mcgovern of massachusetts, a member of the agriculture committee. he will also be joined by a michigan republican representative bill huizenga to look at the economy. and we will discuss the history of vaccines with university of pennsylvania professor dr. stanley plotkin. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: good morning, and welcome to "washington journal." the house and senate are in today. the senate works of the transportation infrastructure part of the jobs package and the house takes on the access to capital for job creators act. the g-20 summit -- we will hear more about that later this morning by a reporter in cannes. yesterday the house voted to

reaffirm in god we trust as the nation that a model. president obama criticized congress for voting on the resolution rather than focusing on the jobs bill. was this and poor and resolution or was the president correct? -- was this an important resolution or was the president's correct? the numbers to call -- we are also on facebook. look for c-span, and you can weigh and. let us look at this article from "the hill."

let's take a listen to president obama's response speaking on key bridge in washington. >> if congress tells you they don't have time, they have time to do it. in the house of representatives, what have you been debating? a commemorative coin for baseball. you had legislation reaffirming that in god we trust is our motto. that is not putting people back to work. i trust in god, but god wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work. host: president obama speaking yesterday. we are interested to hear what you think. is congress focusing on the

right priorities and is this a top the agenda. let's hear what you think about this. the resolution passed easily, 396-9 roll call vote. only one republican voted against that, along with eight democrats. othertake a look at how publications are covering this story. taking this into account.

how you weigh in? we stand on the democrats' line. -- winston on the democrats' line. caller: republicans are great at catch phrases. when they got into power, they heard -- all we heard was jobs, jobs. but once they got into office, what first came up was the end of npr. these are things the republicans are doing. they are not focusing on jobs and it is all about trying to defeat president obama. host: kevin weighs in on twitter. mark is a republican from germantown, maryland. go ahead. caller: ok. definitely we are losing that in this country and we need to get back to basics. god is more important in reestablishing and realigning ourselves vertically with god it

is born poor and then the other things that are very important but obama does not understand the basic, what is most important between the two. host: were you pleased with the vote outcome? caller: were you pleased -- what? host: were you please? caller: who were the nine? >host: -- gary ackerman, democrat of new york -- i am reading this from "the hill" -- i will flip the page and read the rest.

going on to palm coast, florida. caller: i hope everybody is doing well this morning in america. i think the in god we trust thing yesterday was very important. god is sort of an amorphous thing but we had a country founded on christian-judeo cristobal -- printable that have formed us as human beings, the way we set our laws and conduct ourselves and relationships with other people. without this information that we have been able to glean over the last 7000 years of recorded christian-judeo thought, we don't need to just kind of blow with off.

if you take a look at some of the things going on in this country that are absolutely against the principles that inform us, i fear that if we allow people like the nine who actually voted against this thing, we got to wonder -- do we want to allow these people to influence us? who is sending these people to congress? do they not understand that we inform ourselves because of a relationship we have with a power greater than ourselves. i hope people will really think about that. host: grant, democratic caller from new jersey. caller: i would affirm the preceding jamar. i had a lot of feelings. i think in god we trust, in

principles greater than ourselves, are very important. i had a daughter currently serving in the united states marine corps and the concepts of honor, courage, and commitment that they have are extremely important. it just like "in god we trust" in this country is extremely important and can help us through periods of difficulty. i think it is important to have the practical things, as president obama was talking about, jobs, but i think it is also important to have an overall view point, a sense of history, a sense of something that is more important than ourselves. so, i would reaffirm that when congress spent time going over the "god we trust" issue is

extremely important. a different perspective from oscar on twitter -- can i talk? host: just one moment, sir. let us go to the president's comments. president obama continue to push for billions of dollars in infrastructure building and repair -- michael, republican. caller: can i talk, though? you will not let me talk. i am a republican and i think it

is foolish what house republicans who went to congress to create jobs. we all love god. i am very -- i go to church every sunday. but some of the stupid things republicans have done, to go in there and do what we are doing. we all trust in god. he helps us. but he is not going to help us if we do not help ourselves. it is about time republicans wake up and go and there to do what they are voting -- were voted there to do. we voted for them to create jobs, to help the e economy, -- help the economy and get jobs from overseas. this is the douglas. what you republicans -- or us republicans are doing are stupid things. host: let us hear what congressman henry ford said on the house floor tuesday, the sponsor of this bill.

reaffirming "in god we trust." >> mr. speaker, i would just say to my good friend that i understand there are a few who believe that "in god we trust" is just words. i would say it is far more than words. it is worth defending just like the pledge of allegiance. i am grateful we will have an opportunity to do that today. the challenges he said the not exist with lawsuits and public officials saying "in god we trust" is not our national model was something else, it is worth standing today and taking 40 minutes to do what other presidents and congress have done before, to inspire the nation would hope and optimism and those will stand behind where you stand. host: republican of virginia, the sponsor of the measure "in god we trust closed " to reaffirm as a model.

the house passed overwhelmingly. we are asking you whether it is the right priority. president obama was critical of that. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think we the people need to reaffirm our country's motto. president obama of the discussion was frivolous. but october 29, 2011, at the national italian-american heritage foundation gala president obama said "it has always been and we will always be a nation of immigrants from all over the world." how many years does it take a country -- does a country need to exist to have its u.s. citizens derecognized and not referred to as immigrants by our president?

the statue of freedom was no. 11 -- out of many, one, which is the united states model, that we join together as one, united. we the people represent the statue of freedom and not the statue of liberty. there are very many immigrants coming in with many different religions, and we need to reaffirm our country's motto, "in god we trust." thank you for taking my call. host: georgia. pete, republican. caller: good morning. i think this term, "in god we trust" is brought out every once in awhile to make people feel good, even the people who propose it. we referred to it as we do our family bibles, once in a very great while in our walk through life.

you wonder, sometimes, if our political leaders even have a family bible or use one or read one or ever even of this debate did what it said -- says. "in god we trust" has a meaning and i think sometimes got in sweeping away ec's us live our lives and how the culture -- sometimes guide it is we being the way he sees us -- god is weeping the way he sees us live our lives. host: i think we lost him. let us go to dennis, democrats' line from upper marlboro, maryland. caller: thank you for the opportunity. when i got through onetime way back in january i said this is just the tip of the iceberg with

these republicans in congress. this whole "in god we trust" thing is just a smokescreen because they have not done one thing that -- they have not passed one bill relating to jobs. people are suffering out here. the whole housing industry, and that kind of thing. the leader in the senate said his number one priority was to bring down our president. and, you know, it is so juvenile. what they are doing is so juvenile to me. we all trust in god. a 90% of the people on this planet trust in god. we do not need to reaffirm that on our clients. it has been on our coins for over 30 or 40 years from what i understand. it is a great smokescreen. they are trying to deflect because they are not going to do

anything to help the infrastructure in this country. they are not doing anything to help provide jobs. so, they are trying to hide behind died at this time. normally they would wrap themselves in the flag but obama took that from them because obama is such a great foreign leader, foreign president -- and foreign affairs, is what i am trying to say. they cannot even wrap themselves in the flag this time. thank you. i was a little nervous. host: let's go to joe, republican callers in cedar rapids, iowa. caller: the recent comments about -- you know, it is not so important. god created this country. how can you take someone who created this country out of this country? it is not really that big a deal. it does not take that long to

put it in. if you put it in you do not have to read about it anymore and then you can move on to other things. host: it sounds like you are ok with it, joe? caller: yes. host: tom, independent caller from annapolis, maryland. caller: the first comment, the affirmation of "in god we trust" being and not know, it is a good thing at least to be -- at least as a part of the discussion because there seems to be an attempt to make it in government we trust instead of in god we trust. the inalienable rights we are given an our constitution and, there seems to be this attempt to make it that government is to give us our rights and not our creator. that is the first. the second comment is, c-span needs to do a better job

articulating what really is going on in the house of representatives. they sent several bills that have passed the house relating to jobs and help to stabilize and grow the economy that have been sent over to the senate and the senate has just stalled the bills. so, the bully pulpit that the president has definitely gets the message out because you hear from both sides from the republican and democratic spectrum, and but it seems to me that we need to have the facts out there that really the congress -- the house is actually passing all kinds of bills relating to the growing and stimulating of the economy and it stalls in the senate. that is my point. host: turning our attention now to where the president is, in france for the g-20 summit. let's look at a couple of headlines related to this. in "usa today" --

"the wall street journal" -- financialg at "the times" -- joining us to talk about the president's trip to the g-20 is karen bowen from reuters. what is the focus as we head into this? guest: the focus is squarely on europe but the stakes are huge for the united states. host: the headline for a piece you filed on wednesday -- "obama

to grapple with waning influence at the g-20." you talked about how the present will be received there and what his goals are. guest: one of the things he needs to do is to show leadership in the summit, but he cannot do it in a way that appears to be lecturing of europeans. that will not come off well. it will not be received well. it is not necessarily going to be helpful. but i think americans want to see him stepping up to the plate and showing leadership. so, he is going to have to work with his counterparts in europe, offer constructive advice, but do it in a way that is not coming across as the u.s. telling everyone else what to do. host: what else is on the agenda? we are looking at a relatively brief summit, only a couple of days. guest: food security is a big issue -- and there is a consideration over china and the currency.

it may fall to the back burner with a focus so much of the european crisis. host: how influential is the g- 20 when it comes to the unfolding in europe, the decisions the eurozone is making on behalf of greece? guest: an interesting question because the g-20 was actually created and became a huge, influential body during the financial crisis in 2008. it was the obama administration who pushed to replace the g-8, a more eurocentric group of leaders, as the main coordinating body for economic decision making. the irony is at this summit, china is being looked to for help in europe, and that is creating a situation where the u.s. is seen as having winning influence. host: our guests joining us from cannes in france.

what is the mood? guest: as you can expect, very tense. host: do you think it would be the case if they were meeting outside of europe, or is there heightens the bogus because you're a relative proximity to greece, and the european leaders are at center stage when you look at the headlines in our national papers question on guest: absolutely. of the fact this is in europe -- the president has been meeting with an egg -- a angela merkel, the resident sarkozy, he has been on the phone with them for many months and right and i of the storm in many ways. host: the president's message behind closed doors to people like angela merkel and nicolas sarkozy, the private versus public message? guest: i think the public message is going to be much more toned down. i am told the private message is going to be very much one of

needing to take bold steps and fix the crisis once and for all. not in for mental steps but something ball that is going to convince -- not incremental steps but something that will convince everyone it is serious. the other message will be much more subtle. it is not in the u.s. interest for anyone to perceive this as a situation where the u.s. is coming up with the solutions. i think people have to have confidence that the europeans are handling this problem. host: thank you for joining us. our question for you this morning is your reaction to the house of reaffirming the national motto of "in god we trust" in a vote this week. do you think it is a proper use of time? the president was critical and he said he wants to see us focus on jobs. it passed overwhelmingly with only nine members of the house voting against it. a republican in bloomington,

illinois. good morning. caller: if congress really trusted in god they would do what he said, and he said to eliminate poverty and not enrich the wealthy. they need to walk the walk. host: how would you like to see it happen? caller: excuse me? host: how would you see it happen? carried out and what they vote on or priorities? caller: the way they have set of economic policy. all the wealth has gone to the top 1% and the rest of the 99% of the population, their wages are declining. paul krugman has had blogs and charts the last two days. host: rebecca weighs in on twitter -- we also got comments e-mailed in

-- marcus, a democrat caller from north carolina. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: the last caller was correct about a lot of things. and the thing is, some people are confused that "in god we trust" is supposed to be for christians and this country was founded on a christian basis. that is not necessarily true because the forefathers, they were masons, and they took the time to separate church and state, and that was for a

reasoned and they know how important it was to do that. but "in god we trust" is fine and everything, but we have so many problems that they are not even trying to fix. and reaffirming that, it is basically a waste of time on something that was reaffirmed time and time and over again. i just wanted to say that. thank you. host: looking at twitter -- next up is reginald, independent caller down in houston. caller: in -- we say "in god we trust" why can we trust in god? if this is a country by the people, for the people -- america has become her own god, self indulgent and idolizes

ourselves and the god they jealous god. what would god do, what would jesus do? god sent jesus as a prince of peace so we should be following piece. blessed are the peacekeepers. we are to love our brothers and neighbors as ourselves as jesu'' saying. why are we bombing countries, taking over sovereign nations, terrorism and murder, that is exploiting people. that is not godly. we need to get back so god to spare this nation because it would continue to do what we're doing we will lose favor, as dr. king said, if she will not straighten out she will face a death. its coat is the house resolution 8 -- host: does the house resolution

take a step? caller: we need to be in a repentance. , like abraham lincoln did when he set up a day of thanksgiving -- it was a day of prayer and fasting to, or repentance. if you come with three patents in a day of prayer and godly and then -- if you do it with a repentant spirit. host: arizona. caller: i am glad they did it. i think more of them should believe that, too, and live by. i do not think obama does any more. host: what does it mean to see congress living by it? how does it play out? caller: i am wishing they would be a lot more honest. i wish they would do what they were sent to do. if i did that poorly on a job, i

would get fired. we can't wait long enough to fire the ones that are not doing their jobs. the government is nice and all, and they keep things organized, but let's face it, they are not efficient with money. obama just pushing with more just shows how out of touch he is with the people. host: a viewer weighs in on facebook. let's go to joanne, democratic caller in massachusetts. caller: i love this program. it is very disturbing to me to know, like one of the callers

said, that they are using "in god we trust" as a smokescreen. if it was "in god we trust closed " as they were saying, he helped people, and for the wealthier people creating -- not making people go hungry. if it was what they said, that they trust and they believe in god, then i believe they would be creating jobs. i believe they would be creating health care for the people. the republicans have obstructed everything that president obama had done. countrywide lies, and somehow it is embedded in people.

it is very discouraging to see what president obama is going through. his fight is still for the people. he has not deviated from any of his ways. he is still fighting for the people to create jobs and for the health care. host: let us take a look at an e-mail that came in. congressman to forbes on the house for -- house floor, sponsored. >> , are a number of public officials to forget what the national motto is, whether intentionally or unintentionally. there are those who become confused as to whether or not it can still be placed on our buildings, whether it can be in our classrooms. almost a year ago the president, in making a speech across the world said that our national

motto was in poor bus whom -- e pluribus unum. host: daniel on our independent line. i think he is listening to his tv. henry, republican. buffalo, new york. caller: i just wanted to say to correct a few other people who are calling the -- there is no establishment of a religion here. not everybody, but most religions have a god. the supreme being, if you want to call it that. buddhist, hindu, christian, just referred to as a guide -- god, so basically it's whoever he may be. it is not an establishment of religion, just something establish -- something higher

than we are, however it may be. they spent about 40 minutes, i understand, on this. and a pledge of allegiance, which used to be said in school when i was a kid every morning -- we reaffirmed our cells every morning. when you say i love you to someone, your kids, your wife, every day, it reaffirms that they're all we are doing is reaffirming something we do all the time. i do not think it is illogical. it has not been done over and over again. it has only been done a couple of times, or wants, since it was brought to be that way, since we adopted that moscow. anyway, i just wanted to throw that in there. 9/11, we do every year. it certainly everybody remembers it. why should we do it? it does not seen it should be a bigot -- as big an issue as people make about it.

we spend 40 minutes and 10 years since the last we did this. i do not see a problem with it. that is all i have to say. host: let us hear from linda, democratic caller from lorain, texas. caller: i am tired of the god squad waving the flag and cramming god down our throats. god this and that. i have seen more backbiting and nastiness out of their mouths. i hear it on the religious stations down here the same way, just flat out lying on the floor of congress. you would think that they would have a better -- i thought our national model was e pluribus unum. they seem to a forgotten we are united. instead, they divide us.

host: republican -- miami, florida. weighing in on the house are reaffirming the motto "in god we trust." caller: good morning. host: go right ahead. caller: "in god we trust"? every human being should have that in their thoughts. at home, school. if they have that, everybody would come together as one. host: tom, democratic caller. the caller: thank you for allowing me to speak. i think this debate really is kind of outrageous. it is really funny that when the american people really need god, there is no problem with it. but when the lives are just going by, then it is terrible to

talk about god, he needs to be omitted. at the big as part of our economy, and i am correct, our christmas sales. sales of products sold during christmas time. again, it is amazing how it is fine for us to drive our economy on a basis of a holiday based on the birth of supposedly got that a son, but once the day is over we need to forget about them -- the birth of god's son, but then after word god is secondary. host: we are focusing on whether it is a good use of the house time, do you agree with the legislation, and you think, as president obama suggested, we should be focused elsewhere? caller: i really do not think it is a big problem. to tell you the truth, i did not think it impacts our country that much. the biggest thing affecting our

country right now is jobs. people, they are derailed with what is important ids' my new little things. if you believe in god, it is a free country, a wonderful thing. host: let's go to twitter -- what do you think? steve, independent caller from fort pierce, florida. caller: i think, first of all, we need to verify and clarify some things. first of all, from the standpoint of religion, it can only be classified in two categories. i darman seeking out god from an's perspective or god seeking out man from his perspective. if man is seeking outside he keeps -- gets to come up with its own rules and regulations and is not matter if there is god or not.

some of the callers are looking at man looking out and try to determine what god wants them to do, how to live and react to other people. it is hard from that perspective because you get so many different kinds of ideas. you know, a "in god we trust," we need it, and as long as america is strong in god, america will be supported by those characteristics. but if we take a position outside of the bible where at one time there will be a one world government, that we are getting closer and closer, we see in the economy it happening right now. that is all i have. host: let us look at -- take a look at some of the other news stories to invoke this in the

papers today. big headlines and photographs about presidential candidate herman cain. "the new york times" -- from "the baltimore sun" -- some other news stories --

federal reserve chairman ben bernanke open the door to a new round of purchases of mortgage- backed securities. "ex-fed official details lapses" --

dorothy, republican. clinton township, michigan. what do you think about house reaffirming the model "in god we trust." caller: i think it was a great thing. excuse me -- i am sorry. i think from the founding, from the beginning, separation of church and state and freedom of religion, that meant that the state should allow people to practice their religion in freedom. also, it was not meant for -- it was meant for the state to stay out of people's religion, nacke -- not that religion should not be involved with the state. and it was also written that it was meant for a moral people, people will believe in god, and without a moral godly type person, our constitution would not work.

when they started taking out god from the schools and you see it every day -- you got to take down across, you cannot say a prayer, you cannot even say god if a football players make a touchdown nowadays, they tried to eliminate god. so, the state is creeping in and trying to eliminate god, so i think doing what they did the other day was no waste of time. i thought it was great. i am glad they did it. host: a different perspective from twitter -- you can leave your comments on facebook and twitter. email was also. here is another perspective from jennifer, democratic caller from san jose, california. caller: our founding fathers were not christians, they were deists and very careful to make

sure there was a separation of church and state. i think that reaffirming a motto that many of us to not believe in is a violation of the separation of church and state. i think if you want to legislate your beliefs, you should have to prove the existence of god. host: phill, independent caller. go ahead. caller: hi. i just wanted to weigh in on the situation did i personally do not believe in a god and i am tired of people tried to shove it in my face and i should note that congress, instead of helping the american people, deciding over whether they should say "in god we trust" it makes me lose a lot more faith in the american justice system -- i mean, the american government. it is really a waste of time. i remember a couple of years ago

when obama was just getting inaugurated, the first couple of months, he said this is not a christian nation and i heard so many people on fox news saying, oh, my god, he is muslim, he is not christian. this is a christian nation. the first person to say this was not a christian nation was the second president, john adams. and if they are so relished in the tea party they should pay more attention to their history. thank you. host: a comment on twitter -- let us hear from will, republican from alabama. you are up. caller: i do not think it is a waste of time. obama is mad because he wanted to be -- once it to be in obama

we trust. in terms of his fall new jobs bill -- he knew it was not going to pass. he was stupid to send it over there. the republicans have sent 18 jobs bills over there and they are being obstructed by harry reid. that is it. host: looking at a couple of other news stories, from "the washington post," this one about taxes.

a couple of other stories -- occupy oakland shot down a court. protesters blocked streets, smashed windows at a bank and gathered by the thousands to shut down the nation's fifth busiest port on wednesday. coming up next, we will talk with members of congress. and of course, you could check in on what the house and senate are going on c-span. and if you are not near a tv you can find it on our website, c- span.org. we have a redesign of our website that you can check out. you can find information about and and you airing a can find out how you can watch our programming -- a 11 video choices you can select from daily. email or tweet your feedback. later on the program,

representative huizenga, republican of michigan, but next on never presented the jim mcgovern, a democrat from massachusetts on proposed cuts to food and nutrition programs. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> would you continue your statement? >> i am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over. >> he was the u.n. ambassador for president kennedy during the cuban missile crisis and ran for democratic nomination for president and lost. adlai stevenson is featured on "the contenders." from his family home in illinois. live, friday and 8:00 p.m. eastern. for more, go to our special

website for this series, c- span.org/thecontenders. >> when i got into public and finally started selling books, every person i work with i got a rejection letter. i would go to a meeting and they say, i love your stuff. and i say, what about this? [laughter] questioning the motivations, ethics, and morality of brilliant people. his account of. zuckerberg was adapted for the screen as "the social network." his latest tracks the possible after not candidate as he steals a nasa safe with moon rock. your chance to answer questions. call, email, or tweed sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c- span2. >> i think obviously reading the right books is usually helpful but a really wrong book can be

an education. it is like a bad movie. it is good to see what has been done wrong to avoid it. >> and advice for would-be writers. given she won a pulitzer prize for her biography and a senior editor at simon and schuster, her advice is pretty good. >> i think every young riders should remember publishers out there are desperate for a good, new book to publish and an exciting new offered to publish. this should be of enormous hope for what is yet to be done. >> more on sunday night on c- span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative jim mcgovern, good morning. guest: happy to be here. host: as the deficit committee looks forward to make cuts, you have voiced concerns that programs that help the poor and needy, especially food stamps and things like that, could be on the chopping block. talk us through how it can

happen? guest: we have a problem with the debt, no question. the question is how to reduce the debt. when i a more about is the cuts seemed to be aimed disproportionately at programs that help the neediest and most of honorable and poorest people in our countries. i think that is wrong. i think it is morally wrong. and i think from a fiscally conservative point of view, it is wrong. we have a hunger problem in the united states of america, something we should all be ashamed about. there are 15 million people who we call food in secure -- food insecure or hungry. there is a cause. the center for american progress recently did a study saying the cost of hunger in america in terms of things like avoidable health care costs, lack of productivity, about $167 billion a year. so, why are we picking on programs that help the neediest in the country?

you want to find ways to save money. look at the defense budget. you know? or let's fix the tax code so that it is fairer? something is wrong in america when a bill in their heads on manager can buy a lower tax rate than a secretary. there are places for savings. i worry that politicians in washington tend to go to the programs that help the poor because i do not think they think there is a political consequence and i think some of us should understand the importance of these programs, need to speak up, and push back. host: a story from "politico" the other day -- the red hot debate can spill onto the nation's supermarket aisles and the nation's tables. guest: five years ago i lived on

a food stamp budget for a week. the average food stamp benefits for a person was about $3 a day. we had a farm bill that improved that number a little bit, plus the monies from the stimulus package brought it you -- up to about $4.35 a day per person. which was not great but it was better. the cuts that have already been made in the snap program or food stamps, that paid for the teachers bill, to help offset costs for the child magician bill, will mean that by 2013 the average benefit for a person would go from $4.35 down to $3.80 per person, not withstanding the fact that as you read, food prices are going up. it seems there's something wrong with that. if you could add additional cuts to food stamps, you would see the number going down further at a time when food costs are going up. it does not make sense.

host: congressman jim mcgovern, serving on agricultural committee and the rules committee. here are the numbers to call -- if you are recipients of food stamps, you can call -- congressmen, there have been attempts by senator jeff sessions, republican of alabama. he proposed to tighten eligibility requirements. guest: why are we doing it at a time when more and more people are falling into poverty, more people are losing jobs? why would you try -- tried to restrict or -- people the benefits they are entitled to? what we should be doing is making sure these programs

provide a circle of protection for the most vulnerable people in society. then we should focus on how to put people back to work and create jobs. your previous segment was about this resolution we had on the house floor reaffirming "in god we trust" as our motto. why are we spending a day debating that when we should be debating how to put the american people back to work? that is where our focus should be. and it seems, when i look at it, the house of representatives have been debating -- is debating things that really do not make a difference in people's lives. host: our guest authored a letter to congressman clyburn asking the select committee on deficit reduction and not look at making a cut to the nation's anti-hunger programs. here is the letter. in it's, you point out that other groups that have come together to look at ways to -- the bulls and send commission

developed deficit reduction regulations -- guest: erskine bowles in his testimony the other day said to the committee that the budget they proposed will not cut food stamps or by workers' compensation. they understand the importance of these safety net programs. if we don't address these issues, if we don't protect these programs that pride a circle of protection, more and more people will fall through the cracks. our problems and costs will be compounded. these costs will not go away. we need to do it right. let us reduce the debt in a responsible way and not on the backs of poor people or people who cannot afford to take another hit.

host: let us hear from gail who is a recipient of food stamps in montgomery county, maryland. caller: i totally agree that the people who will suffer the most are the children in our country. a lot of single mothers like myself -- i am not currently on food stamps but i was recently due to unemployment. it was the second time in my life where i had to reach out for help. i have been a high income earner and low income earner, but without the food stamp program my daughter would not be able to have a nutritious meal. i love to cook, so my daughter did not grow up eating mcdonald and fast-food but home cooked meals. there are a lot of mothers out there that a new feed their children home cooked meals and rely on that program. i think by looking at other avenues to cut spending -- and unfortunately, i have to say this, military spending. we are spending so much money

fighting wars that we should not be fighting while our children will end up suffering. if you look at the school system in montgomery county, it is one of the best school systems here, and the lunch today serve children tend to be deplorable at times. parents should reach out for help when needed and provided tisch's meals for the children and not send their children to school hungry. guest: she brings up an important point, given the choice between a good job that pays a decent wage and being on food stamps, people would prefer to have the work. you do not get rich on food stamps. but it enables people to hopefully provide not just a meal but a nutritional meal. that is one of the components we need to stress, as we talk about some of these programs on food and nutrition. it is not just about food, but nutritious food. one of my regrets is during our

health care debate we did not speak more about the importance of food and the quality of food, not only in our homes but our schools for our children. we passed the child magician reauthorization act, which will hopefully provide a higher standard for meals and schools for kids, but it is not just about food but for nutrition. host: on twitter, one of our followers says -- first of all, it is not rampant with fraud. it is a myth. i would or urged that person to go to the general accountability of as website and look up of the report on the snap program, one of the most efficient run programs. i am on the agricultural committee did the inspector general came before the committee to testify. the error rate in the food stamp program is about the lowest of about any government program.

some of the air raid is that we under-paid people with the benefit. -- some of the error rate is that we under-paid people. if we are going to balance the budget and reduce the debt, something we need to do, let's not do it on the backs of poor and hungry people. we are a better country than that. we should be looking elsewhere. >> let us look at details on what the deficit reduction committee is facing. we need to come up with $1.20 trillion of spending cuts or bank tax revenues and the committee must vote by november 23. congress must weigh in by december 23. if there is no agreement, $1.20 trillion and automatic cuts will be split between defense and domestic spending. the church if the deficit reduction committee and the congress could

not come to a solution about the budget. guest: i hope there is not a better alternative. we have to see what the debt reduction committee comes up with. is anyone's gas. this is not a deliberate move -- it is anybody's guess. we are going to have to wait and see what they come out with and then we will make a decision if it is better for the country to endorse their proposal or whether is better for others to come and place. i think it is important that we need to protect these programs for people who are in need. host: there is a story in the "new york times" today --

is that a possibility? guest: i suppose it is a possibility but i do not know if it is likely. my hope is the committee will come up with a recommendation and then we will go forth. i think this whole idea of a super committee by the way is a bad idea. i would have invoked the 14th amendment, increase the debt ceiling, put some cuts on the table and asked the republicans -- i would not allow the country to be taken hostage. this is a process which is not open. where are all of the tea party people complaining about the lack of transparency and the lack of openness in this

process? we have no idea what they are going to come up with, yet you have people on various committees that have expertise in certain areas who would have legislation move between through committees. host: let's hear from fred from george on our republican line. caller: the primary cost of food going up is energy. you have the snl situation that causes corn to rise. -- the ethanol situation that caused corn to rise. whatever it is on a any fashion, you guys make it more expensive. that goes into the price of food. you create -- you expand the

band-aid of more food stamp programs and then you ridiculed the republicans because we cannot afford it. it is funny how you guys do this over and over. for hurricane katrina, you had help the people who stocked up in the astrodome so when the people really needed to get out, the elderly people, the shut ins, the people in the hospital, they could not because the cameras were on the people in the astrodome that had a chance to leave. this is the same case where a republican was trying to get it that you could really help people with food stamps and you wanted to target them and cut back on this other stuff. here you ridiculed him and put politics with it. guest: i think subsidies in

corn ethanol have been partly to blame for a rise in food prices. i think the democrats have been pretty clear about the need to diversify our energy reliance so we are not so dependent on oil. republicans are defending the idea that oil companies should receive u.s. taxpayer subsidies while taking record profits. why are we subsidizing the oil industry? we should take the money and put it towards deficit reduction. the problem we are faced with with more and more people on food stamps is because of the economic policies pursued by republicans that have resulted in an economy that is producing more and more unemployed people. we need to focus on putting people back to work. i would like to think that at a

minimum the republican leadership would allow us to debate president obama's jobs program so we can pass some putislation that would b people back to work. host: let's take a look at the federal nutrition program. also referred to as snap. the women, infants and children program. that all falls under the mantle of -- guest: and it we should be proud of those programs. we should be proud that we care about our nation. i find it somewhat puzzling that we have some members of congress who try to find ways to balance the budget by cutting those programs at the same time we are fighting wars that we do

not pay for. we borrow $10 billion a month for afghanistan. for my friends who want to continue these wars, it is not righteous to have our soldiers and families sacrificed. we are going into the hole because of these wars. we should end them. caller: yes, hi. i am disabled. i get $445 a month approximately. about $500 a year on medication it. so you can understand when i say i cannot afford another cut. mr. mcgovern, you are one of my favorite politicians. i hope you continue to fight for people such as myself. guest: thank you very much. i think that is an example of how these programs provide

protection for somebody who is in need. the goal here is to get people off of public assistance by providing them jobs when they can get a job. sometimes they cannot. sometimes they are disabled and they need the safety net. to look at these programs as a way to balance the budget -- i mean -- there is a new york times article talking about nuclear weapons deployed. of billionsillions of dollars. we could reduce that stockpot significantly. why don't we do that? why is that not the place to go? why are we not looking at that as a way to bring down the debt

purses looking at programs that banner if it -- why are we not looking at that as a way to bring down the debt versus looking at programs that benefit people in need? these are important programs. host: someone writes in on e- mail -- here is an article related to that in "the huffington post" -- it talks about what some of the members of congress are buying. some of their families, a democrat of connecticut along

with his wife and daughter, lived on a food stamp budget of about $1.59 per meal. guest: i did that five years ago and it was $3 a day. it has gone up because of the stimulus. because of the cuts that have already been made in the program, that benefit will go from an average of more than $4 a day down to $3 a day. host: liz, an independent caller from miami, fla. welcome. caller: it puzzles me what is going on in america now. i have been a citizen now for 35 years. i have seen food prices go up in

the bush years when we had our energy crisis. food -- and it never went back down. -- food -- and it never went back down -- food doubled and it never went back down. where is the compassion for the people who have less from the so-called christians in the republican party? bush was in power for eight years. i did not see and the nuclear plant built or any new energy ideas. since obama came in, they suddenly want this and that. why are these rich billionaire companies being subsidized? the senate is not doing anything for this country.

the congress sends a bill to the senate, and the senate sits on them. harry reid should be fired. i am against both parties for the mistakes they are making at the sacrifice of the american people. guest: i agree with the fact that it is ridiculous that oil companies continue to receive u.s. taxpayer subsidies. when we first started drilling for oil, there was a case for this, but now they are making record profits. on a number of occasions, i try to bring up an amendment to strip that subsidy from oil companies and i get blocked every single time. the senate rules are a little bit book to your. it allows the minority to control the process -- the senate rules are a little bit peculiar. i think that is wrong.

you mentioned earlier about this occupy wall street movement. i think people are sick and tired of this debt is ". people think this process is inherently unfair. if a billionaire hedge fund manager pays a lower tax rate then there secretary, that is wrong. offertake him up on his and take that money and put it toward the reduction but not cut programs that help the neediest in this country. host: representative mcgovern represent massachusetts who is in his eighth term, selected back in 1996. he is a member of the agriculture committee. ranking democrats have written to the super committee saying they would like to achieve $23

billion in deficit reduction and they said they will come up with this plan. guest: i am on the agriculture committee and i have not seen in the there. i think we should have an open process here. i went on the agriculture committee not to be told this is our plan but to be a part of developing that planned. i do not know the details but i have heard somewhere between $4,000,000,000.705032704 dollar cuts -- 4 billion dollars and $5 billion cut it. i respect them trying to make an effort. i think there is a concern that if they do not some two -- do something the super committee will cut even deeper. this whole process is messed up. we ought to have hearings and

debates and amendments and debate on the floor. we ought to do this out in the open not in a back room. we will see what they propose. i do not like this process. host: this report for "cq" -- guest: let me make a suggestion. focus on putting people back to work. if we could put people back to work, we lower the number of people that need assistance. it is that simple. people do not want to be on snap. they want to put food on the table for their families. let's focus on job creation. not on widening the gap between

the rich and the port in this country. host: mike is a republican caller from pensacola, florida. caller: i have worked for the phone company. what i have observed is the entire social welfare program is so convoluted, it spends on loads of money. if it were not for the fact that we have loads of charitable organizations, the salvation army and others, we would have people starving to death on the streets. what has happened is the attitude from sociology classes in college, merely a repeater of the sixth, seventh, and 8th grade level, but what has happened is the more we dump

money into this and more programs we have, you could not tell me in any town in this country for where to go to get help that we need. it is so convoluted in this town. the more you depend on federal welfare programs, the worse you are. we need one program which trains people. and houses them. and feeds them. we do not need to hand money to people to go out and buy what you want. the problem is getting worse. if it is getting worse because we give the least qualified -- it is getting worse because we give the least qualified people to feed their kids nutritional meals, to raise them properly, and so on. we give them the most money. we are bankrupt in social

security. i went to the social security office several months ago, and most of the people in there were under 40. guest: first of all, i think the caller is right in praising a lot of the charitable organizations in this country that add to the safety net. i think all of those organizations would agree to me that to balance the budget we should not go after the programs that the people. we need a better way to coordinate a lot of our safety net programs. that is what this eligibility issue is about. it cuts down on costs and makes it easier for people to take advantage of what they need in difficult times. again, let's go back to the central topic and that is we have a debt problem. we need to find a way to reduce

that debt, not by balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest people in this country. people do not want to be poor. given the option of having a job that pays a decent, livable wage, people want that. put people back to work. we should be debating every single day in the house of representatives a jobs bill to put people back to work. host: let's look at the numbers. 45.8 million americans in august 2011 received food stamps. the year before, 42.3 million americans. that is an increase of 8.1%. let's look at the graphic that shows the growth of the number of individuals receiving food stamps starting back in 2006 up

to august 200011. guest: that is directly related to the unemployment situation and the poverty situation in this country. let's focus on jobs to reduce that. host: good morning, south carolina. caller: i thank you -- i think you and the rest of the democrats are doing a wonderful job in what you are doing. the only mistake i think you guys are making is you are not letting the american people understand regardless what the deficit is we are paying it back. there are 14 million unemployed. let's feed these people. my other brothers and sisters and america that are out of food. i think the mistake you are making is you are not letting

the american people know you are the ones paying the deficit. i want to keep this guy, i want to feed this lady, i want to feed these kids, but they are not getting what president obama is putting out. help other americans. guest: i think you are right. i think people in this country are very compassionate people. they want these programs to work efficiently and effectively. i think what is at stake here is whether our government is going to be as compassionate as the american people, whether or not the government will reflect the values of the american people. there is not a single community in the united states of america that is hunger-free.

that is a problem that is solvable. let's also focus on jobs. host: looking at a recent story of the effort to try to tighten the eligibility requirements of the food stamp program, it says it -- guest: i think he is fundamentally wrong about the importance of the eligibility program. this saves state monies so you do not have to keep applying to all of these different programs. this makes it easier to plug into the programs that you need. if you want to find waste in this country, the real waste is not programs that benefit the poor. the real waste is tax loopholes

and tax benefits that benefit the most wealthy corporate interest in this country. wars that are not paid for. i can go on and on and on. to begin the discussion about how you reduce the debt by focusing on programs that benefit poor people i think is just wrong. our country is better than that. most of our senators are millionaires. they do not worry about this stuff. but there are millions of americans that do. if it were not for the fort -- if it were not for the food stamp program, millions of americans would be going hungry. host: stephen in waterbury, connecticut, welcome. hi, stephen. you are on with congressmen mcgovern.

caller: i have a question for you. do you have children? guest: yes. caller: i have a father who passed away years ago who worked for the government and provided food for his children. on salary working for the government, he was a great guy. he claimed it will the bulls and wiped the floors. -- he claimed toilet bowls and wiped the floors of. he said he would never apply for prince dams. he was a world war ii veteran. he would never take anything. friends and family helped. in this country, why are the families not helping people? it is always republicans or democrats. why cannot people come together and say we are americans?

i am waiting about a politician to stop bickering about democrats republicans and tax benefits for the wealthy. i am a tax preparer. i do not have any bills. i live on $12,000 a year. i could apply for food stamps. would i qualify? guest: i think you probably would. i do not know all of your assets. there are some people that are in need. there are some people who do not have families that can bail them out. there are people in very difficult situations with children. the bottom line is everybody in this country ought to have enough to eat. what i am suggesting is these programs provide protection for

very vulnerable people. that is not how you ought to balance the budget. the tough decisions always should not have to fall on the backs of working people or poor people. there have been deals negotiated over the years. i think we should close some of those tax loopholes and have a fair tax system. i think if we end of these wars, we could reduce the debt in a very significant way. host: frank is a republican collar. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. you control congress from 2009 until 200011. i agree with you that we need to stop the war and we need to stop oil subsidies to companies and

close the loopholes. since you have been in congress, tommy's does of the clique what bills you have written or sponsor -- tell me what bills you have written or sponsored to close the subsidies to oil companies and close the loophole for the tax code. guest: i have authored a number of amendments to end the war in iraq and afghanistan. i have been the leading critic of that war in afghanistan. i am on the rules committee. probably a dozen times already this year, i introduced amendments to try to end the tax oil subsidies to big oil companies. i have been trying. with the wars, we have made a little bit of success. i wanted afghanistan to end.

i am doing my part. i am not saying that the democrats are perfect or we solve everyone's problems. i think we were a lot better than the current crew running the house of representatives. i stand by my record. i have been out there fighting at the forefront. host: our democrats' line -- caller: good morning. this idea that it is not a good environment for business is a lot of hot air. we have hundreds of factories that have expanded in the u.s. the most recent is kia that came here from south korea because the wages are lower. at the present time in manufacturing, [unintelligible] our average wage over here is

$25 maybe if we are lucky and going to the decline. how about the research and development money? that is around $160 billion also. so much money is going to the wealthy that it is beyond belief. of workers are being exploited and no one cares. thank you very much. guest: i hear it over and over again. we ought to be able to lift standards up and improve the quality of people. when you cut these nutrition programs or medicare or social security, which is a bad idea, you are talking about lowering the standard of living for people in this country. we in washington to try to help

to lift up the quality of life for people. focusing on jobs and job creation is what our obsession should be right now. let's focus on things that real people talk about. when i go home, in my district, people are talking about jobs. it is jobs and the economy. not these hot-button issues. they wonder why we cannot come together and bring the jobs bill to the floor. if the people who supported it a couple of months ago do not want to support it anymore, fine, vote against it. let us try to put america back to work. host: one of our callers

earlier asked about qualifications for food stamps. let's look at who qualifies for food stands. a monthly income, about $1,100. for a family of four, $2,400. guest: people are not getting rich on snap. this is not a program that supports a luxurious life style. when you have kids, you try to not only put food on the table but you tried to put nutritious food on the table, and that is a goal of our nutrition programs. host: looking at an article from to date --

what do you think about that letter? guest: i think people want to deal with the issue of our debt. it is an important issue. i did not sign that letter. because of the lack of specificity. i have sent letters to the deficit reduction committee on programs i think they should not cut and suggested programs that i think they should cut. i am all for an ambitious debt reduction program. but not by making more people, you know, poorer.

we need to figure out a way to do this in a fair way and a way that reflects our values. of ghent, i have no idea -- and again, my worry is i have no idea what this commission is doing. it is so contrary to the way congress should be run. there is supposed to be an open debate and amendments. we are not going to have an opportunity to do that. i think cutting programs that help poor people, some members believe they can do so without political consequence. i think people need to stand up and say, wait a minute, the values of this country dictate that we care about our neighbors, that we should be ashamed that there are 50 million people in this country that are hungry.

we ought to do better than that and put americans back to work. it is not just about cutting. it is about smart investing so we can grow. why is the super committee not about jobs and reducing the deficit that way? that is what i wish we would focus on. host: congressman jim mcgovern. thank you. coming up, we will continue our conversation with congress. our guest will be representative huizenga from michigan. this news update from c-span radio. >> here are some of the headlines. the national chairman of the republican party says the controversy surrounding herman cain is not harming the party's chances to defeat barack obama.

mr. priebus says he is not going to get in the middle of this. is a busy day i had four economic reports. -- it is a busy day for economic reports. the institute for supply management will release its service sector index for october. retailers will be releasing their october sales numbers. the u.s. has hit a new record in the number of people living 50% or more below the poverty line. one in 15 americans are now consider this country's poorest of the poor. the state media of cuba is

saying they are allowing people to buy and sell state property for the first time since the early days of the revolution. the law takes effect november 10. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> every weekend, the people and events that document the american story. this weekend, the white house curator on the decorations and fine arts are rarely seen at the white house. and from the civil war, an author on historical fiction. from the film of all, the goldwater for president committee. look for the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history.

watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's web site. twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, the latest polling data, plus links to c-span partners. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative bill huizenga is a republican from michigan. thank you for being with us today. we will take your calls for this segment. we will also be taking questions from students of the university of southern mississippi.

they will get their questions to you as well. to start out, you served on the financial services committee and the highest ranking fresh mint on that committee. talk to us about what you hope to come out of the deficit reduction panel. have you heard anything? guest: they are very tight lipped. coming from michigan, my district touches both camps. i served on the financial- services committee. i have gotten to know them very well. they are very tight lipped. that is not unusual for this kind of think. it is not ideal, but not terribly unexpected. host: does that give you a different aspect of on the u.s.

economy as a real terror? did you get a sense early on how the housing market was very? guest: yes, very much so. i it also owned a sand and gravel company. my cousins now owns. we are very sensitive to what is happening in the housing industry. yeah, i have had a front row seat of what has been going on over the last decade. host: looking at the unemployment rate in michigan, 11.1%. total unemployed, 3.9 million people. guest: yes, it has been a tough ticket for michigan. i served in the state house and was elected in 2000 to. i did 32-year terms.

-- i did three two-year terms. it cut across all areas. fortunately, for my home county, we are about 2% or 3% below the state average, but i have other counties in the district along the lakeshore of michigan on the west side where we have had nearly 20% unemployment in those counties. so it has been very difficult. host: you mentioned the relationship you have with members of the deficit reduction committee who represent areas right around you who are so tight-lipped. you have been one of the freshman house republicans who think critical of the secrecy surrounding this committee.

how do you feel like your viewpoints are getting hurt? guest: there was an article yesterday that outlined some of that. i made no secret at the very beginning. i was one of those freshmen signing a letter asking for open hearings. i understand that there are times when you might have to go into some closed executive-type hearing. but i think overall and ultimately, sunshine and transparency would bring about a better product. what is happening internally is not much different than what we are having extrapolate from what is going on. host: some of the comments our guest made in this "washington post" article --

. pack guest: i know the house members the best. i have met a couple of the members. i believe that they are going in with good intentions. what i am afraid of is the system is stacked against them. can they get there? i think they possibly can. as i said, i have told them all that i love you but i am not sure that the way that it is structured it will be successful. you have to remember that this was a senate initiative. of the senate has insisted this as a of thbudget reduction act.

caller: good morning to all of you. congressman, i am not too sure what you would think about it, but i know that if somebody causes through their actions and through their leadership a company to end up losing a whole bunch of money, beginning with a surplus and ending up with a huge deficit, that that company would go under and that owner of the company should not get paid for failure. i believe in the last 10 years, this country was led to the woes we are in right now. and yet during the whole of the eight years of the bush administration, and for seven of those years, congress granted

itself a raise. i believe congress should take that raise and reversed their salaries. i am not talking about getting rid of jobs. i am talking about reducing the salaries of all federal employees back to the year 2000 because i believe in him and not rewarding failure. guest: i appreciate that caller. my understanding is that constitutionally, there are some predictions in there for the members. i am not sure if that should be there. i agree. as a business owner, i have had to look at employees and say we are not going to be able to do a raises this year because partially i am losing money or my income is going to be coming down from what we have been

doing in the company. i do not think that should apply any differently. host: this morning, the c-span campaign 2012 bus -- we will hear this morning from some political science and journalist students who have questions for our guest. first up is catherine from the university of mississippi. hi there. caller: hi. guest: kudos to you. i do not think i would be up this early in the morning to ask a question to a politician. >> how do you predict the relationship between the united states and europe will change as a result of the financial crisis? guest: we are not sure exactly what is going to be happening. the president has just flown to

france for the g-20 summit. the interconnectedness' that we have with our economies is a reality. it is not something that we want to acknowledge, but it is the reality. i think it is an unknown. have no doubt, there is going to be ramifications for us economically as well as possibly politically. i am not sure how that is going to be playing out. host: let's go to william, a republican from indiana. welcome. caller: is this representative huizenga? i am calling from indiana. i worked in florida for about two years. i made about $400,000 and was

sent back to indiana from florida. why is the ssi not taxed for people under 60? i have been on that for four years. why is the real worth of industry not put into buildings of construction? betweent their escrow the contractor and real-estate agreement? guest: i am not sure i understood what you were getting at with those accounts and those types of things. your question regarding ssi, that is something i will take a look at. i am not familiar with whether that is taxed or not taxed. certainly, it is tax dollars coming in to someone collecting

that. going back and taxing that again would be an interesting question. " charlotte joins us on the democrats' line. good morning. caller: i would like to ask the senator -- host: representative huizenga. caller: i would like to ask the senator how many block grants he and his family have gone and since starting their business. guest: as far as block grants, none. we have had absolutely no federal grants of any kind. the question about the genesis of the super committee, that super committee came out of the agreement that was connected to

the debt ceiling increase. that was something that the senate wanted to put into the package, having a forced a vote on the balanced budget amendments which i think is very important. the senate wanted to put into the super committee of the joint select committee. host: concerned about cuts for food stamps and other nutritional aid programs that go to families and children -- do you think programs that help the poor should be on the cutting block? guest: we need to make sure we have a safety net that is there. i believe that safety net begins with me personally. i believe my responsibility starts within my own church, within my own community, within my family. we ought to be the frontlines and not expect the government to do that. is there a role for government?

absolutely. we need to make sure that safety net is there for those who cannot help themselves and does not become a hammock the others are taking advantage of as a program. i thought it was a little unbelievable that there was an assertion made that there is no fraud in the program. i think that simply is not the case. we have seen steady after study where we know that waste, fraud, and abuse are involved in all of those. that should be a priority to go in there and prioritize. we need to make sure we are using every single tax dollars for its highest use. host: i am looking at the story from "doug hill" -- -- "the hill" --

as we look at the 100-day anniversary mark, more transparency and accountability. guest: incomplete partially because there is no head of the cfpb yet. but there is a lot of sort of building the airplane as it is rolling down the runway. under dodd-frank, this previous congress -- i have been part of this getting inserted into it while it has been implemented -- they have been making it up as they have gone along. what is disturbing to me is if you sit in a committee, using this is writ from on high.

i had been in a district director for my predecessor and served in the state legislature. yet in my involvement in government, have i ever seen a perfect bill? we know there are some reforms that need to happen. one of those, john duffy from wisconsin, as a very common- sense bill, being able to just implement rules for something for another group of people that have to filter through. we need to make this more of a democratic view of implementing these rules so there has to be an agreement on it and not just one person coming in setting this is how we have to do it with no questions asked. host: let's get back to our skyped-in questions. just and mitchell is joining

us. >> how do you feel about rejecting the euro? [unintelligible] guest: breaking up there is little bit. host: he asked about greece rejecting the euro. what is the u.s. role? guest: this is big bang bang this is big for the g-20. it is big -- this is big. this is big for the g-20. not everybody is a member of the eurozone who takes part in the euro or uses the euro. it is kind of an uknown of what is really going to be happening here. there is a pretty robust reaction to george papandreou's

call for a referendum in his own country. that seems to be rejected by his own party, the socialist party, in greece. he had somebody quit the government. they would notay support it. it is not even as big as the michigan economy overall. they have asked president sarkozy and angela merkel to come to cannes to talk about it. we will see what happens with what goes on. it is amazing that an economy that is that small, smaller than the state of michigan's economy, could have that much global impact. it is indicative of the integrated of economies that we have in the world market.

host: looking at a story from fox business -- reports are saying that george papandreou could step down. stock futures are rallying on that report. it could scuttle the referendum. guest: it is interesting. having served now for 10 months, i have got much more familiar. i have gone to chicago a couple of times. it sees almost as much as new york doesn't related to agriculture. the same thing in new york and the international markets, the dax, the hang seng and others.

they want stability. they want predictability. what may be a good ? long term, they view it as short term. that is challenging to this whole system. we need to make sure that we are not just looking at the next quarter. we need to look at the next decade and the atmosphere for job creation. are we doing here in the united states -- sometimes that takes some very tough decisions. i am not sure that when you are running over 16% unemployment, no one wants to lose their job but they have to trim the size of their government. those are very difficult decisions. at some point or another, the greek people are going to have to make up their mind if they are willing to accept the parameters that are being put out their. host: let's hear from tom on our independent line.

caller: good morning. i have been a legislative bill reader for the association of realtors, so i follow things pretty well. does anybody in washington on the other side realize that we have a national emergency? there is a time for austerity. there are people and programs in the government that need to be cut back. that would be number one. number two, there is a negative amortization program that was very popular some time ago. could the government not into to this to allow people to reduce their payments, say 50%, and go for a time of 5 years to seven years so they can get their jobs back?

they can keep their houses. eventually, the values will be back up. i am pleased to see someone who is a realtor because we have gotten the bad end of the stick. chris dodd and barney frank did but tog t exacerbate the problems. so i would like to hear your comments. i thank you very much for your time. it is good to see someone who understands a hard-working business. guest: i have had -- i got my real-estate license about 20 years or go. back at that time, you needed to own your lot to go get a construction loan or you needed to put down 20%. what we saw happen is that 20%

became 15%, 10%, 2%, 0%. suddenly, we saw 120% loan to value. it is crazy. you would be across from the closing agent and they say here is your check. "thanks for buying the house." some of that is generational as well. i am 42. my generation wants it now. we are looking at it and we are saying of course i have to have the three-car garage and the master suite and everything. we have not had the same view of what our parents had. pretty clearly, we saw people that were outside their scope of paying. i was taught that people are not brown, white, or yellow.

they are green because they can either afford it or they cannot afford it. i appreciate that. we are going to take a look at that reverse amortization as well. host: we are joined by some of the students from the campaign 2012 bus this morning. good morning. >> good morning. upon graduation, how well students find jobs within the workforce? guest: i am not sure what your major is. unfortunately, there is no guarantee. i graduated with my political science degree and did not have a specific job. i was working in my family company which had been my summer job and continue that afterwards.

it was an interesting day the day that i decided i needed to go into real-estate full-time. i snapped a drivetrain on one of our trucks when i was backing up. i had had it. i decided to go and get my real- estate license and started a career. often times, that-- often timest happened. there is no box to check, i am this major, and you go out and this is your slot of jobs you're going to do. it is about going out and being entrepreneurial. what do you want to do? what is your passion? we have to make sure you have options and choices. unfortunately, that has not been the case. there has been a lot of criticism about republicans not having a plan. here is something i carry around in my pocket, the america's job creators plan.

reduce barriers to job creation. please go to my website and you will be able to see the. or go to jobs.gop.gov as well. it is about creating an atmosphere that will allow you to have choices. we did not have enough of those jobs -- we do not have enough of those jobs. it is our job at the state and federal level to get -- to create those opportunities. host: a story from "npr." guest: it is a problem. we -- my wife and i have five

young kids. we employ a lot of babysitters who are in high school going to college and coming out of college as well, so we hear those stories on a regular basis. people have been focused on the debt that is piling up. i think we also need to look at the other side of the equation -- what is the cost of education? we have seen education dramatically increase in its expense. that is something that needs to be looked at. in michigan, a lot of that is dealt with in the state legislature. there is not a lot we can do, but we do need to make sure we have some programs like pell grant and others to try to help students. host: let's go to a michigan caller. caller: --

guest: that is home to the truffle festival. caller: you're my guy down there. i have called your office before. i am so glad i got through. i am on the edge of my seat. as two questions. -- just two questions. i tried to call and i ran my phone bill up. how they keep saying about those tax cuts that went in in 2001, 2002, and it was supposed to be for ten years. when it was supposed to expire, it sounds like the news to all of the big business that this was supposed to expire. i live up north. my best friend lives down state. it was noticeable how things

were falling apart there. businesses closing up, all that. i would like to know why they make -- it is like it is news or something. it was a 10-year thing and it did not work. i am not the smartest thing, but that don't make sense to me. the other thing is how they keep saying health care is why businesses cannot hire people. i am like a tape queen. i tape c-span so much. it must have been from the late- 1980's or the early-1990's, they actually had congressional hearings because companies were just ripping people up. there were people who had testified. that is nothing new. guest: i appreciate it. hopefully we will see you in the area soon when we are doing a

town hall. hopefully, we will be able to meet face-to-face. if you do have questions, i hope you're not calling my office long distance. you can call my cadillac office as well. it should be in your local phone book. let me tackle the health care one first of all. that is kind of what he finished up on. 20 years ago, i was an intern on capitol hill. it was a hot topic and something that has been growing. oftentimes, people say, health care just came on to the scene. that is not true. if you go back to the first clinton administration and the "hillarycare" debate that was going on, that was a big issue at the time. it has continued to be a big issue. caller, clearly, going back to what we have had, it is not a success. however, for me, i do not believe that the health care

reform that was put into place, the so-called obama care is the right solution either. i think we need to make sure we are creating a different system. we have a number of alternatives that have been passed in the house that are sitting in the senate with little to no action on them. we cannot just go back to the status quo. that is not success. your discussion about the tax cuts. you are right. it was intended to be a permanent tax level. that was the intent of both the president at the time and the republican house. the senate, however, did not want to go along with that. the only way to get those tax levels but through was to put that 10-year sunset -- put through was to put that 10-year sunset on and to have the debate again, which they did. president obama and the democratic house and senate did extend it.

if we do nothing, those tax rates will be going back up. that will be happening here in the next couple of months. host: a story from the "ap." fewer people applied for unemployment benefits last week. weekly applications dropped. good news? guest: well, only now do we see "flat" as good news. that, unfortunately, libby, is the new reality in a way. as we discovered in michigan, the numbers that we talk about and that you cite, that are

cited in this article, are not including those who no longer qualify or, frankly, have just given up. that is what we see in michigan. we have 11.1% unemployment in michigan. we know it is significantly higher. why? because of the elongated time period that michigan has been suffering. in all likelihood, it was tied to manufacturing, not just automotive. we have three large office- furniture makers. we have a number of other manufacturers in aerospace. michigan has been going through an entrenched time period of a depressed economy. people have, frankly, given up. whether it is voluntary or the time has just expired, they are no longer on the rolls. we have a lot of work to do in helping to create a better atmosphere for job creation.

host: let's hear from a student at the university of southern michigan. caller: good morning, congressman. guest: the morning. c-- good morning. caller: do you believe that the economy is in a state of recovery? guest: i think it is very fragile. there are signs of life. when you come washington, you get to know a number of people. i have -- when you come to washington, you get to know a number of people. i think michigan is uniquely situated for this recovery. we have trimmed back expenses. if you have survived over the last 10 years in michigan, you are employing some pretty sound business practices. we have seen a significant uptick in manufacturing in michigan.

that is all good. when i talk to some of my friends from the carolinas, georgia, texas, down south, southwest, they are only one or two or three years into what michigan has been going through 48, 9, 10 years. it is more a sense of fragility that what we have in michigan. again -- and then what we have in michigan. again, i think it is -- it is more a sense of fragility than what we have in michigan. it could go off the rails. we will see what happens in europe, because that may influence us. it is complicated. but rather small company like mf global has dramatic tripoli fax -- dramatic ripple effects. i got calls from people who had equities that were flowing through mf global, having things

cleared through their that came through an absolute stop because of what is going on -- there that came to an absolute stop because of what is going on. host: you have received some sizable donations, and in the $25,000-range. does that influence policy? does that gain your ear? guest: my relationship with the family goes way, way back. one of the family members and i went to high school together. it is a small community. clearly, they are global leaders in the manufacturing from all over. they are essentially an asian company based in michigan, just outside of grand rapids. it being a realtor lends me perspective. being involved in the instructive industry -- construction industry lends me

perspective. having agriculture be a huge part of the district lines a perspective as well. i am not one who takes orders or direction. i take input and then make decisions, which is exactly what the people of the second district elected me to do. morning.: good guest: good morning, samantha. how are you? caller: do you think the u.s. will drive the discussions on the euro crisis, given its current economic state? guest: i lost you for a second. are we going to drive the g-20 discussions, is that what he said? caller: -- what you said? caller: yes. guest: i think it is somewhat limited. we are a significant part of the composition, but we are not the

only significant player -- of the conversation, but we are not the only significant player. you have seen policy being driven by angela merkel in germany and nicolas sarkozy in france. when we were doing our first in this package, it was actually germany and france that -- our first stimulus package, it was actually germany and france that scolded the u.s. this was for mr. de's "wall street journal -- from yesterday's "wall street journal," about the bond rates. i think it is a recognition of their sound policies that they have had there. same thing in the netherlands. they aree very -- are very low, at 2.2%.

gone is the portion of us showing up and telling all the other countries what is going to happen. that is clearly not the case. host: janet, good morning. caller: you have talked about working with gravel, as a realtor, with agriculture. why is not more being done to control farm subsidies? in atlanta, we're surrounded. some of the state's rating in the most money are the republican states and the the-- states raking in the most money are the republican states in the south. the farm subsidy money needs to be regulated.

if it is regulated and earmarked for the agricultural needs of this country, don't you think -- guest: waste, fraud, and abuse , whether it is in the department of agriculture, defense, how dud, it does not matter. we need to make sure we are using that money in a way that you are proud of and i am proud of. i cannot look you in the eye and say we are using your dollars to the highest, most efficient eye. the farm subsidies question you are bringing up -- with the new farm bill that is coming up, it is my understanding that there will be a dramatic reshifting of how those programs are going to work. i think that should be the way it is. when i talked of agricultural producers -- in my district, it tends not to be the corn, the week, the major cash crops --

the wheat, the major cash crops. it tends to be things like dairy, pickles. those producers are asking for the system to be revamped. i think we're going to give it to them. host: let's hear from one more student at the university of southern mississippi. caller: are there any short or long-term effects in the greek the fault that should be cause for concern among the general population -- greek default that should be cause for concern among the general population? guest: yes, there are. the problem is that we might not know what they are until it happens. that is really kind of the scary part. i think the ripple effect will hit our shores. it will hit europe more significantly. yeah, there are going to be some

of those ripply fax -- ripple effects. -- term, what is better for us? is it better to go through some short-term pain adn -- and shore up our financial system in the long-term? anytime you do not know what the financial future is going to be, that gives pause. host: they are demanding the formation of a transition government and immediate ratification by parliament of the new eurozone that agreement. -- eurozone debt agreement. guest: it is going to be fascinating to watch, not just from an academic side, but from the business side. it is hard to believe that a

country that has an economy -- a gross economy smaller than the state of michigan -- may have that kind of effect on the world, but it is a reality. host: thank you for coming. the representative for michigan's second district as a freshman. we also want to thank the students with the c-span campaign 2012 bus. we want to thank comcast cable for sponsoring today's bus visit. southern mississippi has over 18,000 students. we heard from some of their journalism and political science students. coming up, we will look at the history of vaccines. >> here are some of the

headlines. fewer people applied for unemployment benefits last week. a sign, say analysts, that the job market might be picking. -- picking up. it is lowest level in five weeks. only the third time since april that applications have fallen below 400,000. these figures come a day before the government issues the october jobs report, which economists think will show a net gain of 100,000 jobs, with the jobless rate remained at 9.1%. also on the economic front, u.s. workers increased their productivity this summer by the largest amount in a year-and-a- half, and the cost. players last -- and they cost their employers less. productivity rose 3.1% in the

quarter from july to october. members of the college class of 2010 who took out college loans owed, on average, a total that is a 5% increase from the year before. this is from analysis by the project on student debt. the unemployment rate for a new college grad stood at 9.1% a year of their graduation -- 9.1% the year of their graduation. >> every weekend on american history tv, the stories that document -- it is now on display at the smithsonian. also, an author, jeff shaara.

from the film vault, the campaign of barry goldwater in 1954. look for the complete schedule at c-span.org/history. >> i want you all to know -- those of you who wanted me to run so badly and those of you who are so terribly disappointed -- that i am doing the right thing. >> i believe the 1984 finds the united states in the strongest position in years to establish a constructive and realistic working relationship with the soviet union. >> with every program since 1987, the c-span video library is the definitive source for online public affairs. now there is a new way taxes are programming. download and listen to mp3 audio for every program, just 99 cents each. it takes c-span with you. listen to what you want, when

you want, where you want. >> "washington journal" continues. host: dr. stanley plotkin, a university of pennsylvania professor emeritus of pediatrics, thank you for joining us this morning. guest: i am quite happy to be here. host: as i mentioned when the segment began, you have a long history of working the vaccines and have created a vaccine. tell us the history of when did america start vaccinating. what was the first vaccine? guest: the first experience of vaccination goes back to the colonial days. cotton mather introduced what was called correlation -- called variolation. the church set out before were

-- the troops at valley forge were vaccinated to prevent an epidemic of smallpox. the real vaccines again with william jenner at the end of the 1863 -- 18th century, when he realized that milkmaids had a very nice complexions, not -- had a very nice complexion, not marred by smallpox. he cultivated a virus and began to use it as a vaccine. 200 years later, that resulted in the eradication of smallpox from the world. but the development of vaccines

and the 19th century was actually -- in the 19th century was actually rather slow. louis pasteur was the originator of the laboratory development of vaccines. his laboratory and then american laboratories began to work on developing some early vaccines. for example, the earliest vaccine against rabies and against cholera. it was not until the second world war that vaccine development really began in earnest, so to speak. after the second world war, a great number of vaccines were developed. many of them were used in pediatrics -- are used in the pediatrics today to vaccinate children. that process has continued and become industrialized. if you will. there are universities, biotechnology institute's, and

pharmaceutical companies that work on vaccine development, giving us the wide range of vaccines that we have today that are used retain the, not only in children, adolescents -- used routinely, not only in children, adolescents, but adults. if the public wants to hear or learn more about this, there is a wonderful website set up by the college of physicians of philadelphia, called "history of vaccines." it has a tremendous amount of information on the history of vaccines. host: our guest, dr. stanley plotkin, is an adviser to the history of vaccines project and was the developer of the rubella vaccine that is currently used. we're talking about history and the role that the government played.

you mentioned, dr. plotkin, that george washington ordered mandatory inoculation for the troops back in 1777. is that an indication of how the relationship would be between government and vaccinations? guest: well, you know, vaccines are of importance to governments because they are responsible, in ways, for the health of people, not only individual people, but people in general -- populations, if you will. the government -- the u.s. government has played a role in vaccine development, certainly in the 20th century and in this century. people have to appreciate that there is a very large apparatus that begins with the fda, the food and drug administration,

that has very strict rules about what they will license. they work with the vaccine developers. they insist on certain criteria of safety and efficacy. they demand that the vaccine is licensed. before that are large numbers of people have to be tested. whether the vaccine i helped develop was tested for 70,000 children before it was licensed by the fda. after the licensure, again, there is a large apparatus, for example, to examine safety. there is a reporting system that every physician is supposed to report a possible reaction to a vaccine. there is organized surveillance of that seniors and reactions -- and reactions.

they continue to monitor the safety and efficacy of vaccines. there is a committee of people who are experts in the field, and they meet three times a year at cdc in a public meeting. anyone can attend. they lay out the data that they have accumulated in the last .onths about vaccine use this is discussed thoroughly to make sure if there is any problem, then it can be ironed out, investigated, and recommendations made as far as the use of vaccines. so, there is an extensive relationship between the government development and use. host: our guest is dr. stanley plotkin.

wondering, sir, what you think about some of the controversies and concerns that americans have over vaccines? linking them to autism, being afraid of what the side effects could be? guest: the first thing i have to say, as in many other instances, there is an awful lot of false information on the internet. a lot of rumors, a lot of ideas being retailed that have no basis in fact. just to take the autism issue. this came up because of an article written by a british physician in a permanent -- prominent medical journal. this idea that there was a relationship between vaccines and ought to some began to be spread. people began to believe it.

ok. it turns out that, at the end of the day, the article that was written was based on fraudulent data. that position has been, in effect, this part. -- that physician has been, in fact, disbarred. abundance studies have been done -- extensive studies -- to disprove what was a fraudulent idea. there is absolutely no reason and no evidence -- indeed, the evidence is against the idea that that maxine -- that vaccines cause autism. nonetheless, there are people who believe it and are retained and that idea -- our retailing -- and are retailing that idea.

i think it is jonathan swift to said, "lies run fast and truth comes limping after." host: from "the washington post." what do you think about this? guest: it so happens that in my own personal history, one of the first vaccines i worked on was the anthrax vaccine. the anthrax vaccine is a highly effective vaccine. but it has -- it has the unfortunate property that has to be given repeatedly. in other words, the protection

does not last for long time. unlike many other vaccines were you can give the vaccine once and protect people for life, this is a situation where if there were an exposure to anthrax, you would have to vaccinate a lot of people immediately in order to protect them. the problem is that we have lots of data in adults with the anthrax vaccine. it was, as you may know, used more or less routinely in the army to protect soldiers against the possibility of a biological warfare attack. but we have no data on the use of the vaccine in women and children -- in children. the point of doing a trial in the children would be to make sure that it is safe and to have some data on which to base the

possibility of a large-scale vaccination and to show that it is immunogenic. i do not doubt that, but you need data. you need proof. it does not surprise me that the committee advised that there be a trial in children, in order that we have some basis to recommend mass vaccination if such a terrible event occurs. host: good morning, gloria. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the question is, how do you choose -- you said you did a trial on 70,000 children when you made the initial vaccine for rubella. how do you choose children to take part in the trial?

i am thinking about the susurration with the tuskegee -- the situation with the tuskegee tribe. how do you -- do you go out of the country? to africa or someplace like that to test vaccines? how do you get people to agree to let you vaccinate the little children? thank you for taking my call. guest: that is certainly a legitimate question. the cranswer is this. since the tusk -- tuskegee event, which was deplorable, the field of medical ethics has developed considerably. so, certainly, that kind of event would not be permissible

today. every university and the fda examine the ethics of the clinical trial. so, before any clinical trial is done in this country, there is a committee that looks to determine whether or not it is -- to come specifically to your question, enrolling children in clinical trials -- a document is drawn up, which explains why the test is being done, white children -- why children or their parents should agree to have children enrolled. in the case of the rubella vaccine, the idea was to protect children against rubella, particularly female children, so that when they grow up, they're not at risk of having a rebellion during pregnancy.

you may know that has terrible effects on the fetus and creates a terrible -- creates terrible abnormalities in fetuses during pregnancy. there was a document given to parents to explain why the vaccine was developed, what the possible reactions might be, what the -- what the advantages of being vaccinated could be. those parents freely decided that they would enroll their children. that process -- this was many years ago. but that process has become even more complex. parents get documents which are not so easy to read, because they're so expensive. i repeat that no trial is done

in children or adults, for that matter, without what is called informed consent. host: let's go to a caller from columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of comments. i will try to make it quick. dr. plotkin, i had the experience of having my four- year-old, when he was getting his mmr and chicken pox go through seizure-like night terrors. that was horrifying to go through. from the time that he was 18 months, i started to spread them out. even icc standards, -- by cdc standards, they do not even encourage parents to do that. it is like taking the power away

from the parents, to waive them all together. i had got my family practitioners to explain to me that vaccines, all they actually is lessen the effects of disease once you contract it, for example, into wins a -- influenza. my question to you -- why is it that we, the government, the cdc, do not a parents haven't vaccines -- do not tell parents how the vaccines are actually made? from what i have researched, the rna and dna of animals are used to make the vaccine. i will let it into particulars. i am not looking at the paperwork that i got this from,

or the book that i copied it from. when you reduce something like that into the bodies of little children, -- when you in interviews -- when you infuse something like that into the bodies of little children, how can we not think that causes disturbances in the body, ranging from psychological to gaster industrial -- gastrointestinal? guest: you have made a lot of statements. i have to say that they are misinformed. i am not sure exactly where to begin. let's begin with this business about rna and dna. you have to understand that rna and dna are molecules.

when you inject them, they do not take over the genetics of the individual. the usually destroyed by enzymes in the body -- they are usually destroyed by enzymes in the body. animal rna and dna cannot have an effect on humans. it is biologically impossible that that would occur. that is one point. when you talk about manufacture of vaccines, you have to understand that is extremely, carefully controlled. -- you have to understand that is extremely carefully controlled. the fda does not accept anything that is not detailed and studied for safety in an exquisite way. many animal species are inoculated before they are put

into humans. safety of those products is demonstrated in a very thorough way. that is one point. as far as the possible reaction that your child had, i obviously do not know the medical details of what happened, but i have to make this point. this is a general point. one has to understand that there that occur with or without vaccines. that is to say that i may walked out of here and get hit by a truck -- walk out of here and get hit by a truck. that is not to say that doing this program caused me to get hit by a truck. in deciding whether a reaction

has occurred as a result of a vaccine or the result of anything, for that matter, you have to have a control group. a group that does not receive the vaccine. that kind of safety study is done for every vaccine. you can know what the real reactions are and what the coincidental reactions are to a vaccine. in the case of them are -- of m mr, which i believe you were referring to specifically, there is no evidence that causes any lasting problem. i am sorry if your child has a difficulty, but i am unconvinced that it had anything to do with the vaccin. the statement of your position was false -- physician was

false. there is no measles, no domestic measles in this country. bear is no domestic polio in this country -- there is no domestic polio in this country. in the vaccine simply made the symptoms milder, we would see these diseases, but we do not. it is the result of vaccines. what your position was telling you was, unfortunately, -- what your physician was telling you was, unfortunately, not true. there are some circumstances where scheduling at vaccines may be advisable, but one has to appreciate that is also delaying protection. if you want protection as early as possible, spreading the vaccines out is not a good idea.

i think should stop there. i think i probably have not covered every question that you have asked, but i tried to cover the main points. guest: dr. stanley plotkin, emeritus professor of pediatrics at the university of pennsylvania. he is also the project advisor of the history and -- project advisor on the history of vaccines project. there was a recent story in "the washington times" which says that thousands enter schools in california without vaccines. this?ou weigfh in on you talked about the regulation of the testing of vaccines. when that federal government has the ability to require our mandate -- who in the federal

government as the -- has the ability to require or mandate vaccinations? guest: it goes back to the early 19th -- 1920's, where the court determined it is the right of states to mandate a vaccination. it is not really a federal- government issue. it is a state issue. each state has laws that vary somewhat, but mandates certain vaccines. what is the philosophical basis for that? the philosophical basis is that, with the exception of tetanus, where the protection is part -- is strictly personal, every

vaccine exhibits what is called the heard defect -- herd effect. those who are not immunized will be protected because the virus or bacteria simply cannot find susceptible people. there are some people who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated, and they are protected by the vaccination of others. in addition, academics are disruptive to public life -- epidemics are disruptive to public life. the courts have decided it is in the public's interest that vaccines, certain vaccines, be required. going back to measles, that is how this country has. itself -- rid itself of measles

and polio, by insisting that people be vaccinated. there are so-called philosophical and religious objections. in most states, a parent can say, my religion does not allow my child to be vaccinated. how sincere that is i do not know, but there are percentages, perhaps 1% or 2% appearance -- of parents who seek that kind of religious or philosophical objection to vaccination. unfortunately, those people tend to be concentrated in certain areas, in rural areas, certain towns, and there have been problems in those towns where a

bacteria or viruses is introduced and causes an outbreak in that particular town. so, there is a cost in taking those objections and using those objections. host: let's hear from rita, a democratic caller in chesterfield, mich. caller: i have a lot to say. a doctor from britain has been vindicated. his studies were proven true. you keep talking about this information. i think you're one of the biggest ones. there is dr. horowitz, dr. blalock, other doctors who have researched and looked into this. the mercury -- if waxman can say mercury in the air causes brain

damage, of course, in the vaccine, mercury is causing autism. the increase in shots from one, when i was a child, to like 25 by the time they are two, no wonder our kids are autistic. guest: let's try to answer some of these questions. wakefield -- i have personally read all of the evidence, because there was a legal -- and legal issue in the united kingdom -- because there was a legal issue in the united kingdom. wakefield's data, both clinical and laboratory, were entirely false. they could not be replicated by

anybody else. so, the idea that he was vindicated is absolutely untrue. i do not know where you got that idea. but the other people you mentioned hob -- there are, of course, vaccine physicians -- but the other people you mentioned -- there are, of course, vaccine physicians who object to what i am saying. there is no credible evidence accepted in published journals that can be replicated by other scientists. they have opinions. anybody can have an opinion. you have to have evidence. host: can i just ask, how has american -- perhaps other countries even -- carries the opinion of vaccines changed over the years -- how has the opinion

of vaccines changed over the years? guest: it is interesting. in most parts of the world, they and are fighting for vaccines. they want as many vaccines as they can get, because they still have the diseases which we no longer have. arliss talking to somebody just yesterday about trying to get vaccines -- i was talking to somebody just yesterday about trying to get vaccines into areas of the middle east. they're coming to organizations -- philanthropic organizations and asking them to please find the introduction of some of the newer vaccines that they do not have -- fund the introduction of some of the newer vaccines that they do not have. mr. ax me as ironic -- it strikes me as ironic that there

are people in this country questioning the value of vaccines whereas in -- vaccines, whereas in the other countries people are fighting for them. host: you have. thank you. let's go to mike. good morning. are you with us? caller: yes, i am. hang on. can you hear me now? host: we can. we need to hear your question quickly. caller: i'm going to make a statement and i want dr. plotkin to refute it. there have been no testings given afor vaccines given together from the age of 2, not even testing on pigs. guest: my responses that that is

simply not -- response is that that is simply not true. when the vaccine is released, one of the pre-vaccination studies that is done is to incorporate that vaccine into a schedule, so that, as parents probably know, in this country, many vaccines are given at 2, 4, and 6 months. then there are booster doses offten -- often given in the second year of life, usually between 12 and 15 monhts. -- months. when a new vaccine is introduced, one of the studies that is done is to put that vaccine into a schedule and test children receiving the already- licensed vaccines together with

the new vaccine. i understand that parents do not like the idea of infants receiving multiple injections. one of the ways that the vaccine industry is trying to deal with that is to combine vaccines so that, in one syringe you have five different vaccines, which to theewer injectiosns child. as of today, we have absolutely no evidence that giving multiple vaccines at the same time is harmful. the previous caller talked about mercury. the people out there -- parents should know, first of all, the amount of mercury that was in

vaccines was really tiny. that is point number one. piont -- point number two -- i think no vaccuinine used in thi country at this time has any mercury in it. if so, it is in infinitesimal amounts. host: scientists see the promise in a vaccine for malaria. dr. plotkin, where is this at? how revolutionary or significant would this be? guest: there has been, over many years, an attempt to develop a vaccine against malaria. malaria is one of the world's great killers, particularly of

children. there had been little success up until now. the reason for that is that the malarial organism is not a virus or bacteria. it is a complicated parasite. protecting against the parricide with -- parasite with a complex life cycle is not easy. nevertheless, workers mainly at the glaxosmithkline company have taken a particular protein from the paris i -- the parasite and put it on a hepatitis b protein. this is not living. this is pure protein -- a pure protein. they have used that as a

vaccine and shown efficacy of 50%. that may not sound like much. when you combine that with bed nets, you realize you can reduce the mortality due to malaria by 50%, that is a very significant advance. there are at times now to confirm this and to improve the vaccine -- there are attempts now to confirm this and to improve the vaccine so it has a higher efficacy. this could have a major effect on the developing world. host: back end 1736, benjamin franklin's son died of smallpox -- back in 1736, benjamin franklin's son died of smallpox. you can see more about the history of vaccinations in america there on your screen.

let's go to margie, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. dr. plotkin, i would like to know what you think about this funding health care and medications in china and the rest of the world, the global- health initiative, giving $1 trillion toward malaria instead of alzheimer's research, which costs the united states trillion's every year -- trillions every year. congress has asked why you do not study that. the reply was that you did not the congress meddling. instead of bill gates putting $1,000 in the end as putting in $1 trillion -- in and us putting in $1 trillion --

guest: i am not sure i am qualified to comment on that. like everyone else, i am interested in preventing alzheimer's disease. there is a good deal of research on developing a vaccine on alzheimer's. there are some interesting developments in that area. when you -- when you question, essentially, the idea of giving other money -- giving money to other countries to protect them, the only comment i can make is this is now one world. preventing disease in other countries does have an indirect effect on the united states. that is, but it decreases the risk of importation -- that is, it decreases the risk of importation and