact, we had one last year -- when the accident happened in japan, the federal government work away through what the nuclear power plant response would look like. we have exercises for nuclear catastrophes, earthquakes. so, we do plan for these things. one can never exactly plan will one is going to see but you can plan for different things, so if something comes up you put all your experience in and you can use it. that is what happened in japan. ,ecause it wasn't a combination all the planets we have done in the different aspects came in

handy -- because it was a combination. department of defense, nuclear regulatory commission, department of energy, all sent experts and it made a big difference on how the japanese were able to deal with this situation. host: this tweet for you -- guest: the nuclear power plant responses are done local, so the nuclear regulatory commission and nuclear power plants worked out with their local communities what kind of plans they would need. the biggest thing is to avoid the plume, so if you are warned about that and you go inside and avoid it, -- things on the

ground that you need to avoid, just don't in just then. i don't know the details of their plans but it is not as outrageous as it seems to be actually able to get some organizations where people can follow instructions, protect themselves from major harm and when things settle down, then did the next steps. host: if there were an accident at indian point or other nuclear plants, is it your office's responsibility to initiate the plan? guest: the power plants are responsible with the nuclear regulatory commission. health and human services is not directly involved. we are involved with any health issues. if they say we need extra medical help for this or that, health and human services, the office of the assistant secretary for repair is a

response, where i work, could provide resources and information. ents: you talk about baseman' being safer. we are on the sixth floor -- if this building were intact and there was fallout, but that help to be in a building? guest: it lands on the roof and the ground. so if you stay away from the roof and the ground, you are better off. if you go inside the building, you have the distance of fact. -- distance effects, and if you go downstairs you would be underground so you will be protected. even inside a car, which we don't recommend, probably shield you from half the radiation. even modest buildings, a wood- frame build and, if you stay and inside you may be will get down to 10%. that is a huge difference. not that we recommend getting a

dose -- but between getting a dose or one of the long-term worry, it is a big difference. actually some fairly easy steps can help you do that. host: is it all about inhalation? guest: once the plume is down, that is it, and then the fallout on the ground is what you worry about. initially, getting people out of the plume, giving them inside will prevent the inhalation of the fallout. host: washington, d.c., go ahead. guest: thank you, dr. coleman. i don't understand why the government does not stockpile and distributes potassium iodide especially in high-risk areas of terrorist attacks like washington and new york? potassium iodide is cheap, recognized as an effective, but as the top -- by the time you try to react it will be too late. it could save lives, especially

kids lives. in high risk times, supplies often run out so i don't know why the government does not stockpile and distribute some quantities to community groups and especially schools in a dance of emergency and high risk areas? every elementary school and i high risk area ought to have a few bottles of potassium iodide. guest: thank you. potassium iodide was obviously a big issue with fukushima. potassium iodide is a specific antidote for radioactive iodine can it is not an all-purpose radiation protection. for nuclear power plants, radioactive iodide -- radioactive iodine is a major problem, so the nuclear power plants and their local regions all have their plans for how they are going to either a back way people, shelter people, and distributes potassium iodide. potassium iodide is no benefit at all for nuclear detonation. the fallout has so many other

things that the radioactive iodine that is part of that is really a small component. in some ways, we actually would be concerned if people went out looking for potassium iodide wind it is still in a benefit, the exposed themselves to other risks when they are going to a medical countermeasures that is not know necessary. the federal government does have some potassium iodide is still on hand, and we had some that we offered to japan. but the need for potassium iodide is really acutely during the plume and by the time all was said and done, japan had taken care of all its issues. but i am very glad you asked the question. host: sugarloaf, pennsylvania. you are on with dr. norman coleman talking about potential health hazards of nuclear fallout. caller: good morning, dr. coleman.

i have a comment. i am one of many emergency responders to live within a 10- mile area of a nuclear-powered power plant, susquehanna. each year we have a drill in conjunction with pp &l where we do different scenarios, set up decon and everything else and every year we do this to keep up-to-date on what is going on. if this plant has an emergency, being i am within 10 air miles of the plan -- and i do have a mountain between us and the plant -- when there been any way to predict approximately how long it would take for the currently knelt down and to start releasing the

actual fallout radiation that may affect us? host: we will get dr. coleman to answer that and a second, but if you could, do you find the practice and the training you get every year helpful? caller: yes, definitely. and these practices also include every emergency country in the 10-mile area, in the 10- mile circular air mile area. that includes several counties. host: as a first responder, are there any changes you would plan? -- suggest to the caller: not at this point. the plan we work with is excellent and we have been rated as one of the talks in the country. pennsylvania power and light company has also been rated highly what their procedures they have in the plants and surrounding the plant. host: ok, thanks.

dr. coleman? guest: it sounds like you are the perfect caller to reassure people there is progress and for this. i am not a nuclear engineer, but what i do know, from what i said in fukushima, it takes a while before these things have problems -- it could be hours or days. and even with three mile island, a lot of the precautions built into the plants shut them down and as contained the release. again, there may be more expert than i am -- but these can take hours, days, or longer before plumes get released, and that is why you can do evacuation's. and you can find out which way the plumes are going. but with nuclear power plants, they connected to u.s. releases. with a nuclear detonation everything happens quickly. but with a nuclear power plant you have to watch the releases

over time. that was an issue in japan, too. what are happy to have the expertise of the u.s. what. one can map plumes and whether the infection -- directions and knowing what is coming out, there are pretty good models of where fallout may be going. it is good to hear how well you are prepared for this. thank you for that. host: phase 2 of hhs's plan of public health of fallout. it radioactivity every six hours. prepare for transfer of victims to hospitals. open other centers and shelters. measuring read or activity every six hours -- was a drop quickly? -- measuring radioactivity every six hours? guest: one thing in japan that was reassuring, people are terrified irradiation because you cannot see it or smell it.

but the one thing you can do more than any other toxin is measure it, and you can measure it down to very low levels because the geiger counters are very sensitive. the answer is, the fallout, about every seven hours it goes down to 10% of its former level. in eight hours, the fallout will be 10% of what it was initially. people who are inside for the first 12 or 24 hours, the dose outside might be a lot lower so now it may be ok for them to come out and be evacuated. being able to measure things is really important. host: virginia, we have about 30 seconds. caller: yes. i am calling because about 10 minutes from where i live, we have like $10 billion worth of

iranian out here -- uranium out here. there are a lot of people who don't want the uranium mined. but they say that the radiation from it will make everybody have to move. is that true? if they mine that? host: i did not know if it is in your expertise. host: it is not, but the good thing about radiation is you can measure it. i would unimagined that the higher doses -- one can measure but the doses would be and i suspect if you are not anywhere near it in there should not be much risk. but the people involved can deal with that for you. host: dr. norman coleman of hhs,