talks about the rise in measles cases in the u.s. and the movement against activating children. as always, we will take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: flags at the capital half staff today, to represent the passing of alan nunnelee. there is no confirmation this month -- morning if the woman held by the islamic state was killed in syria. good morning, this is the "washington journal." on the jobs front, the labor department says that a number of jobs were added by smart -- last month but at the same time, the unemployment rate went up.

we will use headlines this morning to talk about your job situation. you can give your thoughts. we have three lines this morning. if you found a job, and you want to tell us about it call in -- guest: -- guest:-(202) 748-0003 (202) 748-8000 for democrats. [audio clip]-[audio clip] -- -- -- join the c-span conversation -- like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. 5.6% was the previous number. it jumped up a bit. that is according to the new york times this morning. also, if you look at the various demographics and unemployment

it goes up to 4.9% for whites. 10.3% for blacks. 6.7% for hispanics. 4.1 percent for asians. also, a number that gets talked about a lot is labor participation rate. in january, those employed were 59.3%. the labor force was 62.9%. to help us give context is mr. reddy. could you tell us first and foremost why we have seen so a jobs added last month but the unemployment rate went up. guest: the unemployment going up while you're adding jobs can actually be seen as a good thing, and a good sign for the overall economy. one of the forces that we have seen over the last five and a half years of economic recovery is that a lot of people have moved out of the labor force and

have not come back in. a lot of them were just on the sidelines, they dropped out, they decided without worries looking for a job. there were not enough opportunities. in order to be unemployed, you have to not have a job and also not be looking for work. now, we at least see people come back into the labor force which is a good thing. when you see people come back into the labor force because employees are hiring, the unemployment rate can go up temporarily. host: one of the things against brought up about these discussions is labor participation and the rate. this rate, if i'm reading it correctly, 62.9%, why does this matter? guest: this is one of the most important gauges of the labor market. it can drive long-term growth

for the economy, for the labor market it is an important sign of living standards. labor force participation has been coming down in recent years. there are a couple of reasons. some of it is cyclical due to weak recovery. due to people not staying in the labor force, looking for work. some of it is due to demographics. that is part of the puzzle. americans getting older, with the baby boom, people retiring. you will not expect them to stay in the labor force. we have seen the labor force come down. it has come to aid two or three decade low. it popped up just a bit in the latest report. the fact that it popped up means that people are coming back and getting more confidence in the labor market. a needs to come up a lot more for us to see some meaningful

fines that will reverse this trend. host: this is sudeep reddy. the federal reserve also been mentioned in the pages of the paper this morning. what did they say as far as future interest rates, and how's that a stomach nursing in the unemployment picture? guest: the fed is trying to make a difficult decision this year. they kept the short-term interest rate near zero cents 2008. they have gone through several rounds of bond buying. they have gone through a whole lot of additional support for the economy. they finally got out of the bond buying program. now they are facing a decision as to whether or not they raise the interest rate target. before 2008, the way the fed was influencing the economy was it would raise its interest rate economy to slow down the economy update, deal with inflation, and

it would lower the interest rate when the economy was weak and it needed to provide some port -- provide support. now, since we're getting closer to the longer run rate of unemployment, the natural rate of unemployment, the fed sees that from 5.2%-5.8%. we are fairly close to that. when you get to the national rate of unemployment, it is likely that you see such tightness in the labor market that not only do wages go up, but overall inflation goes up. that is one of the fed's primary mandates, to control inflation and keep it at a reasonable territory. of course, right now, inflation has been low for a number of factors. including, cheap oil which is the press gasoline prices and help drivers across the country. we have not seen the sort of wage growth that everyone is looking for.

the fed's job is to get ahead of those trends. that is why it is watching tightness in the labor market so closely. host: did you get an immediate reaction from the said chair men -- jerry woman -- chairwoman? guest: we did not get an immediate reaction. most analysts and fed officials seem to think that we are looking toward upgrading the -- a rating based around june. midyear. the fed has tweaked its statement after the policy meeting. right now, all of this language is geared towards a june meeting. and has to solidify that a little bit in its next meeting in march. it has said that it will remain patient on raising interest rates and it has signaled that it will not do it for at least a

couple of meetings. to move out of that signal, it will have to change language in the next statement. that is why it will have to make some sort of decision ahead of that marched 16-17 gathering. host: this is 30 ready joining us -- sudeep reddy joining us. thank you so much. now that we have talked about the background, we want to talk about your employment situation. the numbers aren't there. 257,000 jobs added. if you found a job and wanted tell us about your experience, 202-748-8000. if you lost a job 202-748-8001.

for everyone else, 202-745-8002. jonathan weisman talking about the reaction over this, "an upbeat jobs report."

he also says there is reaction from congress on this. speaker john boehner is quoted as saying that it is always good news that more americans are finding more work. we will read some tweets from members as they weighed in on yesterday's figures as well. again, the lines are open. we will start with john in bel air, maryland. he says he has lost a job. john, tell us about your situation. guest: a i was doing truck driving. i got my cbl and was seven months over the road. then the industry basically

force me out. it is a slave driving industry where the billionaires and the government have form some sort of cobol. the overt -- turnover rate is 97%. different laws say if i want to get a different job driving up truck, and i cannot get a local route, because the laws state that i need one year of experience. i have seven months. as a truck driver, after you do all the tests do the background checks, then you need one year of experience. the laws are different. the government and the billionaires has set it up so that the laws -- there are basically different types of

chalking. you have owner operator to buy a truck. then they go through brokers on the internet. then you hall. then, there are individual truck drivers who leaves from the company. they will lease a truck from the company, but then their work gets pieced out. they need someone to roll that truck. five days, six days per week. they need to good halls to get money. host: with the seven months of experience that you have, do you qualify for unemployment? guest: know i cannot get unemployment. the politics and government is to dam big. host: tom from colorado. he says he has lost a job. guest: i lost a part-time consultant job that i've had for the last three years. from the state -- same company that early retired me seven

months ago. host: tells a little bit about what you have been doing since then. have you been actively seeking work? guest caller: i for own company as a consultant. i have been able to piece part-time consulting jobs together for the past several years. host: and you will still go down that route or will you turn to something else? caller: i will stay on that route. i will be 72 . host: do you have others in your family? caller: my wife has a part-time job. she retires in june. host: randy is up next. calling us from chicago heights, illinois. caller: i am a long-term unemployment people that got hit

back into thousand 10. i worked 30 years for a company but they cannot hold on to me because of the economy. i lost it. i lost everything. i tried a couple of jobs -- you know, what happened is they only hired me for three months because i'm 62 now. i am in fairly good shape and i want to work. host: so, as far as the next few months or the next six months, what is your plan? caller: i am still looking for something part-time. no one is out there hiring people over 60 years old anymore. that is the problem. if they do hire you, they only hire you for six months because they do not want to put you on the insurance. they let you go after three months.

host: from your perspective, how do you view these things that we talk about in washington -- unemployment numbers, jobs created, etc. caller: i do not believe any of that. there are 10 million people still out of work with long-term unemployment. john boehner, they passed the senate to give some long-term unemployment some help, but he went to the house, and john boehner sat on it. never put it out to vote to help the unemployed. host: the democratic wit -- w hip tweeting out yesterday. also from the other side, from dan coats of indiana saying that

long-term unemployment is still too high. much like what you heard from our previous caller. again, if you want to tell us about your job situation, if it has changed 303-748-8000. we move next antonio. found a job. caller: i recently found a job. it's been like eight months now. it is a private online company. how they do things is they don't really have a structure on getting a raise. i'm not really concerned about that. i was just released from prison for and a half years ago. they get paid to have convicted

felons work for them. i do not see why they -- these employees out there, hire more convicted felons. host: how many jobs did you apply for before you found this one, given your background? coloraller: i had a job being a janitor. when they found out my background, it was like they did not want me. but then, i had an e-mail saying i had a job. it's like i'm still trying to gain the upper business in society. how can i go and get these other opportunities like everybody else? i know i have a strike. host: heidi from florida. founded job.

caller: good morning. i retired as a dental hygienist for many years. we moved to florida, retired to florida. i found a job in hospitality at one of the theme parks here. that has been a wonderful opportunity. it is amazing, the number of retirees that are looking for some extra work, or just some way from keeping from getting bored, and going to hospitality. especially at the theme parks here in florida. host: how many hours do you get? how many better -- what are your benefits? caller: i work part-time usually six hours per day. i have to be available at least three days per week, but they are great at scheduling. if you want to take some time off, they are very compatible that way. there are no actual benefits.

i am over 70. i have my medicare and retirement. they do add to my social security, which i will take advantage of at some point. i thought i would try it for a year. i have been there over one year now. i just find it a very satisfying, great way to spend some time and stay in touch with younger people. i live in a 55 plus community. it is fun to get out and be with younger people both in the work capacity and in service. making magic every day. host: that was heidi in florida. tim is up next. fairfax, virginia. go ahead. caller: i would like to say that i can hardly believe the numbers. from the previous two months

they have been adjusted to play over the one million mark for jobs created. you are talking about one third difference. that is the first time i have seen that sort of discrepancy in the last five years. why? it sounds very political to me. host: fairfax, virginia, that was tim. "the daily journal" out of mississippi commenting on alan nunnelee passing on its front page. also saying, after his death was announced, roger wicker of tupelo said, "allen had a strong faith that guided his actions. he had a way of bringing people together on issues that affected our state and nation. again, alan nunnelee passed

away. the flag of the capital at half staff to recognize that. back to our calls. cheryl. of los angeles, california. you said you found a job. caller: good morning. happy new year is to you. i just wanted to call on the gentleman calling saying that seniors are hard to place. that is not true. i've 67. i have a full-time job. i lost a job and i have a job. a full-time job with full-time benefits. my girlfriend lost a job. she is 62. she has a full-time job with full-time benefits. and making a very handsome salary. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i am in property management.

both of us are in property management. i have been doing that since 2006. i do not understand. i hear that over 60, no. i have a very lucrative job, excellent benefits, and a handsome salary. host: why do you think your situation is different from those who are older and say it is hard to find a job? caller: i don't know. my girlfriend, donna and i, both of us have a degree. both have been in the workforce for years. both are working, still working because we had to raise our grandchildren. after i receive this job, i turned down two jobs in the los angeles county.

and with another property management. i do not know. it is amazing to me that people i hear this all the time, people over 62 are not being hired. i just had a call. i have not called since 2008. host: let's hear from jason in new york. caller: good morning. my situation is that i am employed at this moment. in the past three years, i'm currently on my seven contract. i work in the semi conductor industry where there are a lot of hiring going to hiring industries all over the world. from all over the united states. in new york, a lot of people are being hired.

it is the type of industry where attract people worldwide and is very competitive. i am finding that the work that is available out there is mostly contracts for higher. a lot of them state that. then, it turns out the contract, when the job is done, it's like you are done. then, no one wants to tell you when contracts finished. then, you're hanging for one month or two while you are waiting to find new work. it becomes very difficult. you go back to those numbers about unemployment, and yeah, new jobs, you are creating jobs or seeing people unemployed. in my situation, you could count me as employed and one year to times, then unemployed twice. then, you look back to the people who are long-term

unemployed, and they cannot find work that goes back to the original pay. you have these agencies that are hiring there are taking big portions of your income. but, the companies are looking to place people, but not looking to give them full benefits, and so forth. i think it is very attractive to the companies to bring people in. it is not so attractive for the employees. those who really need a job and keep looking for the full package. i don't know. when it comes to those numbers that you are talking about earlier. it is february, the season for -- my industries not seasonal, but for seasonal workers, you have all the people who just got laid off from the big flurry of

black friday, christmas shopping holidays. every year, you have this up-down fluctuation that i do not think people look at. we have lost a lot of jobs, but we are gaining a lot of jobs this month, you are saying with a report. we just lost a bunch of part-time jobs. now we are seeing may be a little bit of job growth on the other side. host: that was jason talking about his experience. if you want to talk about your experience, you are welcome. we have three different lines. you can tweet us as well.

david ross tweeted in saying it seems like self-employment is the most secure job, especially for us with seniority. customers, seek us out. you can also post on our facebook page at www.facebook.com/cspan. from the arizona republic, look at caleb mueller. the headline from in your time saying, isis the claim that she was killed in those attacks. it is not confirmed here in the u.s.. saying, she had always been identified as the loan american female hostage from the islamic state. for nearly 17 months, while her fellow american captives were beheaded one after another in serial execution posted on youtube, caleb mueller's name

remained a closely guarded secret. on friday, the islamic state confirmed her identity and said that she had been killed by fallen rubble. later on it said that the use of her name for the first time through a spotlight on a hostage ordeal. again, you can read more that in the new york times. oakland, california. this is as though. saying that she found a job. tell us about it. caller: i'm originally from belize city living in san francisco, i worked as several things. as an american, you have to find

all these jobs because of what is going on with the economy. i go back to school. most americans get angry. they are jobs, beautiful jobs out there. i was working as a longshore woman. you have to open your eyes. look for these jobs. there are jobs out there. host: how did you get into the longshoreman industry? caller: in san francisco someone asked me how i got this job. jobs are waiting for you. right now the men do not want to work, you go in the office, and they will hire you.

$25 per hour. when they were -- there was no work, you go to the ship club, the men would get angry. i got those wo jobs because i am a woman. the ship club, i went in there as a woman. when i would leave from there, i would be a seamstress. when i left from there, i would do another thing. men did not like a. in the 70's, the longshoreman told me that they walked off the jobs for six months. guess who got paid? i did. my daughter is working there as a supervisor now. from 14 years old, she is now 52 and still working there. host: out of all those jobs, which one is your favorite? caller: longshore woman and

ship clerk, and seamstress, all of them. ship clerk. they did not know -- host: that was as though. let's hear from mark in orlando, florida. caller: i am a democrat. thank god for what that woman said. and so was not for the longshoreman's union i'm a union member, those jobs would not be there. they protected those jobs 30 or 40 years ago when they realized the industry was going to change. they protected the members jobs by working with the owners. in orlando i am lucky. i am 63. i'm a member of the union. i have the opportunity to work. physically it is hard because i cannot climb 16 foot ladders

anymore, the at least i have a job. my roommate has a record. she has had to work two jobs. she was likely to find a clerical job at a place called him barty seafood an in orlando. then she picked up a couple of days at taco bell. she is forced to work several jobs, part-time to make ends meet. she has some work. but has been on the street looking for jobs for the last 14 months. host spam let's hear from jaclyn. hi. caller: i have a daycare worker. i am 74 years old. this year i became sick. as i get better, i can make $10 per hour. everyone says to me, are you are tired? i say, no i'm not.

i've just not well at the time. i want to be in top shape to go back. there is work out there. every week i look in the paper and i see jobs. i'm feeling better. i do not want to put myself out there. in the meantime, also, my fingers -- i am making up a job for myself. i used to be a dance instructor, so i said, why don't i teach dance for half an hour. host: how do you think will be the reaction for someone of your age to look for work? caller: this is how i do it, i show up. i do not call. i do not look real old. i look ok. i show up and say i am physically fit, and i handed my resume. that's how i usually would get hired.

i worked for 40 years. that is how i got all my jobs. host: didn't need to cut you off. that was jaclyn. you can share your experiences as well. you may have seen this poll from gallup.

you can read more of his thoughts. it is posted at gallup.com. it is written by jim clifton the chairman and ceo of gallup.com. there is a website where you can read it. as you look at that, we will go back to your calls. rafael from st. louis, mississippi -- missouri.

caller: i have been waiting to comment on this for a very long time. i'm 37 years old. i lost a job because of the situation with my baby mother. it's real personal. i just one to give a shout out real quick to everyone in st. louis, missouri. i just don't understand why i lost a job. i had no control over it. host them appeared out next from florida. he says she he has lost a job. caller: i was laid off from an aerospace firm when my contract ended. i have been self employed and unemployed since. one of the things i noticed was that of the 12 people in my

group, the four of us they did not get reemployed had health issues. either ourselves or with people in our family. i think that one of the problems that we have -- i'm glad to see the reforms that lea we have had with health care, but i am for national health care insurance. i do not think employers should be in the business of providing health care at all. too many times you have someone with an issue that needs help, it is not job-related, it does not affect their performance but because of cause, they are not able to be fully employed. host: that was peter from florida. as a self-employed, unemployed what is it like in that situation? help us understand what it's like to be a self-employed situation. caller: the thing that happens is -- i've been in this situation twice in my life.

the thing is it you have a good salary, good income, and you start doing things that people do like buy houses. then, you have no income at all. then, you become bankrupt. when you are bankrupt, the government employers don't want to hire you because you back credit. it is a vicious circle. if i had earned $25,000 per year, for my whole life, and i could plan to live on that. that is one thing. but if you earn $50,000 per year and then down to $5,000 per year for seven years, you are wiped out. host: betty from iowa city, iowa. caller: the man who called who

said he had some kind of record. i do not know if it was a felony or not. and he said that he was looking for a job, i and having a difficult tim finding one, i have been wanting to make this for a long time -- why is it that if someone receive amnesty someone who came here illegally and for sure we know that in the last five years, anyone who came across the southern border did it in the conspiracy was one of the cartels on the mexican border. they pay them, or they had to deal with them in some way because they completely control the southwest border with the go. there is no way to check the background and mexico, or any where else. or someone who came here illegally. why is it that we would give them -- trust them more to be given amnesty, and be hired that

we would someone who is totally checked out. you know exactly what that person was arrested for. you know exactly what they did when they were in prison. you know how they performed as a parolee. it seems to me like someone who came here illegally should be way behind someone who is -- has successfully completed whatever punishment they received. host: thank you. "the washington journal" takes a look at this case. the supreme court will be looking at health care subsidies. the lead plaintiff appears to qualify for medical coverage due to --

it talks about this case which you will hear about as they get closer to the justices hearing it. it is in the "wall street journal" this morning. linda, you're up next. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to call in and comment on the underemployment issue. i am cearley -- severely unemployed. i do not have unemployment insurance. i also tried to get public assistance, marshals came to get me out of my apartment. there sums to be some sort of domino effect of being unemployed, not being able to pay bills or brent, it is a very scary situation. at this point, i do not think that i would want to go into at prisonlike shelter system or something like that. i do not know what is going on

here. i think perhaps this discriminatory practice is against me. i would like to know if anyone else out there, in new york, call it and get my number to see if the situation can get resolved. host: that was linda from staten island, new york. the report released yesterday also talked about a category called hidden unemployment. those who work part time but one full-time. or people who currently what a job. jan from pine bluff, arkansas. go ahead. caller: i'm calling because i identify with the gentleman who was working for the government doing contract work. i was in 2000 and was laid off. i then into finding additional

employment after i lost that job. however, i am underemployed. i have three degrees. i also have a masters degree. i find that when i go on job interviews, i appeared to be an intimidating the person who is hiring. i guess my biggest gripe is that although i'm currently working and i am still underemployed, my question is why is it -- i guess there has been a budget released where there will be free college for two years. when these people come out of college, often, you come ecology cannot find work. that has been my problem. having education, but then being unable to find work. in my case i've a college bill to pay, student loans to pay. host: how much is that? caller: it's over $40,000.

host: when you say you going to job interviews it is a intimidating because you have too much experience? caller: in many cases, the jobs i applied to -- i have applied to somewhere i have too much experience, by of also apply to jobs where i feel that i meet the requirements. when i'm talking to the employer i present myself extremely well during the interview. they will ask me a question and asked me to cite some experiences where i've done certain things, or site jobs that i've done. i will begin to do that. i feel that i intimidate them because they begin to crunch up when i talk. you can tell when you have intimidate someone. host: that was jan telling us her story. one more call on this. tyrone from new york. caller: on calling to say that

some people have to revamp themselves when they apply for jobs. i lived in new york all my life. from 13, i will be 52, i've had a job. it was not always the job that i wanted, but sometimes you have to make that change. host: that will be the last call on this topic on unemployment. we will change topics and take a look at domestic and international efforts against terrorism groups. defense one's kevin baron will join us next. later on, patricia stinchfield will answer questions about measles outbreak and vaccinations. that will be later in the program. on our "newsmakers" program that you can see tomorrow.

our guest was represented adam smith. i democratic from washington. he joins us to talk about a variety of things, one of them on whether or not that united states should arm ukrainian forces. [video clip] >> it seems like there's new momentum to supply weapons to the government in ukraine. that is something that the obama administration and the european allies have resisted for a while. fearing it could add fuel to the fire. where do you stand on this and where do you think it will lead? >> i think we should do it. i think we should give them better equipment to defend themselves. the concern here is -- it is clear that strategy that russia has employed. they will try to militarily engage in countries underneath the surface. it does not appear that they are actually engaged. they will use third parties bring soldiers and in ways that

we cannot see. certainly they do that in crimea , now they are doing that in eastern ukraine. the current -- concern is we want ukraine to be independent. there are lots of russians begin people in other countries around there -- estonia, poland, where does russia's stock? what you read the rhetoric of coming out of the highest levels of government in russia, it is not incur ching. we have to help ukraine stop this before it spreads. we have to show russia that there will be a high price tag for this kind of military intervention. if ukraine is not properly armed, is russia can easily wind up dominating that country, then they are not paying the price. >> how do you think vladimir putin would react? what it cause him to step things up either in ukraine or in other countries in the region? >> i think it would cause them

to recalculate. recalculate the cost. right now, yes they are facing economic sanctions, but militarily, they move forward. if it seems like something that will be relatively low cost there is a greater risk that they will continue to do it. there are risk on both side. we are defending a sovereign nation by giving ukraine the legal aid that they need to protect themselves. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is kevin baron of defense one. good morning. talk about the efforts of the u.s. against isis. guest: jordan woke up in a big way when one of their pilots was killed. it was the most horrific of videos that isis has put out. i wrote a piece this week saying

that i think this is the awakening that the pentagon has been waiting for. there was the arab awakening and a social movement, but what the pentagon has been waiting for is the other cut these -- other countries pick out arms and fight for themselves. it has been a long training program of the pentagon, it is called holding partner capacity and they do it around the world. this may be the spark that gets another arab country involves. of all the countries, jordan was not one that ice is why do spark. as you saw from their own statements and response, they immediately went to arms, loaded up the jets and start fighting. i think we will see a lot more from them. host: u.s. central command putting out video yesterday from jordan in airstrikes. how much are they doing and what is the u.s. doing on these matters?

guest: what you saw jordan doing is a lot of what the u.s. coalition has been doing all along. really almost all of bombing has been americans. this is them showing that these are their planes, their bonds, they are hitting these holdings. there are not collins of troops to go after, there's a lot of skepticism as to what a small country can do what we need ground troops. this is isis. they are spread out across a large area. there within the population. there is a tricky inch surgeon group, a requires a special operation mission to go after them. host: what does jordan and due to u.s. involvement? especially, the administration has made request to congress on war authorization against isis.

guest: this does not change u.s. involvement at all. it does not slow down american warplanes double fly. this adds to it. again, americans hope is that others join in. the uae, we found out after the fact that they stop participating because they were afraid of the same thing happening, losing a pilot. they have now said that they will get back in the game. the pentagon has said that they will put forward more. it is still very incremental to get the arab countries to be a real coalition. with the afm u.s. going forward -- the administration, or the u.s., and gives a window opportunity of 60 days before they have to request some congress or declare that some fighting has gone on. this is been happening since september.

the administration has been saying that they do not need a new au mf, that the president said we do need this. we will ask for it. whether they wanted to be diligent and have congress be involved, or legally they think they really of a problem of it, they wanted to happen. they want congress to be on the same page as the white house. the republican congress wants to make it happen. we will see more on that next week. host: kevin baron joining us to talk about efforts against isis. if you want to join us, (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. host:guest: for a you a mess, they have to ask for time and specificity, are they going

against a terrorist group? the one to authorize the fighting against afghanistan which was about terrorism all around the globe. the other one was specific to iraq. they need something to give them enough little room in their language so that they can fight terrorist groups in any country. weather is a declared hot zone is as much as possible. one of the sticking points is that it does not limit itself to any geographic area. i think this may be in syria and iraq, but they have spread to yemen, somalia. the u.s. has been fighting, and will continue to fight in all those areas for some time. host: the house speaker was asked about the au mess. here is his initial response. [video clip] >> we will go through a rigorous set of hearings and discuss this. it will also be upon the president to go out and make the

case to the american people for why we have to fight this fight. his actions are going to be an important part of trying to get us to get the vote to actually pass what is an authorization. this is not going to be an easy lift. host: not an easy lift, is he right? guest: i think it will be somewhat easy. republicans want obama to more clearly expressed what he wants to do. this gets into politics. republicans will say the white house has no strategy, whether they do or not. they will keep saying that. in this case, it is another opportunity to force the president to have to say, the u.s. will fight in these circumstances, or will not fight in these circumstances. for me, it is not even about

foreign policy anymore, it is about military intervention. what are the ground rules for military intervention in this century. this is not afghanistan, not big war counterinsurgency. this is terrorism. the u.s. will clearly involve itself in these fights. the question is how. host: what about democrats, will they be willing to give him this power? guest: i think so. there is no antiwar movement right now. there's maybe one or two members of congress who will be gout. if this is a tool that the president does we need, i can't imagine any democrat would block. host: what about the house versus senate, will one body give more leeway than another? guest: this is not as specific to the au mess, as it is for the bodies to challenge the president.

like always, you will hear more of that from the house then the senate. the difference this time is the gop just took over the senate. john mccain just took over the armed service committee. he is still the leading voice for anything dealing with foreign policy. in some cases, he is not on the same line as the republican party. he is a hot clearly. he is also not for massive pentagon spending. he is for limited spending. he wants intervention but specific ways of doing it. it is not a blanket. are we going to send ground troops or not. we have lindsey graham thing we need 10,000 troops. not everyone is on board with that. there is a difference. most of it is the republicans saying they want more. more military intervention sooner in these conflicts. not just jones thanks -- drone stripes

rikes. there are a lot of people that want -- host: kevin baron our guest. richard from north fort myers, florida. republican line. caller: two quick questions. i saw "american sniper" last week. i was amazed. it was done with realism. how effective the local people were as coming out as an search i get -- insurgents against the american military. they came out of the woodwork every time. is that linked to the takeover of isis which leads to my second question. can we eliminate the tanks and armored personnel carriers and trucks with drones?

can't they be eliminated which went terrifically minimize the effectiveness of isis and small towns? guest: you are right. i saw "american sniper" to. i thought it was the most realistic depiction of iraq in the movies. i felt like i could smell iraq in it. it hit me. you are right. this is what inserted the looks like. it is the population. it is not uniformed. admiral kirby he said, we are not fighting regular army against regular army. he called them street fighters. men who come and go from foreign countries, from europe, from africa and the middle east. the size of isis wells and shrinks. so does their capability of fighting and equipment. what the pentagon has been going

after with the airstrikes, hundreds of them. you have to remember, there was one airstrike by jordanians in syria. they dropped 70 ammunitions in the airstrike. they do not have the awesome cost factory building them office of the lines. this is what insurgency looks like. our what is counterterrorism movement looks like. the difference in iraq is not the united states was a force that was invading a country. there were a lot of people picking up arms in different ways. isis is an ebay -- is an even deadlier death cult. it is not have the same effect of getting a call to arms from the local population. that is why there is a heavy realize it -- reliance on foreigners coming in.

isis is terrorizing the population, not doing what the americans did to the iraqis. the populations are being held prisoner to isis just as much -- far more than any grievance the iraqis felt with americans. it is a different kind of thing even though it is still civilians in urban areas. host: if you go to the defense one website, they have a chart showing the airstrikes and the breakdown in u.s. and coalition strikes. 530 or so done by the u.s. and only 80 done by the coalition. guest: america just takes the huge brunt of it. even with all the bombings done by jordan, it is the americans doing their re-, the intelligence.

every play up there, there are a dozen more doing intelligence and protection communications. any combination that brings is not just in the military capabilities, it is the perception, a decades long shift that the governments are in charge of the middle east will take over this fight for themselves. host: joe from louisiana, your next. independent line. caller: i would like to see if you can give me the answer about the coalition. i heard that isis was framed in jordan, financed by -- trained by israelis against syrian government to take over bashar al-assad. this was created by these four groups.

--, jordan, and israelis, to create -- nine -- is that true or not? guest: i would say not. you are halfway right from what i know. i think it sounds at a grand conspiracy, which cannot be possible in some cases. isis spun out of the rock. it spun out of al qaeda and such. it is a longer story. baghdadi was in iraq years ago. he was a gunrunner, running bomb making materials across the river into baghdad area he was known to american forces. that group came of that area. the funding is coming from everywhere. there are traces absolutely into saudi arabia, whether it is official or not, citizen funding. their training, it depends. isis has fighters from more than

a dozen countries, easily. a lot of them came from right where they are. the only thing -- this is the last thing israel wants. creating this shift does not great stability. i'm a pentagon reporter, a defense reporter. the thing they care about most is stability and security. this is why the u.s. is close partners with regimes in saudi arabia, egypt, and every other country. no matter how undemocratic they may be, the united states to not give up support for them because they create stability and security to the region that is beneficial to us. every country thinks that way. it is the hard reality of government and politics. host: marie from minnesota. caller: i would like to hear your comment about what john boehner said to you he said the

president is going to have to make a point of why we should keep and stay with isis. i do not think he -- what does he not understand? they are crucifying people. they are burning people in these cages. i just do not understand why he would make such a horrible comment against the president. the president has to get more funding. that is why he is going and asking the congress for this help. -- he is just going to have to make more of a point. another common i wanted to make is about the woman who was supposedly just been killed. and she is one of our citizens or whatever. please, this is all propaganda. they just got done saying she was just taken out in some building. host: thank you. guest: back to i said earlier

about why he is saying this. this is why are this -- this is where politics is different from reality. the president has put out many documents on their plan on how to defeat isis. no matter what the president says, he could count every truth and say everyone's name involved and the republicans will still not say it is enough. that is how it works for them. to create down on the white house and say the president is doing not enough to keep america safe area we are on the verge of election season. that is the reality of the politics of national security. when it gets to a tactical level, there are plenty of republicans and democrats and national security folks who do want a little more from the president. he came up in the summer and started launching airstrikes and has twice announced different levels of troops going out to iraq. at the same time people think he

is taking on bashar al-assad in syria and what happened there. if there is a sense that there is eventually going to be more ground troop involvement from the americans, already in the minds of people in washington, they want it to come from the president. the republicans in congress can't say right or wrong, that is not our job to make foreign policy. the president needs to say something so we can react to it. that is their mo right now. they are trying to make the president look weak so they can look stronger. that is the politics of national security. it does not end on the water's edge. host: how we have had any -- have we had any confirmation on the death of kayla jean mueller? guest: host: not when i came in. host:is this any -- is this true in any way? guest: timing or not, people

felt when the others were killed, suddenly the president look up. a lot of people thought that this was not so fair. it was over by the end of the summer. it will not change the pentagon. the pentagon will not have you were airstrikes or suddenly decide to send ground troops because of hostages. it has become a niche thing of this conflict. if there is any catalyst, it would be like what we saw in jordan. the pilot was killed this week if he was from saudi arabia, i think we would have seen some gigantic saudi revenge response to it. they'll have four different concerns. they have to worry about iran. jordan is just small enough -- strong enough with their forces that they can do this. host: herb from new york. democrat line. caller: mr. baron i have to

assume that you are familiar with the history of warfare in the last 75 years. for example, in world war ii, i think you are well aware especially around the period of the battle of the bulge not many german prisoners were taken alive. they were executed on the spot. and the germans retaliated. we know how long -- how brutal the russian-german war was. also in vietnam, i am sure you talk to vietnam veterans, most of whom are still alive. if they were honest, they would tell you how the enemies -- north vietnamese prisoners were treated. what i am suggesting is yes, we have a geneva convention that spells out how prisoners of war are treated, but in military conflicts, to a large extent, this is ignored by all sides

with very little punishment. for example, the lieutenant in vietnam, where his platoon murdered something like 20 or 30 or 40 enemies civilians. his punishment, house arrest for two years. host: thank you. guest: yes, i am aware of some of that history. i am not a historian. i think it is a good point to bring up. there are no rules in war. for a lot of -- for a long time, people thought the geneva convention was something from a different era. it has some semblance of soldier to soldier ethos. these are not soldiers fighting soldiers. these are soldiers fighting guerrilla terrorists and insurgents. whatever happens in the fog of war happens. you are right. this goes right to the heart of

why there are no ground troops from the americans fighting still or yet. one of the questions would be what if the americans started capturing isis fighters? what will we do with them? start guantanamo all over again? even republicans are at the point by saying that guantanamo, enough is enough. we had prisoners -- having prisoners in iraq and afghanistan did not do well. it was better than other options, but that early point was at the minute the unite states sends in brigades and such and starts heading north into syria, they are going to kill everybody -- they are not going to kill everybody. there will be captured people. host: we heard from susan rice on the national security strategy from the united states. was there anything new? guest: what was new was a much pointed -- more pointed effort

to say have patience. it is something the president has been saying since fall. a mostly came down to, the new era we are in our these types of skirmishes. there are a lot of conflicts and places around the world. it is not just the soviet union or iraq and afghanistan. you cannot pick one or two and focus. there are so many that the u.s. has to be careful in approaching, be realistic about what military force can do and how long it will take. we hear a lot from the pentagon, the top brass will say it alongside the civilian leaders, that there is no military solution for still in the black conflict. now they're saying there is no immediate solution. they are trying to remind the american people, no much -- no matter how much talk they get from her public cans or hawks this is eight decades long

shift. even the joint chiefs chairman says this will be a 30 year conflict. host: susan rice talked about her perspective. here's some of what she had to say. we'll get your reaction. >> yes, there is a lot going on. while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during world war ii or during the cold war. we cannot afford to be buffeted by alarmist him -- alarmism. we must continue to do the hard work of leading in a complex and rapidly evolving world. but seizing opportunities and of winning the future for our children. host: kevin baron, what do you think the reaction will be as

far as congress and capitol hill? guest:, i think the critics are going to say give me a break. we have been waiting to ban years. tell these is -- tell the syrians to wait while they have been killed ali debate a strategy. this is a criticism that has else over the years. it is starting to gain hold in the talk around the national security community since the fall. it is too much a specter of the iraq war. that president obama is even thinking we can do all or nothing. nothing still means hundreds of airstrikes and sorties. but something that does not put any american troops at risk. but and all bear war that hopes for ground troops from others. lindsey graham saying we need 10,000 troops. it is significant, but somewhere

in the middle ground. the thought is even if we do not have an immediate solution for how -- for what happens the day after a solid falls in syria, there is things the united states can do to save lives. and can squeeze save lives immediately? that is what people on those side -- on that side is asking for. isn't there something we can do. even if it serves -- stirs the pot of chaos, it is better than bedding people died when we work on a two-year long strategy -- then letting people die when we work on a two-year long strategy. the president is telling people to be patient. this is how i am choosing to lead even if you do not want me to. the other side will say this is too little, too late. what are we doing sitting around

with all this arsenal. host: kevin baron from defense one. what is defense one? guest: we are the defense news website of the atlanta media company. we are sister publications with some other applications. we are all online. recover from a military perspective create we cover politics and the global business community in defense. we feature a lot of commentary and off at -- op-eds from the senior leaders from around the world who have something to say about what is going on in their world. host: a in south carolina. caller: hello. pleasure to be on air. thank you for taking my call. i just want to throw a couple things at you. i do support the bombing campaign we are currently engaged in against isis. i think isis is the biggest

threat to world peace we have seen a long time. that said, i have a couple problems with the whole way we are conducting the war. i want to make two points. during the second world war, we launched daylight bombing raids over dresden. why today we want to sit back and launch bombing campaigns with 20 or 30 or 50 aircraft instead of 700 and catch them out in the desert like we could have an completely destroy them two months ago is beyond me. we decided to sit back and let isis move into the cities when we could have caught them in the desert. secondly, bill o'reilly like him or not, came up with an interesting hypothesis the other day, which is why do we not hire a mercenary army and have them clear out this whole mess over

there? i am a retired marine. i know a lot of guys who have been in the fight who would be willing to go back. the problem is they cannot fight for the peshmerga, because there is no money in it. host: thank you. guest: interesting points. in munitions i think the answer you would hear from the pentagon is that this is a new era with our more advanced technology. the reason we had hundreds of planes and larger air formations was that these were dumb bombs that were dropped from up high. in just a, they firebombed the entire city. the missions today are smart munitions with pinpointed targeted accuracy. it is also against a much smaller and disparate targets. the u.s. also does not want to destroy cities. the earliest bombing the

pentagon did they rolled out videotape of conflicts, to make a point of saying they bombed this will bring over here, but not this one here, because they did not want to destroy syria or iraq's capabilities. they just wanted to degraded and take out the capability of that facility so isis could not use it. and they left the refinery tower intact. they could have wiped out the entire thing if they could -- if they wanted. the comment about the desert. what happened in the beginning we saw plenty of video of rows of trucks or comp located military vehicles in the open, and very quickly that changed. for the better or worse, there was a little argument saying that just force them into hiding and was a bad idea. but the pentagon said we disrupted their ability to move

freely, communicate freely supply themselves freely. that is all good things from their perspective. that is part of the difference. there is no wiping out these cities where isis has found itself. that is not the answer anyone is looking for. when it comes to mercenaries, i do not think it is a question of supply of fighters. the united states military is ready to go at a moment's notice as soon as the president gives word. as soon as someone changes their mind on how this war is fault. -- fought. the last thing the u.s. once is fighters going out to do a job that we can do. this is more than american drones or intelligence. her our special forces across the region that are doing

things. it is a hard war to cover. the american public sees far less them what is going on. i think that will change. i am not about to send one of my reporters into cl right now -- syria right now. it is a problem for journalism to be able to show what is happening on the ground so people can have a clearer view of how much fighting is already happening. host: kevin baron, last month there was a story about u.s. troops deployed to train syrian rebels. when do we see them going to fulfill their mission? guest: around the end of march or so. the pentagon is taking a lot of heat about how long it takes to set up a training mission. the pentagon says -- and they like to move like an aircraft carrier versus a fighter jet. to call up the forces and give them training before they had

overseas. repair the supply lines. target the people -- identify the iraqis who will get the training. they say it takes an amount of time. there is no foot gagging. they are doing it as fast as they think they can. for critics, it is not fast enough. the order to do this came a lot later than people thought. even when it comes to arming syrians. host: we have a call from illinois. caller: if you could detail what general wesley clark, i think, talked about the set up of countries we're supposed to invade. how many of these people, these terrorists we fired in -- we are fighting, did we send weapons

into syria. from my understanding, we did not know where the weapons were going to. if they were going to terrorists or not. the u.s. does have a history of supporting al qaeda, under george bush anyway. thank you. guest: i am not sure i followed the end of the question, i do not know what general clark said. he was the supreme commander of nato a while ago. i am afraid i do not know what you're talking about in invading seven countries. but syria the concern was who are you giving arms to and what kind? how can you bet people getting be shoulder fired missiles. the pentagon has finally said that that process is beginning. it is one of these things that is taking a lot longer than a lot of people wish. they think of the administration should have done this a year, a year and a half earlier if they

really wanted to capture the rebel movement. they should have caught it at its height when it could have made a difference and taken out assad. host: from new york, here is mike. good morning. caller:. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i appreciate it. i wanted to clarify -- if you could clarify when you said iraq and afghanistan were wars, but this is not. i do not know if that's semantics or not. i want to clarify i am an independent. i do not promote sending more troops over there. but i do think it is a war. i think to describe it as that is more appropriate. secondly, the president withdrawing troops from iraq and being a hero of the people, and then a couple years later, we see isis takes hold, do we

really think that is the right move? if not he is asking congress to send more troops over, more weapons. i do not know if we are starting a third war? i would like to know your comments on that. guest: thank you for that one. what i meant was, the way -- from the pentagon's perspective the iraq and your -- afghanistan war was contained in a geographic manner. if somebody was captured within a hot zone, they could be treated as a person or over war versus if they were found anywhere else. if you picked up a terrorist off the streets of paris, to call him an enemy in combatant it it was difficult because he was not in the hot zone.

also they were more traditional wars. we send tens of thousands of troops, set up base camps. we fought it right in iraq and afghanistan. isis is part of it greater terrorism fight that goes all the way from the border of turkey and india all the way across to africa and nigeria and almost all the way down to south africa. it is an enormous region. i agree that i think we could just say this is the isis war and not just some conflict are you it is not even iraq war three. it is not iraq. even though it the administration changed its focus to make iraq force -- first this is part of a greater regional war. there is not one gigantic unit. boko haram is a completely different fight with different circumstances then al qaeda. what is happened down in somalia. these are all individual conflicts that may have a common

thread of anti-western is him or islam to it, that it is not one giant war and will not be treated as such. host: a couple questions about the president's plans on the defense argent -- budget. what is he asking for in defense and what is the likelihood he will get it? guest: 100% he will get everything he is asking for in funding. but he will not get a lot of the cost-saving measures that the president -- pentagon has tried for almost the third year in a row. they want to close races -- bases. it is a popular with members of congress who lose bases in their district's. the pentagon keeps putting forth a budget that depends on that to fund things. it is like ringing your head against the wall. -- baning your head against the wall.

the other thing is the warthogs, the loan the flying support aircraft that saves a lot of guys lives. the pentagon and the air force agreed that we needed to retire those to have funding for the future. but there is nothing to replace it. so that fight has to happen again, whether the people one or not. the top line level. the pentagon put out a budget that did not cut defense spending, it just cut the previous rate of growth expected for defense spending which turned into a cut. that has gone out the door. the last year changed everything. this was supposed to be the time after afghanistan where the army was going to shrink and the marines want to district, by their own request. they wanted it after the years of the war were over and they could reset and get new hardware and train to what they were

originally supposed to do, not just fight insurgencies and afghanistan. a one-out the window with russia and ukraine and isis and all the terrorism activity across the middle east. within one year, the army says they do not want to go that low, because we will now deploy people more frequently. we cannot say no to any hardware now. now you have a fully republican congress who is happy to give as much money as possible to defense. if anyone thinks of these are lean times, this is the biggest base budget the pentagon has ever requested. host: one more call. bob in miami beach. caller: good morning. the problem with isis or isil is that in order to win this, it has to be a fundable that's a fundamental change in u.s. policy. remove cut off the end we

created a state in libya. we had islam and elections in egypt, yet there is a coup we do not say -- talk about because egypt has a peace agreement with israel. we get involved in removing and toppling assad, and we did not learn anything that -- about what he did in libya. unless the u.s. fundamentally changes, the way it does business and upsets realities on the -- and accepts really on the ground. this syrian army will just be more cannon fodder read unless you work with russia or you run there will be nothing changed. we created -- by having saudi arabia and other sunni muslims in this conflict. what we should do is if we have ground forces on the ground, we

should support assad. let's win this battle. we should not get involved in the internal politics of the country to satisfy the so-called sunni platform. host: we will leave it there. guest: a lot said there. i think you have to take every one of those countries with a unique lens. what i agree with a lot of what is said is whether or not the outcomes of each one of these created more stability or less. libya, gaddafi false and it becomes a failed state area but what was it like before? still a bad place. still a dictatorship. they may not have had geostrategic importance, but the americans got involved. it was because of that is why it people think the american state under the syrian war. that syria was much more

strategic. it is the border of nato and iran. all these considerations is why the administration decided not to arm the syrians and not get involved early on. let them fight their own fight. realizing to get involved with me not just helping an insurgency in the vacuum of one country, it would change the dynamic from the were from russian to you run. to stay out of that war -- if you're one side of the critics of that, you think that was the major miscalculation. the u.s. could have helped do something. assad may have fallen. there was not much the russians or iranians could have done. but that window has passed. now people think it would take something extraordinary for the syrian rebel fighters to have enough arms and momentum to take down a sod which is why we are not hearing that anymore.

we had an article this week saying that it used to be assad must go. now we hear isis must go. the three point plan for training in the rebel forces was to train them to be able to defend themselves against attack . to go after isis. to prepare for a political solution. nowhere in there is to go in defense of the syrian army. go back to isis and then get ready for the political solution . that cannot mean the assad will not stay in power. it is extremely complicated. every one of these countries is a unique place of how much involvement does america give, whether it is military or not, for the sole purpose of american security interests area that is number one in the eyes of the

government. host: kevin baron is the executive editor for defense one. defenseone.com is where you can see his work. coming up, patricia stinchfield. she is a board member for the national foundation of infectious diseases. she will discuss the rise in measles and the movement against vaccinating children. that will continue as washington journal does. [music playing] >> here are some of our featured programs. on c-span two, book tv, tonight at 10:00 on afterwards. toby harnden on the british efforts in 2009 to stop the taliban advance in afghanistan while waiting for u.s. marine reinforcement. sunday at 10:00, the senior

editor of -- on the u.s. tour to report and why his company published it. on american history tv, all this month, interviews with four -- former korean war pows. sergeant ross, a pow held from 1950 to 1953 in china. at 9:00, a look at the civil rights movement. you can find our entire schedule at www.c-span.org. let us know what you think about our programming. you can call or e-mail. you can also tweet at cspan # -- #cspancomments. this sunday, david wrecks on

writing an article for the new york times and the awards he gives out at the end of the year . the sidney awards. >> they are given to the best magazine essays of the year. they can be in journals or something like the new yorker or the atlantic. the idea is they always come around the week of christmas. that is a good week to a setback and not read -- a good week to step back and read something deeper and longer. it is to celebrate those longer pieces. i believe magazines change history. until its recent distraction -- was the biggest obligation. it created a voice for modern liberalism. conservatism barely resist it until the buckley form national review. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on q&a.

>> february is lack history month -- black history month. the c-span bus is on the road to go to historically black colleges and universities to talk about their effects on the american educational system. washington journal continues. host: joining us from minneapolis is patricia stinchfield. she serves as the pediatric infectious disease services director -- thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: we have learnt a lot about measles the last few days. can you give us an update?

guest: it has been a record-breaking month in january. with over 100 cases, 102 cases and up to 14 states, originating and spreading throughout a variety of states. we are seeing cases in communities that are under vaccinated. that is what is helping fuel this outbreak. host: as far as those under vaccinated, those who do not have -- are those who do not have vaccinations at risk or are there other people at risk? guest: there are always people vulnerable to measles. you cannot get immunized for mmr against measles until you are one year of age. all of those babies less than one year are vulnerable to measles. they are especially vulnerable between six months to 12 months where their mom's antibodies

that protected the babies for the first few months wane over time. by six months, they are largely on protected -- on protected. at the baby is not old enough to get immunized. babies six to 12 months are especially susceptible. of coarse those who have immune deficiencies, those with cancer and chemotherapy, those who have medication for arthritis which are immune modulating medications. we always have those vulnerable to measles. when we have the recipe, the two ingredients for an outbreak, is that you have an under or unvaccinated immunity plus the -- community plus of the introduction of the virus equals an outbreak. we have seen come -- some

communities with an increasing number of parents opting out of the vaccine. it is making the vulnerable pool even wider. host: we have a chart from political magazine. in 2013, 187 cases. 2014, 644. 100 and two as an early 2015. is it because of these pockets and the united states of under vaccinated or unvaccinated children or are there other factors? guest: that is one of the main factors is we have seen the number of people opting out and saying they do not want to vaccinate their children growing in some parts of the country and some communities over the last you years. there is good data that shows us this is something we need to be concerned about. as you look at 102 cases in the month of january, that is more than most years for the entire year.

last year, 644 cases. if we keep at the same pace, it is likely we will surpassed that and 2015 will be another unfortunate year for measles. host: we have heard about heard mentality -- herd mentality or vaccination. can you explain that? guest: herd mentality or vaccination is trying to create a firewall against the virus. the more people you have vaccinated, the less vulnerable populations you have, the harder it is for the virus to enter the committee and spread. the cousin measles is so infectious you need at least 95% of the population vaccinated. otherwise, the measles virus is extremely stealthy. it will get into a community. 95% of the people exposed to

these -- measles will get the disease if they are not vaccinated. having a high vaccinated community is very important. we have a measles case in minnesota. we do not think it is really to the california outbreak, but it is an international traveler. a college student who came back to a very large university of minnesota community and thus far, 21 days after the individual's infection, we do not have a second case yet area part of that is that you have to show proof of immunity to go to the university of minnesota. had he had two doses of mmr vaccine. so the community there has a high vaccination rate, which is why we are not seeing it spread. and you know how close college kids can be. i think it is a good test of the important of in unity in a community. host: one of the discussions that has come out --, up is the

idea of scheduling the immunizations. describe what the schedule is and concerns you have heard about it and what you would respond to that. guest: the schedule is an important part of making sure that people stay up to date on their immunizations. keeping our rates high and are communities protected. it is developed by the cdc. it is approved by the american pediatrics association. weeks -- i spent a lot of time working with the advisory committee on immunization practices. i was the first nurse in 2004 to go to the cdc from children's hospital as a nurse practitioner and look at things like what is the data on the schedule. what do we know about how many vaccines are safe to give at one time. i am very confident our schedule is well thought out. a lot of it is based on human immunology. why do we not give measles mumps

rubella right now at two months? why do we not give it to every baby? the reason is that parents -- hey mom's antibodies will take over. if we get a vaccine, the antibodies would want it. the immune system says we already have this antibody and we would not -- we do not need any more. same for chickenpox. we have to wait until maternal antibodies filter away and now it is the baby's own immune system. on the other hand, you have tightness. you can start the at two months. appetizers -- hepatitis b you can set the at birth. the schedule is important for people to follow as laid out. it is well researched. it is raised on how our immune system response. it is based on how vaccines are given together.

parents are choosing their own schedule, that is the problem. they say they will do this one this time and that when that time. they are spacing it out. but when people choose their own schedule, you are postponing safety. you are taking a risk with your child for that time. it is looking at your infant and saying i will wait until they are one year of age and then i will start. you're essentially saying i choose not to protect you right now. stay with the schedule. parents forget what schedule they are on. they will come to the clinic and ask what am i do for today -- due for today. if we do not follow the schedule, it is difficult to know that. as people space out individual vaccines that could easily and safely been given at the same visit, what happens is you have multiple visits to the clinic. multiple times of getting in the car and taking the risk of arriving to the clinic.

multiple times of sitting and a waiting room where you may be exposed to set something like measles. multiple times exposing your child to an injection that makes it more traumatic for them been doing it on schedule. sticking to the schedule is really important. host: our guest until 9:30 to take a questions about measles. for those who believe in vaccination and do not (202) 748-8000 four vaccination. for those who hold off on that, (202) 748-8001. let's hear from pat in new jersey. go ahead. good morning. caller:. good morning. i have two questions. is measles the same as it was when i was a child in the 1950's and 1960's, or has the virus mutated and gotten stronger? number two, we eliminated smallpox, basically, from the world over it period of decades.

how is something like that not being done with measles? host: thank you -- guest: thank you. we're the same age in terms of being a child in the 1950's and 60's. measles has always been a dangerous musique -- disease. it has not changed. it is a very serious buyers that causes -- a virus that causes death and disability. 500 children a year died during our era. many who survived ended up with brain damage. many were deaf. we had lots of side effects from the disease itself from people who survived it but were neurologically and development sleeve -- development only -- developmentally never the same again. there are people who are

miserable for a week or so. just with a rash and a coffee in bed. but we do not know who will be the one people -- the one person or the virus goes into the lungs and causes pneumonia and eventually death. we do not know who will have the virus go into their brain and have encephalitis. the virus has all his been dangerous. the vaccine is highly safe and effective against it. there is no reason not to get measles, mumps, and rubella. the world has worked together to eradicate smallpox. i think we can do the same with measles. humans are the only ones who get measles. focusing on each individual. a really gets down to the person, the family, the community, the daycare, the state, the country, the globe. if we can focus on one person at a time as well as global

immunity, we can eradicated the same where we have smallpox. we are a long way away from that. the u.s. has some ownership in leading the way of reducing cases and not in leading the way of allowing missiles to be spread. host: this is road in indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i was also around in that same timeframe. and it late 1970's and 1980's, they had individual mumps and measles shots. there was never a worry of autism in those days. i worked in a school system where autism was such a small percentage, it is when they combined it with the some aerosol -- with the -- that created all this. i do not understand why we cannot go into the individual measles and individual mumps shot. i'm not against this. all the refugee children who live across our borders.

hundreds and hundreds and maybe more. i do not inc. we are guaranteed that they have had any safety also. guest: thank you for your question. there has never been -- a preservative, it has never been in the measles mumps and rubella vaccine. that is one of the myths that has been perpetuated and it is false. the measles, mumps, and rubella were individually given. when they were combined, it made for a better situation for children. rather than three injections they are getting it at one time. i think that combination vaccines are an important part of our immunization schedule so we can prevent multiple of these diseases with one visit and one injection. there is no evidence that combining measles, mumps, and rubella has caused autism.

in fact, and amar and autism has been -- mmr and autism has been studied repeatedly across multiple countries. there is no evidence of any cause or link the tween the vaccine and the disease. we have studied it enough. i think one of the things we have to do is we all want our children to be safe. we all want to understand how to prevent measles. we also want to understand the causes of autism and direct research to that. we share the concern about autism. what we want to do is make sure we do not waste our valuable research dollars repeating studies on a question that has been put to rest. the original question was nothing but fraudulent fiction. as a society, we need to put that story to rest and leave it alone. host: dog in-- -- doug in

pennsylvania. host: i am also a child from the 1960's. i was taken to the doctor to get the immunity shot. i guess it was mmp. it didn't "take"." i never got the scab. so before second grade, they said i had to do it again. again before third grade and before fourth grade. i never got the scar. before fifth grade, they said your kid cannot come back to school if he does not get this reaction. so the doctor sat me down and took an needle and stabbed me about 60 times in my arm. i was crying and all this stuff. but to this day i rarely get ill. i have never had any of those diseases and i only ever had chickenpox before i had the mmp

shot. i am wondering, do you understand why i never reacted to the immunization? guest: share. you are describing smallpox vaccine. that was given earlier on and did require a sort of a multiplepronged -- multpile pronged approach to make a scar. you have a vivid remembrance of that. i sorry for that area that is an important part of hopefully you seek health care despite that. but there are people who do not respond and get that immunologic response. there are some love a robust response. there are different responses. smallpox requires enough of an inoculated to develop a pustule.

they may have been the way it was delivered. it may have that you did not have enough of a response until you have the large dosage. with mmr, there are about 1% of people who are also nonresponders. that is why it is in the group of people who are vulnerable. even after two doses, we can have 1% of individuals who do not respond to the mmr vaccine makes them vulnerable to it. we do not have to have led tests -- blood tests to it. if you have two dosages, you're considered immune. but no vaccine is 100% effective. you could get infected if there is a missiles outbreak. getting back to why it is so important to have high vaccination rates.

i want to go back to a couple things rose mentioned to you and she talked about the mmr being separate. in the u.s., it is the way you get mmr vaccine is combined. there are no individual m and m and r. there is no need for it. our immune systems are vast and capable. babies can handle -- they have trillions of antigens or germs they are dealing with when they are born. babies are born immunologically strong. not totally complete, but strong and capable. they are not complete because we have to have experiences with the germs in the world and we do that by vaccination and getting cold and such. you build an immune bank. to request an individual measles or individual mumps is not something you need to do because it is not made anymore. she also commented about orders.

people coming here from other countries. as we look at our immunization rate for mmr, there are 113 countries who have higher him and than we do. many countries on our borders have much more in -- have much more robust immunization plans. people who are immigrating here, who are refugees, they have very high immunization rates. i do not think that is part of the equation we are seeing in our california to u.s. outbreak now. host: we have divided the lines to those who vaccine and those who do not. bonnie described yourself as someone who does not vaccinate. good morning. caller: i am amazed that there is no primary solve -- pri maerosol. there is for metalhead --

formaldehyde, msg. this screws up the immune system. we have 103 kids who have come up with measles out of 300 40 million people. all of a sudden, it is an epidemic. if you read the brochure on some of these things like the mmr, it says it can shed the virus to others up to 60 days. and another thing they are all scared about people who do not inoculate their child. why should they be scared if they had been inoculated? the lady has out and out lied about the -- guest: thanks for your call. but i am correct on that preservative. what you stated is not correct. primaersol is only in the multidose influenza vaccine.

it is not in mmr and has never been in it. what we need to do is understand. your comment about hundred two -- 102 cases. justice is not a word i would put in a conversation about measles. i work in a children's. if i can take you what it is and -- what it is like to see inside the hospital to see the sickest of the sick till june. one child with measles is too many. they will be covered with a rash when they come in. they will be trying to breathe. we put them on ventilators. we have parents crying at the bedside asking us why did i not vaccinate. we need to understand that is very possible for children. we do not want to see one child harmed. if the vaccine did not work or had side effects, we would not be promoting it. but it does work. it is very

effective. it is a safe. there is absolutely no reason not to try to protect our children. host: what do you -- what are your thoughts about states that allowed to exceptions to vaccines for philosophical reasons? do you advise the state, talk to them? guest: it is really a renewed conversation. there are only two states that have medical exemptions only. those estates have very high immunization rates and very low diseases. another example of how vaccines work. and they protect children. protect the community. i think medical exemptions are things that, if a child had a primary immune deficiency or had aids or other kinds of diseases that would make getting vaccines a difficulty for them, it would be medically contraindicated or not something you could do. those are states that have very

good outcomes. many states have philosophical or religious -- i think about 20 have philosophical or religious exemptions. the problem with that is itphilosophy and religion have nothing to do with evidence-based practice that we have. we have science around measles mumps rubella vaccine. we know it is safe and works. before i was introduced, we had 500 deaths per year here¿r. as we see more executives, we see cases increasing. personally, my personal opinion is that i think medical exemptions are the way to go. i think as i listen to my colleagues, they really do not

want to see us go to a philosophical exemption conversation. we do know that there are some laws and my own state, there is a bill that will look at trying to increase the steps that parent needs to take to opt out the vaccine. that would require them coming to talk to a health care professional about the risk and benefits of a vaccine. on the one hand, that is a very good plan. it has been shown in states that have done that to increase immunization rates and decrease those that opt out. on the other hand, makes for difficult situation of the parent comes in and is talking to me, and i go through all the signs of information, i listen to them and answer the questions, and they still opt out. i feel a party to that decision. i have to sign a paper saying it is ok for them to opt out. i would rather say, there is great science that we have to

vaccinate your child, your child has no medical reasons to not be vaccinated, this set -- the safest thing is to vaccinate them. part of the reason why we think about that is, i have been in pediatrics 37 years, and we have to have that child protection view of the world. what is the role of the child -- they cannot speak or give their opinion or weigh-in on what they want. they would not vote for ending up on a ventilator in an intensive care unit. we have to think about what is safest for the child. we know through a lot of studies and experience of the safest thing to do is to vaccinate them. host: when it comes to exemptions, should it stay as state issue or should the federal government take a stronger role in limiting those exemptions? guest: it is a hard question. i think on the one hand

measles, like politics, is local. it depends on if you are in the childcare center that has 30% of parents who opt out, or 50% who opt out, that childcare center or school is loanable. measles does work on a very local level basis. it does make sense to have some policies at the state level. on the other hand, we, as a country, we are a mobile society. we move state to state, travel internationally, have children that go on missions trips -- mission trips or study abroad. we're often one plane ride away from an infectious disease. the world health organization says that all of us are responsible for our you mean -- forgetting aren't immunization rates as high as they can be to reduce deaths.

the political conversation right now is very interesting. at minimum states need to reevaluate are we keeping our children safe? i liken it to seatbelt and car seats. i think we would never think about saying it is ok to take your baby and lay them down in the front seat of your car and drive away. just because you do not like car seats or believe in them. that is not keeping them a safe, not testing them. state laws are for a reason. you think about stoplights. i drove here today. you think, if i do not like stoplights and i sit through that stop light and do not stop. i would be putting other people at risk. we have laws to protect each other. you have to think about yourself as a community, not just our own self for children. all of society. host: let's hear from mark in texas. good morning. caller: good morning.

great conversation. let's say an individual, or several individuals, into your office and what opt out. the reason further opting out is because the children already had the measles and the mumps. how do you handle that? would it be a heard vaccination? guest: that is a good question. if someone has had the disease if they already had chickenpox or measles, then they have conferred natural immunity. we would not be required to vaccinate them again. host: georgia up next from oklahoma. caller: good morning. i'm a grandma. when my youngest grandchild -- when my daughter was pregnant with her, i have the news on and all of a sudden i heard that congress gave absolutely

immunity for civil liability for these people who make the vaccinations. i thought at the time, what is that about? why did they do that? then within three or four months, we started hearing about autism. no one has any answers for it. from maine to california, i think the last number i saw was one in 68 kids and up with autism in this country. i never heard any explanation for that. i've not seen any studies for that or anything to take care of it. i begged my daughter to not get that baby immunized, to hold off. i believe they has to be a common denominator with these babies. it is either in the vaccinations or in the baby food. i think the best way to handle this is -- i want to know why those companies asked for that civil -- immunity from civil liability, and why congress gave it to them. guest: i think what she is

talking about -- we have talked about autism already. because things are associated in time measles mumps rubella vaccination given at 12 years of age is also when a parent may notice that child is not having socialization, not looking at their parent, show signs of autism. those things might be, in the parents i, associated with time. it does not mean it is cause-and-effect. there is only studies looking at this intensely, we want to know what causes autism. if vaccines are playing a role, we want to know that. numerous studies have been undertaken here and internationally. one especially great study was done in denmark. there, they have a very controlled environment to be old to answer these questions. there are all in the same electronic medical record,

vaccines are j distributed the same way, they can measure diseases and maxine's they saw no relationship between measles mups rubella and ought to them -- autism. your question is about an act that was put in place by our government agencies so that if there is a vaccine injury, about one in one million or 2 million can cause an anaphylactic reaction that we would want to evaluate. all clinicians are encouraged to submit a vaccine adverse event report. we look at them and make changes. for example, we had an early rotavirus vaccine that was causing about a reaction where the

bow would twist on itself. it was looked at in multiple studies throughout the country. it was found to be causing this problem. we stopped using a vaccine. we have systems in place to evaluate, monitor, we are constantly monitoring the safety of them. if something bad happens, we do follow-up and are able to compensate those families. host: we are speaking with patricia stinchfield, on the board of the center for infectious diseases. barbara, go ahead. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i want to think the lady. i am for vaccinations. i believe that that is not what causes autism. when i was a child, you never heard about autism. i believe it is something that we are eating, in our food or

being put in canned food. we have developed more of autism in the later years. i believe in health. health that we have now that public health. getting vaccinations. i believe that it is so important for every child to get vaccinated. i feel the problem we are having right now is being caused by the illegal immigration that had has come across. we do not know that they were vaccinate or not. the border patrol even said that they have so made diseases there. i feel that before any illegals are transported to any state, they need to be sure that they are vaccinated.

and that they do not infect the people who were not knowledgeable enough to vaccinate their children in this country. host: barbara, thanks. guest: her that sounds like a statement, her opinions, i do not know if there was a question there or not. we share the concern are around the lack of understanding around autism. we want to make sure that we spend good research dollars on trying to understand that. there are some findings that early on in a child's development, their genetic aces. i'm not an autism expert. i want people to know that the vaccine and autism relationship is not there. we need to continue and move on on our understanding of autism. the national autism society has announced that it is important to vaccinate.

host: one of the things i was reading on the topic of this was the topic of mercury. is this a concern? guest: no, it is not a concern. mercury is a substance that is very common in our world. it is common in our environment. we are exposed to it and number of ways. there are a number of different types of mercury. mercury is related to thimerosal. as i said, it is only in one type of file. the preservative in their prevents and infection to the next person. as so mercury is what is inside marisol. it is in the multidose flu vaccine. it is not methylmercury which is

what people think of as a cumulative type of mercury. there are two different substances and unfortunately have been down together in people's minds. they are quite different. host: and viewers sent an e-mail saying she was reading the newspaper and it apparently asserted that six month olds can apparently received the measles shot. what do you think about that? guest: if you're traveling and taking her family out of the country, it is recommended that as early as six months of age you get an early and them are vaccine. after returning and after the individual turns 12 years of age, you will still need to vaccines. a total of three for those babies who are traveling internationally. if they haven't had a vaccine they should get one. host: either side effects from a

measles that vaccination? guest: yes, with all things there are potential side effects. we review them with parents and talk about them. it is important to know what to expect. with miso months rubella vaccine, it is a lie vaccine. you expect almost a mini course of the disease. it is usually 10-14 days. you may have some measles like rash around the site of the vaccine. you may have some fever. i asked parents to circle that day on the calendar so that when they have fever and develop a rash it is a very small, minimal side effects, that they know what to expect. that is the normal immune response to a lie vaccine. you cannot expect the human immune system to respond

differently to that by way of a vaccine versus the real disease. that is the marvel of the vaccine. we have the ability to give a very small amount of disease small amount of pathogens, the germ whatever term you want to use, we give that to the infants and adults, and the immune system recognizes the virus vials that a way, and makes antibodies. it waits in the event that you are exposed to a real disease. all of those antibodies, i described them to my parents patients, as an army. they will prevent measles from spreading in that person and making an infection. it is an absolutely marvelous system. if people want to think about

natural. there is nothing more natural the way i just described. host: the next caller is from new york. caller: good morning. i have a question for the young lady there. i was born in 1948 and i had measles. the german measles. i do not believe it is up to the government to tell me how to raise my kids, tell me what shots to get. they have lied to me silly times. i do not believe anything they say. the question i have for this young lady is we have let illegal immigrants into this country by the millions. the president of the united states said that 700,000 kids would be here and it turned out to be more.

this young lady knows where the outbreak came from. eight a from overseas. it was not an illegal that brought it, but came from overseas. i would like her to address it. why is the government so hot for me to get my children immunized why can't they have been illegals -- it does not make sense to me. guest: you are bringing up -- host: let him finish. about your children, have they been vaccinated? caller: i've had my children vaccinated. but if my neighbor does not want them to be vaccinated, it is up to them. guest: you bring up a good point about the international travel and the importation of measles. back in 2000, the united states

declared that we had eradicated measles. that meant that no measles cases were coming out from within the united states. that was quite a triumph. it was a good success after all of our years of vaccinating to say that we have taken a disease, that took many lives for years, and by down to zero. after that, however every year we did have a few cases that would come in. they were largely internationally imported. people who travel internationally. you know how global our society is. it is very common for people to get on a plane and travel outside of the united states and come back. or for people from elsewhere to come here. they, students workers individuals coming to the united states like many of our ancestors did. that international and poor is an important element. we actually do not know who the index case was in the california

case. i'm not sure that we will ever know who that first case was. i can't say that it was from someone who traveled abroad. we do know that want to does star, if you have a portable population an on immunized -- on immunized population, it can spread. i'm glad that you vaccinated your children. when one's children goes to an event, they want to be old to make sure there chilled will be safe. 99% of parents do best the neighbor children on time because they do not want to harm their child or other children. host: up next is michelle from wisconsin. michelle from wisconsin? caller: yes. hello. i'm glad you are talking about this. i have a son who is now 20.

he was diagnosed with autism when he was three. i had my suspicions when he was two. there was something wrong. at birth i had my thoughts thinking that it was related to the vaccinations. over time, science has proven that that is not the case. i am a firm believer of science. therefore, i'm thinking that maybe they are not related. i know that people think it had to do with chromosomes, or something like that. i know my son was tested with fragile x chromosome -- what they say is the link to autism. my son does not carry that chromosome. my husband and i were both tested for that, and my

daughter. host: thank you caller. i just want to get as many colors in as possible before we go. liz from new jersey. caller: hello. i would have to line up on the sign side as getting immunizations. our family has all have them. the only thing i think is perhaps, even though this current routine of doing immunizations is probably the best is it a possibility for those that are reluctant to have a different schedule? like an alternate plan. so that they eventually get all these immunizations. i think it is better to do that than have them walking around

unvaccinated. guest: you bring up a good point. it is one in pediatric and family practice clinics that we are discussing. that is for clinics to have a policy that will follow the immunization schedule as is, and if you come to this clinic, you will follow that. if you do not follow that, you will not be able to go to the clinic. on the one hand, that makes it very clear what the clinic practice is and everyone in the clinic is vaccinated, so you have less loanable people waiting in the waiting room. it also provides more time in that clinic well-child visit to talk about a lot of other things that we need to talk about -- nutrition, child development rather than going on and on about this on back scenes. on the other hand, i think i

tend more on the side that my job is for to make sure that child is protected and safe and that i give the parent the best information that i can on the hazards of disease that i've seen firsthand. i have helped children from dying in vaccine preventable diseases in my arms. i do not want that to happen to anyone else. i will talk to parents if they say, i am a little concerned about this vaccine, i will continue to work with them and show them my competence, that i care about them. i will continue to talk about it. however, i do let them know that with every time we omit, or spread out that vaccine schedule, we having one more day of risk. also, looking at the fact that there is not science that says we need to spread it out. the human immune system is very

powerful and can take the vaccines in on schedule as design. there's really not any scientific need to do that. in terms of the number of injections -- it's hard, i have two children who are fully vaccinated and i have been there myself holding my own children for their vaccines. as far as pain goes, the science says that weather is one injection or five injections, their nervous system does not detect any more pain. the better thing to do is to vaccinate them, do it with some loving interventions. allow them to sit up, or of the mamas breast-feeding breast-feed during vaccination. use distraction. have the person who is giving the vaccine route firmly on that spot. having rewards. kids are resilient. they know that they would much rather have that 30 seconds of

pain than two weeks in the intensive carry unit. host: here is catherine. caller: good morning. we should have a whole hour to talk about this. i want to focus on one thing. that is the parent's right to choose. i have a child. i had mmr. shortly after i had that, i had seizures. it led me to having surgery at the age of five to have correction surgery. my oldest child was fully immunize. i did what parents are supposed to do, i followed the doctors advice. my child had a very strong reaction. what i felt was a very strong reaction to her mmr. succinctly, -- subsequently, i was threatened by my doctor for

child neglect for deciding to not give further vaccinations. my child was never vaccinated after that. she went to college and had to have -- would be going into a field where she would be required to show she was immunize. d. that being said, i disagree with the parent not having the right to choose. we are the ones that ultimately are responsible for them and take care of them. host: thanks, catherine. guest: i think it is a natural

conversation. your child was likely in that population that had one mmr and developed that 95% of people who respond to one dose. that is where the titers were drawn. we see this happen in children whose parents have decided they don't want to vaccinate them. they want to become unders or doctor, and they have to have immunity to work in a health care system. we cannot the incubating measles, and taking care of premature babies, or children with cancer. it is about protecting our staff so that we can protect our patients. i have parents whose children have had leukemia and know that when everyone else vaccinate their children, they are protecting those kids who cannot be vaccinated. those are all those babies under one years of age or those babies with chemotherapy.

when you look at the ethics of it, my personal belief is that the greater good is to protect the society. as we do, we protect individuals. host: what about her expense with seizures, houston does that happen with mmr? guest: about one in one million will have an anaphylactic seizure reaction. in my 27 years in a children's hospital, i've only seen at once. it is extremely rare. when you look at the number of vaccines we give every year, mmr is very safe. i'm very sorry for the experiencing your family has had. i'm sure it was very difficult. it is a very rare story that she is describing. host: here is peter from lynchburg, virginia. caller: i have a background in statistics, a little bit of biostatistics experience. it is wonderful to see someone in public health on tv.

thank you c-span for that. i want to make a quick comment -- and medicine, i think public health, there are no absolutes. i think one of the callers that mention guaranteeing no side effects, i think that is a little unrealistic. having said that, i was curious to know from the guess, patricia, how do you look at the rates of autism and compare that with the u.s.? are there studies that show with those rates are? guest: i want to thank you for your comment. i think you're very writes about science and absolutes. this is one of the downsides of social media. people can put out whatever absolute, or whatever statement that they want to make. there -- they are not evidence-based.

or they could be so absolute that they are not realistic. i think we have to be careful. we do not say that any vaccine is 100% safe, or 100% effective. we have to make sure that we are clear about that. and not to begin absolutes. in terms of autism internationally, that is not my area of expertise. i know in minnesota, we have a large somali community, we are looking at somali autism rates in the u.s. versus in somalia. it is an area of study that think people are interested in. thus far what little i know about that literature, there does not seem to be differences. host: our guest has been patricia stinchfield. she is a board member with the national foundation for infectious diseases. thank you for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: this week in the papers you may have seen that the

president of the united states spoke at the national prayer breakfast. he made some comments about the crusade. we will show you the story. first of all, i want to let you know that he talked about the crusades -- this is a story in the new york times. you may want to comment on that. in the last half hour the story, here are the lines. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats.

(202) 745-8002 for independence. if you miss that, here is a portion. [video clip] >> we see faith driving us to do the right. we also see faith and twisted and distorted. used as a wedge, or worse, and sometimes used as a weapon. from a school in pakistan to the streets of paris. we have seen violence and terrorism perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith. profess to stand up for islam, but in fact arbitrating it. we see isis. a brutal, vicious death: that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism. terrorizing religious minorities.

subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war. and claiming the mantle of religion authorities for such actions. we see sectarian war in syria. the murder of muslims and christians in nigeria. religious war and the central african republic. a rising tide of anti-semitism and hate crimes in europe. so often perpetrated in the name of religion. how do we, as people of faith reconcile these realities? the profound good, the strength, tenacity, compassion love that can flow from all of our faith. operating alongside those who seek to hijacked religion for their own murderous ends.

humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. unless we get on her high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the crusades and the inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of christ. in our home country, slavery and jim crow all too often was justified in the name of christ. >> washington journal continues. host: it is open phones in those last half hour. here are the numbers. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independence. there are the numbers. you can call. you can also post on our c-span twitter page --

http://twitter.com/cspanwj. brian williams has opened up an investigation into his statements on iraq, saying that the networks editor will look into it. the announcement suggests that nbc considers the storm around williams to be a serious threat to his credibility. at the least, it is a personal setback for williams. that is the story from "the washington post this" this morning. joe is our first caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i look comment would like to tie back to what the president said in his speech. the president never

misses a chance to play the race card. my comment is more specific. eric holder is about to be replaced. thank god. i hope the senators asked his replacement if she will continue his legacy going after innocent people for federally based race crimes. george zimmerman. officer wilson. never a shred of evidence developed that they did anything wrong, let alone a race crime. there was a crime committed about one year ago in massachusetts. it was a black teenager that rates in the most gruesome way a young white schoolteacher. here's the kicker. he put a note on her dead body that said, i hate you all. that was evidence. i am a lawyer. that is evidence of a hate crime. eric holder has never evidence that as -- investigate that as a

hate crime. meanwhile, -- host: that was joe in maryland. either way, loretta lynch, if you miss the confirmation hearing, it is on our website c-span.org. she received questions from legislators about her plans. julie's from north carolina. go ahead. caller: on the program, you had someone on that the nations. could it be that there are schools and daycare is -- you know, throughout the united states that taken children specifically who have not been vaccinated because of religious beliefs?

or even, parents could stay home and and homeschool their children. that way, they can have their religious believes and their children be safe, like they want them to be without vaccinations, the keep the other kids safe. host: jetted from massachusetts. caller: i saw obama's speech. i agree with him. i agree with him about religion. i am a scientist, a physicist. i also am -- think the issue is more complicated than it was made out to be on the destination program. i would like to bring up the jargon still -- that scene. it is based on the hypothesis

that hpv leads to cervical cancer. this is being given by the cdc. they recommend the girls and boys take it at age eight. it is unclear as to how long it lasts. if it is not last that long, it could only reduce a much smaller percentage -- 10-15 percent of cervical cancer. we do not know for sure is hpv causes cervical cancer. host: lauren from nashville tennessee. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just lied to comment on obama speech and say that as being raised a protestant mennonite, my own family has experienced at least 13 direct family members

put to death during the inquisition. i am somewhat familiar with the subject. i'm currently working on a book aboutt american indian pre-. it is very revealing. if anyone wants to read on any of the early historians, particularly before the revolutionary war. our history here in america, both protestant and catholic, honestly led to the extermination of about a minimum of 50 million people in the course of a couple hundred years. all of the native americans. the overwhelming reason to justify this back in europe was the heathen savage concept of the godless uridine mobile indian. it is certainly the greatest genocide to have everything in place on earth at any point. host: i have to leave it there.

we will move on to frank in memphis, tennessee. hello. caller: good morning. i want to speak about obama and the speech that he gave. i believe 100% of what he was trying to state. you know, about religion. they try to do what they did to the indians with slavery. i think that is what he was trying to say. people said he was saying something in the name of god that is not made it has to be true. they did use it in slavery. they use it today. they consider gays not to be humans. i just wanted to say that. host: john hinckley in the news. "the washington post" reports the smear this morning --

derek from maryland. democrats line. caller: good morning. i deftly agree with the gentleman from tennessee. the guy from maryland, he is an idiot. first of all, barack obama told the truth. you have white people in this country that cannot accept the truth. the truth is first of all -- the

truth is the you have people who will be racist in this country. the reality is that it economist estimated that the money made from freed black slavery in today would be about $3 trillion. we have so many races white people that do not want to accept the fact that they are phony white christians. even jesus was not white, but they do not want to accept it. host: anthony on the independence line. caller: i will try to bring a lowlight to obama's comment. basically what i'm trying to explain to the american public is that you might have some points, you need to ring out the negativity to it. it is not about obama being

critical to christianity. i'm sure he is a christian. the fact that he is saying -- like the jews always say, never again. we need to remind each other that we should never forget the past. if you forget the past there is a possibility that you be repeated. i am from nigeria. i have been in politics all my life. that is my comment. eggs. host: on "american history tv" on booktv this weekend, you will learn about corpus christi, texas. this is from a tour that we been taking around the country. this morning and you will hear many things, including an interview with an author about his book, "hell on wheels ." [video clip]

q>> most of my students have experience with an automobile at the event. it is not the same as disease etc. it is ubiquitous. if americans embrace the automobile culturally, how do they respond when, by the 1920's, and up until the 1920's, there was a national cry over unavoidable automobile accidents that were killing individuals. particularly, pedestrians who have nothing to do with the freedom are driving. others were paying for the liberties of these drivers. when the car was first introduced, the rules were very different. the reaction to those rules were different. the study looks at 1900 to 1940 a. of time when there would not

uniform rules for trading and driving, and universal signs for speed limits, and what have you. that created a national dialogue over our love for automobiles and the social responsibility of having one. host: that was from the corpus christi profile on booktv and "american history tv". big and automotive issues, federal officials said yesterday that a guard rail system and by 30 states, the federal highway administration ordered a test on the guardrail system. this is after a federal jury found the company liable for defrauding the government are not disclosing design changes to the system.

mrs. ralph, washington, dc republican line. caller: i have a real problem with speaker boehner and some of his recent statements. what he said was we need more tax breaks. he also said that we need to regulate the banks. haven't we been down this road before? the fact is with 90% of the money in the last 90 years, the additional income going to the top 1%, there is no question as to why the middle class and lower classes are struggling. if you kept all the money and gave it to one class, there is

nothing left over for everyone else. the other problem i have is social security, medicare, medicaid taxes, commonly called payroll taxes, once you make over a hundred million dollars you do not pay more. it's like you get 15% less taxes because you make more. host: tony. caller: we do not need any more divisions in america. obama was giving and historical fact. anyone who knows about history they know what the crusades did. it was a horrific example of anti-semitic violence. that's a historical fact. we have to stop the division. the way to win people over show some humility. president obama was showing

some humility, our history of slavery is awful. he is winning some people over who are potentially muslim radicals to let them know, hey we also have a bad past, but we are not all bad. those who live through slavery they are just as upset about history, but it is historical facts. please, let's not make this a racist issue. we have more in common than we have different. we have to unite. that is the only way we will win the 21st century. host: let's hear from barbara in new york. caller: good morning. i want to comment on brian williams. he is just a tv personality. i'm not concerned about him. what does concern me is when united states senator john mccain called protesters at a hearing lowlife scum. i saw him on cnn later and he

his explanation is that henry kissinger's 91 years old and has a broken soldier. a are a lot of people and loud, cambodia, vietnam and they wish would've been able to live until 91. because of henry kissinger and he couldn't. john mccain wanted to become president of the united states, and that is what he thinks the citizens? thanks, pedro. host: by the way, the event that took place last week is available on our website. you can see that hearing where protesters took over and made statements. and john mccain statement as well. you can see that in our video library on c-span.org. our next caller is from fairfax, virginia. caller: thank you for our open phones. i think you should not read articles during open phones. it limits the number of people who can get through, and it

stops the flow of exchange between colors. i would like c-span to try to have more open phones, and only open phones during that segment. i would like to talk about religion. religion is used to brainwash children. it has caused many suicides among gay youth. i think it is an evil influence to brainwash children, and to organize around common hatreds which is what religions do. host: david from pennsylvania republican line. caller: i wanted to respond to that guy from tennessee. i grew up around mennonites myself. he should know better with his ridiculous comments. the german mennonites were the first group to protest african

slavery in 1687 in germantown pennsylvania. 15 years before the german english quakers. in obama's speech, he leaves that out. the fact that in antebellum south, slavery was justified by the bible. what do you think the abolition movement was? it was a christian movement. it took place in the north. slavery existed in every single civilization in human history. the word slave comes from the word flawslav. to lawrence, native americans came across of frozen land bridge from asia. this is not their land, any more than it is ours. they built their own nations and slade each other in the caribbean.

they can't of tried actually ate another try. the aztecs and mayans cut the hearts out of their slaves for centuries before the spanish ended it. i love this walt disney idea that the american indians were being in harmony before the white man showed up. host: that was david in pennsylvania. we will hear from sharing in texas. caller: good morning. i'm calling about the vaccinations. i wanted to give a brief description of something that happened to my child. just to let people know. there are some he parameters to thinking about when, and the timing of giving the shots. she was getting the last dtt booster. she was around 12 or 13. around that time, she got the meningitis and flu vaccine all at once. she was also on the tail end up

taking an antibiotic for an infection. went into happening to her -- she had all the shots prior to that. and have not had any problems. at that time, when she was on the tail end of that infection and getting antibiotics, and she had all the shots, she ended up having what they called an immunological response to the vaccination. it was really scary. i think if i were to say anything if your child is the ill, maybe space out the vaccinations a little differently. i just wanted to throw that into the mix. host: the headline in the "new york times" talking about the speech that prime minister mignon netanyahu will give the congress next week. there is the story from "the new

york times" also, the headline "netanyahu visit to congress tends to deepen splits. tom from montrose, california. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am about a 33-year-old listener on c-span.

i've been listening and watching for a long time. i am a systems analyst. basically a problem solver. i use computers. there is a lot a difference between computers and politics. two computers, there are no lies or emotions. you cannot make a computer solution by pretending that one thing or another happened. it is all the facts and truths. it really annoys me how the right wing cannot stand any truth. look at this, they want to pretend that paul revere was warning the british truth troops about the second amendment rights, they did not even come around until later. host: hillary clinton on the front page of the washington post on a team that she is

reportedly putting together. she says that she has at least settled on a campaign manager, a pollster, a lead media advisor communications director, focus group director, and the communication strategist. she is also closing in on a new york city campaign headquarters and a date to make it official. some senior staff are signing on without nailing down usual conditions for a new job. clinton is making many of the file visions -- final decisions by herself. we will go next to tony. caller: i would like to talk about police and black young men. what i would like to see is a study showing how many young black unarmed men were killed by

white officers. how many black officers killed black unarmed men. how many black officers killed white unarmed men. i think the study needs to be done. i have -- do not have the means to do it by would like c-span to do it. i'm talking about the breakdown. not armed criminals, but on our people -- unarmed people. some people i need to do a study on that. that's only way to prove that it is racial. i think why offices are really afraid when they come in contact with black men, instead of arresting them, they shoot them and kill them. host: here is a show for tomorrow on the washington journal. we will be joined at 7:45 a.m. with grover norquist to talk about tax proposals and the 2016 budget.

also joining us tomorrow will be patrick taurel to talk about the president's order on immigration. as part of that, we will be talking to a dream or so to speak, someone who received the deferment. then, we will talk with escalating conflict between russia and ukraine. leaders from france and germany at the ukraine-russia meeting. william pomerantz will talk about that. all that. we will talk of -- take a look at the papers as well. washington journal continues tomorrow. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this morning on c-span, health and human services secretary sylvia burwell appears before the senate finance committee to go over the president's 2016 budget request for hhs. then pentagon officials talk about the president's budget request for defense spending and at a briefing with reporters. >> the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we partnered with time warner cable for a visit to corpus christi, texas. >> we are in the daniel kilgore reading room of the special selections at the library in corpus christi.