and when we did this bill, as i said earlier, we had four principles, these are the things you should consider. that the market is a more efficient allocator of resources. the ways and means committee and finance figured out we should do this or that activity. second, equal incomes should pay equal tax. it is not fair to have your neighbor pay less because they have a particular tax benefit. and third, those who have more should pay more. the progressive principle. and fourth, if you can simplify it, please simplify it. to me, those are the four principles. the economic issues and growth you would want people to move up and say to people at the top you have to pay a little bit more. so i think those are the principles that i would use going forward.

>> you know, i think that it's -- my question suggests, at least i view it, is that it is a neither-nor process but equity on the low reduce the burden on low and middle class is not just morally responsible but about two thirds of the economy is fueled by consumer spending and lower and middle class families have a higher percentage that they need and spend on goods and services. so in that respect i think it makes sense to be looking at how the consequences of reform deal with them not just on corporate taxes as well because i think it will fuel spending that will help private sector profits. senator packwood, at the end of your testimony, in 1983, 1900

people who earned a million or more paid no federal tax and that fact was due to a myriad of special interest loopholes clogging the arteries of the tax code before '86. and as you noted in your testimony, the product that passed the finance committee 20-0 and would later become law raised the taxes significantly on corporations and rich individuals. they would pay more and the middle income would pay less. and we have now a situation in which the average new jersey family that makes $65,000 per year pays a higher rate -- a higher rate than the wealthiest 400 americans -- the wealthiest families that make $200,000 a year and what is your perception on the tax treatment and would you agree that the loopholes

that have allowed the wealthiest to reduce the tax rate over the last 30 years. >> there is no question that the public is aware of the inequality. in 1986, it wasn't in the issue of fairness, how do these people not pay any tax at all and how do companies making profit not pay back. and that was a driving inequality. and it is a much higher goal today than it was 30 years ago. what i'm hesitant about is not do you want to fix that, the longer i've been in life and in senate, the less confident i was that what we were going to do would necessarily get us to what we wanted. and that is why i agree with bill. the market is a better

allocation. if you want to undo the inequality, i think that is legislatively doable, if you can get both sides to agree, that is perfect, but it wasn't what drove us in 1986. >> thank you. i might say that - >> i'm sorry. >> in terms of the middle class, we need more good-paying jobs. and so that is tough to get at through the tax code, but not impossible. so i'll share with you one of my hobby horses. infrastructure investment desperately needed. tough budget, you can't do it. and the size that we would like to do it. but there are people that have money. chinese, singapore, koreans, in the persian gulf. large sovereign funds.

i mean hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. and they have to decide what do they do with that money. and i ask any number of them why don't you invest in infrastructure in the united states, in other words they play the role the british played in the 19th century, and they say there is one provision in the tax code, and it is 892 and it says if you are a foreign government and you invest in stocks or bonds, you don't pay tax on that. very simple, extend that to infrastructure and you could very well find a significant amount of money for infrastructure coming from sovereign funds. >> thank you. great. >> senator stone. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you all very much for being here.

i was a staffer back in '85 and '86 and when this was done last time and a great admirer of the hard work that went into it and the ultimate result and i'm things are different and this is a different time and a different place and the one thing that i think you noted and made the difference is the active engagement in the process and i remember treasury one and two and how hard they worked to try to get that across the finish line and to me to do anything big and consequential in this town, you need presidential leadership. i hope we get that. with regard to a couple of the issues you batted around back at the time, one had to do with whether lower rates or more favorable cost recovery revisions ought to be a focus on tax reform and which is better for economic growth and i think that was part of the debate. and my question is do you believe lower rates paired with

longer depreciation schedules is that approach and how do you think we should approach that question today? >> don't know how you should approach it today. we felt lower rates was the most desirable thing we were doing. depreciation was a major sense when we went to congress. i won't advise you on what you you ought to do. i just say lower rates and keep it revenue neutral but there might be something you can work on that but lower revenues. >> how do you feel about cap gains rate and the lower income, in your view when you look back on it, was that a good thing? >> yes, it was, and i remember bill talking a few moments ago about the hearings we had, and you had to have a differential.

it was 30%, you had to have 15% and if it was 20%, had it to be 10%. and i said if there was no income tax would you have to have a subsidy to invest because there is no deferential. and he never been asked that question and didn't know how to answer it. i think you could do well if you had a low rate, with capital gains being the same rate. >> ok. and this has been alluded to already but there is suggestions about the goals of tax reforms and one thing that separates us here which makes it hard is there are folks who look at this as an exercise to raise revenue and that is something the president wants to do and a lot of us believe that can be done through growth and tax reform is how do we raise that income disparity issues mentioned before, so speak about growth as an objective or a goal of tax

reform and how you think that plays into the deliberation that should occur here. >> well obviously everybody wants growth. i remember russell long, chairman of this committee for 16 or 17 years in one meeting saying, i have been here for 30 years. he said, three times we have put the tax credit in three times and three times we've taken it out and when does it work out with the economy. i think a lot of us don't know exactly what works. i know there are industries who want things who say this will work but i don't think we're necessarily smart enough to know. >> mr. bradley, you've talked about growth, tell me your sort of views on that?

>> well i think you can have growth and equity. i think growth, you get in part through the lower rates and also in part from clearing out the code of this under-brush that prevents the economy from growing because it subsidized one segment as opposed to another. i think that if you are going to deal with the equity question, i think the way to do that is with the earned income tax credit and i think the president's proposal on second earning tax is something to look at and i think you can do stuff that is not special interest that will allow you to deal with equity and at the same time you are lowering the over all rate. and to me, that is the key. >> thank you. mr. chairman and senator bradley, you're a credit to basketball players everywhere. >> that is a big compliment from you, senator.

>> thank you. senator. >> thank you for being here with us and insight from 1986 and how you brought together something that was thought to be impossible and telling you here as a new senator, it is thought to be impossible again and for a point of reference, this is treasury two and this is treasury one and during the years you guys found the will to make this happen and this is six years of the president's proposals. my first question for both of you all is how do we find common ground when finding a serious partner towards real tax reform appears to be missing in the seriousness of the presentations and the proposals, number one, and the second part of that is

when we've heard from both our chairman, senator hatch and senator thune just talked about revenue neutral position, when you start the conversation as well talking about achieving several hundred billion dollars more of revenue versus a position of neutrality, how do you bridge that chasm? >> i don't think bill and i can tell you how to bridge that gap. if the bridges irrevocable, that bridge cannot gapped. >> i agree. >> senator, if you can bridge that, then spend time doing something else. i think however that the question is can you put together a small group of people on this committee that have sufficient

clout within the committee, as bob said earlier, that you could actually spend the time to come up with something that was pretty good. i mean, more taxes, you have to figure out which taxes -- the trade-offs i offered with the consumption tax versus cutting the social security and employment taxes. that is not something we're going to decide. that is something you have to decide. and as i said earlier, all i know is we didn't have room with seven people and you are making votes and doing things and affecting this part of the economy and that part -- that is a lot of fun. if you are just coming in and having your two sides make your statements, that can't be too much fun. >> can't be too much fun is correct. looking for other things to do with our time, sir, i thought about playing basketball but i'm too short and built for football.

so good news is senator hatch on the other hand has taken an inventive approach to find some common ground and reaching across the aisle and put together some sweet spots that may be beneficial going forward. one of the areas i have great passion and interest as an entrepreneur over the last 15 years is why simplification of the tax code benefits all. senator bradley, you said loopholes are ways politicians can spend money without going through the appropriations process and the more opportunities politicians have to spend money without the appropriations process, the more complicated and difficult the tax codes comes. when i started my business, i didn't think about loopholes to start a business. i thought about creating jobs and making a profit and changing the lives of family members and employees. i would love to hear you chat a little bit about the notion of

simplification or either of you esteemed gentlemen talk about the simplification and the outcome of allowing money to find its best place through the private sector? >> um, you know, when i was speaking about this every day for four years, i went on the "david letterman show" and i took out a card and said you ought to be able to do income tax on this card. that is not quite true, but we do know that a vast number of americans have income through income or dividends. and guess who has that information. the irs could do the return based on that, send it to the people and the people could either sign it or say no, i want to have another accountant do

it. that would be a dramatic simplification. >> in 1986, i had a younger person on the joint tax committee who is gone, i can't remember who it was now. give me just a ballpark estimate and not spending time on running -- what you can do with a flat tax which is simple. and he said, at that time, it took him a few days, you could have a flat tax, 11% and raise the same amount of money that we are now raising but that meant a widow with two kids would now pay $1100 in taxes. i said what if you exempt all families under $30,000. he said it slightly tilts toward the rich. and i was curious about slightly. and he said if you realize if you get rid of every deduction that mankind can conceivably has, you're talking about people

of the rich and not the poor. sally who works out the mill who fills out a 1040-ez single-digit doesn't have any deductions is not adversely affected. but if 19% is the norm, you could keep the same progress and do it around 17% on the low end and 20% middle and 23% on the top. now this is a top of the head thought of his. but it is worth running if you want to see what you could do and then, senator, you have got a simple tax. how much did you earn? you are in the 20% tax bracket you don't get any deductions and that is simple. >> that is interesting. thank you. and senator white, we've had over 30 hearings on this over the last four years. >> i do want to tell this one quick story about bill because it was cute. >> sure. >> the president signed the bill. the signing ceremony is going to be on a wednesday.

bill is in portland at a noontime luncheon fundraiser for a democrat candidate for governor and catch the plane back for the signing ceremony. my campaign manager is a tough woman and she said you are not up for re-election, but bill is going. well, portland is socked in. he called seattle, can i drive to seattle and get a plane out. can i get a charter plane in san francisco and nothing is flying out. and so he -- and i was having a press conference the next day at 7:30 and the president was going to call me after he finished signing and i said bill we have a press conference tomorrow morning if would you like to come and he said no, i'm going to get out. early the next morning, he calls and said where is that press conference and he comes and the president talks to me and the local network affiliates are there and the president talks to me and i chat a bit and say by the way, bill bradley is here and you know how valuable he was for us.

he makes national television for appearing on the local affiliate in portland and i don't get covered nationwide. >> well, the more relevant point is it was because of my respect for bob packwood that i decided in the middle of his campaign to join him in a press conference about tax reform. i think that is probably not happened a lot recently. >> that was well-done. >> well, i have a lot of respect for both of you. you've been both great senators and you have both done an awful lot for this country. and we are very proud of you. senator wyden has one more. >> i'm going to be very brief and thank you both for that simplicity discussion because i've thought for a long time

that this insanely complicated tax code plays right into the hands of the special interests and the lobbyists and it will be even more challenging today than it was in '86. we talked about gucci gulch and wonderful descriptions in it about the lobbyists who would wait in line outside of the ways and means room for a phone booth. well, today a lobbyist is going to sit in the back of the room and set in motion a tweet that is in effect probably going to go to millions or tweet directly to millions from the back of the room. so simplicity is going to be hugely important and i think there are some contenders for how to do it and senator bradley mentioned one in his testimony with respect to the information that the irs, in effect, has in giving the citizen an option of in effect having the irs mail something, it wouldn't be

required, just an option. the postcard concept, in effect, you can put a tax return on the back of a w-2 and that is something worth exploring. i'm also interested in looking we'll be following up with the two of you, on the idea that if you triple the standard deduction and a number of senators of both political parties are interested in a significant increase in the standard deduction, you don't have so many people itemize and that is another possibility. but we'll follow up with you on the simplicity issue. i want to wrap up with one last question and that is, is there one thing you regret about what happened in '86 and you would counsel us in terms of what to do in the future? in other words, it is always easy to think about what is possible today in the abstract but you two went through it.

anything you regret and you would like us to change? i know that one thing i regret about '86 and i was a junior, junior congressperson is senator bradley is right when he says no current congress can permanently bind a future congress from unraveling it but you can make it really hard. you put people through multiple votes and the like. so i can think of some things, but you two went through it. anything you regret, one thing that you would tell us to be careful about? >> well, i regret the deal i had to make with the oilies which is totally unjustified given to them and no other business got it but i needed their votes on the floor and what they wanted didn't cost very much money. and the ira's were $24 billion. but do i wish i didn't have to put that in? you're right. but, that is one of the decisions you make on the spur of the moment. i literally made it the night we

were doing the votes and i didn't ask for it and i put it in and have them be mad rather than put it in and think i double crossed them. >> so even in this world of great equality among the senators and the group of seven that senator packwood talked about, there was still the chairman's prerogative and i think that is what that was. nobody -- nobody questioned that. because we've been through the whole process. do i regret anything? i regret that the bill lasted only a short period of time. as i said, it was a humbling experience, sand castles at the edge of the ocean and only a commitment from members of this committee and from presidents -- succeeding presidents. president clinton had a totally

different idea of taxes. he would like to spread through the tax code and that helped unravel the deferential capital gains came back and we didn't treat the deferential, rate went up to 39 and there were hiding places for little provisions. my favorite being the one that says if you rent your house for two weeks, you pay no tax on that income. there was once a senator from georgia on this committee who had a lot of friends that had the master's golf tournament and big houses around the master's golf tournament, these things happen, but i don't regret that -- that was before my time. but i do think that you have to find some way -- i regret that it didn't last. that is what i say. >> thank you to both of them. senator, you have one of your top staffers, one i know, that was with you at the time.

do you care to introduce? >> bill. bill, stand up. >> if i can. >> he was the chief of staff of the finance committee at the time and i said if that bill wasn't my bill, it was our bill. he was critical in this and especially critical in dealing with the administration and with dick darwin. but it would not have passed but without him. >> i agree with that. >> i want to thank both of you. this means a lot of to me personally. and i've admired both of you as premier legislators and people who care for people and who both are extremely intelligent. so this has meant a lot to me and i appreciate it and with that, we'll recess until further notice. >> thank you.

>> wednesday the house speaks of the keystone so pipeline bill that passed the senate on january 29. legislation would approve construction of an oil pipeline from tenets of the gulf of mexico. the president has promised to veto the bill. we will be live starting at noon eastern. coming up, congressman luke messer talks about the president's request to use military force against isis and other legislative issues. then the senate health committee discovers the rise of unvaccinated children and the current measles outbreak. later, another chance to see the senate finance committee hearing with former senators bob packwood and bill bradley discussing the 1986 tax deal.

on the next washington journal representative martha exactly of arizona -- mcsally of arizona will discuss the present request for the use of military force against isis and the conflict in eastern ukraine and then more about the president's request with marcy kaptur of ohio. she will talk about the groups call for military assistance for ukraine. later a bus tour of historically black colleges continues with the president of a morehouse college in atlanta. " washington journal" is live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation with your phone calls and comment on facebook and twitter. >> here are some of the featured programs for this president's they weekend. on seas been to, saturday

morning at 9:00, live coverage of the savanna book festival with a nonfiction authors of books on topics of the disappearance of michael rockefeller, and british company of elephants during world war ii and women spies during the civil war. former senior adviser for president obama david axlerod on his 40 years in politics. on c-span three, saturday morning at 8:30 a.m., the 100th anniversary of the birth of a nation starting with an interview of the author, the showing of the entire 1915 film, followed by a live call-in program. sunday at 8:00 on the presidency, george washington portraits focusing on how artists captured the spirit of the first president and what we can learn about him through the paintings. find out the complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know about the programs you're watching. call us, you can e-mail us or

send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> now, congressman luke messer of indiana discusses the president's request for authority to fight isis, the possibility for arming ukrainian forces and the president's budget request. this is 35 minutes. host: also back at our table this morning, congressman luke messer, republican policy committee chair, republican of indiana. thanks for being here. let's begin with isis. the president could, as early as today, send up to capitol hill some language that would grant him new authority to fight isis. is that something that you could support when it comes to the floor? guest: certainly, i could support it. i do think it is important we have a debate. it has been 13 years. the nature of the threat is very different than it was in the

times immediately following 9/11. we have obviously got the rising threat of isil or isis, something not talked about her teen years ago. i think it is time we had the debate. i also believe isil was a serious threat to america. i believe it is the cold war of our time and the president has a lot of work to do to help the american people understand the true depth of the challenges we face and i think the president then needs to articulate to the american people what the strategy is for defeating isis and there is a lot afford to do, but i certainly could support it host: do you think it would get strong support from republicans? guest: i believe a lot of republicans understand we have to stand up to isil and want to be supportive of the lee terry efforts to do so there nothing in american people, frankly, have been skeptical of this president's leadership on the issue. he needs to define the nature of the threat, articulate a strategy for defeating isil. it can be done but it will take

heavy work and i think very few people on my side of the aisle believe we could just drop a few bombs here and there and this thing will be solved. it will take a real, consistent military effort over time. host: what should be included in the aumf, the language that grants him authority to go after isis? should the option of boots on the ground be included in the authority? guest: once the president articulates the nature and danger of the threat and articulates, we need to give the commander-in-chief the tools we make to be successful. it would be a mistake to limit it only two airstrikes, or example. what would that mean? you think when osama bin laden had been defeated with

special forces, well, if we do not crash this correctly, could we end up in a situation where the president could not call it federal forces if that is what is deemed appropriate at the time? the commander-in-chief will have to make the argument as to why he needs to have that kind of latitude. i could support it was the case is made. host: when will it come to the floor? and will that debate happen? guest: it could be soon. he's our urgent matters. we all turn on the television set and see the attached. once it is made, you will see the debate promptly. host: another issue is what to do about the ukraine. president obama in a conference yesterday said he will wait and let it die out in hopes that tomorrow and europe, france leaders and germany's leader vladimir putin and others will come to some sort of agreement, a peaceful

solution. guest: we are certainly all rooting for a peaceful solution. the problem is when you look at what has happened in the ukraine in the last several months, it has been anything but peaceful. president poroshenko came to his speak before congress a few months back, it was an incredibly compelling case and he made the point we do not have to build a democracy in the ukraine. we just need to defend it. i believe we need to take stronger action there. i had an opportunity to be not in the ukraine, but lithuania, poland, and i can tell you, they are unambiguous and the fact that russia will not rest on to ambiguity. if you want to do with russia, they need to understand strength and we have taken steps with economic sanctions. russia has not yet responded to those in anyway that has changed their behavior. i believe we need to look at

providing at least military equipment that ukraine would need to defend itself cared i know russia claims otherwise but it sees if have been helping the russian rebels in that area of ukraine. host: let's listen to president obama and what he had to say at that news conference yesterday. his hand whether or not to arm ukraine helped him out and i'll get your reaction. [video clip] president obama: the issue you raise about whether we can be certain the weapons to fall into the wrong hands, do not lead to over him aggressive actions that cannot be stained by the ukrainians, the kinds of reactions does it prompt simply from the russians. those are all issues that have to be considered.

the measure by which i make these decisions is, is it more likely to be effective than not? that is what our deliberations will be about. host: congressman? guest: this is a judgment call but to me, the best to make those judgments are the ukrainians on the ground. they would like to have the weapons and i believe we should provide them with them. there are risks associated with this. i am less concerned about what russia's reaction might be. we know what the reaction might be. it will be aggression. the real thing is will we support those who deserve to be supported? the ukrainians trying to preserve their democracy and freedom?

host: bob is our first phone call, a republican. go ahead. you're on the air. go ahead. caller: thank you, c-span. i wanted to say -- crap. host: i guess he lost his train of thought. don in texas, independent caller. caller: how are you this morning? how much would it cost a taxpayer to do this? you see how much it cost tax payers to lose the money. to borrow the money to fight overseas. that should be put in front of american citizens -- host: ok.

guest: there is no question we have limited resources. in many of these challenges, in dealing with isil or frankly russian aggression in eastern europe, the question is, what is the cost of not acting? often, by sitting back and not acting, we encourage further aggression. both our allies and enemies are watching. there are times, of course, out of moral authority and doing what is right, america steps up. but beyond that, it is important to understand the world has never been smaller. we have to be mindful and where we do not act, others will and it costs a lot more over time. host: stephen, shelbyville indiana, independent caller. guest: that is where i am from.

great to have you on. caller: i called your office quite a bit could i have not for a while. things are all right. i have a question about arming ukraine. i think it scares me, on the we. i do not know if they could turn against us. i don't know nothing about ukraine. i'm also scared about that war. that is what i do not want to see. guest: i certainly appreciate your question and as we talked about, it is a judgment call and not an easy one year the responsibility of the in these kinds of battles. russia is clearly acting out of aggression in that region of the world. they have no claim to the parts of ukraine that russian separatists are staking claim to. i think there are of course risks to give the ukraine further arms to fight that fight, but all the best intelligence that russia is in small ways and big engaged in

that region and i think it is the right thing to do for a democracy china to defend itself. if you get a chance, go back and try to find on the internet president poroshenko's speech he gave to congress a few months back. incredibly compelling case in a request for support. while i do recognize and appreciate the risk you are concerned about, i think we need to be supportive of the ukraine. host: madison, west virginia. democratic caller. caller: they talk about democracy, but every time there is a situation going on, they talk about war. i think putin is in a debt situation in this crisis, and a good thing that we have got some good friends with saudi arabia driving the crisis down. i think if we could negotiate

with saudi arabia, increase the price, negotiate with, and maybe you backup a little bit here and he does have a lot of problems. guest: i certainly will not be the defender of, but i will say this, you make an important point that military responses are not the only responses we need to bring to russia. one challenge we have in bringing our allies to the region to the table is that russia is the number one exporter of natural gas to all of europe and other countries within the region. one of those things that america can do is expand our -- expand our own natural gas production and exports, it would be important not only for our economy, but for our national security and our allies in the region, so they know that they weren't beholden to russia and

their willingness to export natural gas to them, you know, vladimir putin is behaving in ways that are aggressive in the region. diplomacy is clearly part of the answer, but i think strengthening ukraine's hands is also an important part of the answer as well. host: our guest this morning shares the republican policy committee. chris, baltimore, maryland, a republican, good morning. caller: i just wanted to ask the congressman, i lean more toward the right and i and why you all don't like the health care and welfare programs and all of that, but why don't you all like to help americans, but you all go help the ukrainians?

guest: yeah, i think it is important that we first solve our problems here at home. the question started today with major international incidents. we live in a phone booth today. the world has never been smaller than it is today. events around the world also impact is here. you are right we have to get our own house in order and balance our own budgets. growing our own economy. frankly, it is impossible for america to be strong abroad if we are not strong at home. i would agree with on that. host: let's talk about one issue at home, immigration policy. a standoff over that. what to do about obama's executive action over immigration? funding bill the house passed cannot get through the senate. what should be done? should you separate those debates? there is a deadline, february 27. they say the agency will shut down if congress does not fund it. guest: we need to protect our homeland. the agencies that force these

are funded by the bill. i think we believe the president's actions are unconstitutional. a president cannot just ignore the parts of the law he does not like. and therefore make a law on his own without following the order that we all learned in school house rock about, i have a bill, or i'm just a bill, and the way the laws are supposed to be made. no one wants to see these agencies shut down. we put forward a reasonable proposal, for the president to backtrack his orders and allow us to send you to operate forward. some of the things the president put in his executive orders may well be able to be passed through the congress if we were able to have a debate on those topics. i think the senate has to work harder. the republicans in the house have spent a lot of time over

the last two years having friends in the senate tell us how we need to stand tough and show the president that we mean, what we believe. all i have seen so far is a shrug of the shoulders. i think they need to work harder to demonstrate to the american people what the true vote is over there. host: how do they do that? they need 60 votes. democrats have fended off this three times and held up a filibuster. guest: for example, when rand paul was concerned about drones, he did a filibuster. one might read was concerned about the health care debate a year and a half ago, during the shutdown, they stood on the floor and read "sam i am," i think. each of those brought the attention of the american people to the debate. i have not seen that kind of effort out of the senate yet i understand what the math is. without some of the democratic senators coming along, it is

difficult for the bill to move but the fight matters and the debate matters and you need to bring it to the american people. we clearly have done it over in the house. i just have -- i just have not seen that out of the senate. host: does it matter enough to shut down the homeland security department? guest: i believe it does. it is about way more than just our current immigration debate. if a sitting president can ignore the law and make it whatever he wanted to be, then we live in a very different country moving forward. we all understand that for decades, at least, really from the beginning of our republic, when the law was passed, the president has to ask to the laws. to do that sometimes requires a little discretion. but this is way past discretion and this is frankly a president who said expressly himself, for years, he said he does not have

the authority to do the very things he is now doing. and his justification for doing them is that he cannot pass through congress the policies he believes are best for america. host: are you worried the republican party will put the nation's homeland at risk of shutting down the agency? guest: a lot of the areas that would be funded would not shut down. they are the sort of agencies that have to operate whether we pass the spending bill or not and by law, would continue to operate. no one wants to see a shutdown. that shutdown would come because the president is unwilling to step back from his executive orders and the members of his party are unwilling to vote for laws that would require the president to step back. clearly, we have got to solve this in the next few weeks. no one wants to see our homeland

that endanger. i believe it is important we take a stand against this resident's lawlessness, and we have to make the case to the american people that it is not just about immigration. it is about the balance of powers and whether the president can operate almost as a de facto king. host: "politico" just posted this story this morning. billions of dollars. congress's standoff, republicans seem to be battling not only the president but their own rhetoric overspending. the spending bill by the house gop turned out to actually widen the budget deficit over the next 10 years according to the congressional budget office, as a result, the 39 point $7 billion measure would need a supermajority of 60 votes under senate budget role, even if republicans get past the filibuster. guest: i believe the american people understand it will require dollars to secure our border.

they want to see us spend the money it takes to secure it. another part of the estimate essentially says if the workers come here and may contribute to the economy, their tax dollars would be a revenue source, and there is some debate about, when you back end the cost of social security that they would receive later in their life and career, whether that is positive or not. beyond the debate, and i would not want to leave the topic without saying, you know, i am certainly a republican who believes we need immigration reform. i believe there are policies we could find common ground on. virtually everyone recognizes we need a stronger national security, our border is bad for the economy, bad for national security, and it is bad for the people caught up in a broken system. we need a work visa program that works and is better for employers so they know when they hire somebody, they're in compliance with the law and would frank to help the workers who are here for seasonal reasons. we have areas of the economy where we have shortages and

we need to meet the needs as well. if we focus on border security and getting an enforceable work visa program, we have opportunities to make real progress. host: back to calls, a republican. go ahead. caller: good morning congressman. i'm amazed of the unique position of congress and how they just fight their position and do not have to forget how the same congress opted to invade iraq. so everybody is wrong, something is wrong. we, our congressmen, congress, which looks like --

acted more like a symphony orchestra and not an individual -- host: do you believe iraq, that they are not considering the lesson of iraq? caller: i am talking about the invasion of iraq. guest: i was not here when the invasion of iraq happened. there was clearly intelligence put forward by a series of agencies that ended up being wrong. as i have read that intelligence, 90% certainty there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. clearly, when we got there, we could not find them. it is hard to justify all that went into that other than to say i think no one can regret sodom hussein is gone. he was a terrible leader and terrible for the people of iraq. beyond that, i think you're right. there needs to be more done to have a rigorous debate in congress to really challenge the

intelligence we receive. to challenge the administration and the strategy we put forward. it is important we have another debate, because we need to have a robust conversation as a country about what the right strategy is moving forward. host: virginia, john is next democratic caller. caller: good morning. i want to ask the congressman, if you look at ukraine, we're not together. when we are attacking our president every day about decisions he wants to make, and someone like ted cruz, supporting what putin is doing how do we solve the problem? my next question is, you mentioned ted cruz. they do not believe anything but

their way. how will you be a politician when you are not compromising and do not put your country first, rather than your party? guest: first, i cannot defend everybody else's positions on every body else's topics. i work with senator cruz on education reform topics because we believe every kid in america ought to have an opportunity to go to a great school. i do believe it is important we stand united when we look at policies that go past our shores when you to be strong because our enemies and allies are watching and they look to

america for strength. our president falls short of that standard at times. host: congressman messer works on the committee and he also served in the indiana state legislature. joe in texas, a democratic caller. caller: were you in the military? guest: no i was not. caller: thank you. the iraqis are a bunch of cowards. can you say that word? they are cowards. cowards.

guest: clearly when we thought the iraqi army twice, they were no match for our soldiers. i think wasted in your question is the fact that strong ground troops of those that were defending an important part of any military campaign, i would believe that to be true. only thing i would add is that some want to ignore that we live in a dangerous world. if we withdraw, others will enter. if we make these decisions, and they are admittedly hard ones, no one relishes sending people overseas in potential harm's way. america has always enter the bell in times of crisis. i believe we will do so again. host: it from page of the "washington post" had this story.

that battle coming up and the u.s. is preparing iraqi forces for it. guest: the iraq he army is no match for the american army. many americans are concerned about having american boots on the ground. we want to limit where that occurs. we will have to train these folks. host: a republican caller in florida. you are next. caller: good morning congressman. what i don't understand is all the fear mongering about russia. we only lost have a million people in that war. they were given russia in the conference. there were given the country of ukraine.

you talk about aggression. you keep playing with putin and you will get us all killed. if we have a war with russia it will arrive in the lower 48. as far as aggression goes, you say we cannot tolerate aggression with russia, but what about israel? they seem to attack everybody generally unprovoked. nobody seems to talk about that. you and the rest of them are taking jewish lobbyist's money. host: you are making lots of assertions there. you don't have evidence of that against the congressman making the ascension that israel attacks all of its neighbors unprovoked. guest: there is a lot in those comments. if you want to defend vladimir putin and russia, you can. i will not. this is not the first time. aggression in crimea and georgia -- excuse me.

mitt romney declared it russia is america's biggest geopolitical foe and president obama laughed that off. we are seeing russia is a dangerous foe, but we also have to understand they only respond to strength. when you talk to the leaders in that region of the world, they will tell you it is better to get russia in the four head with a shoe than to speak with them out of passivity and weakness. no one relishes or challenges in that region. we need to be clear about who our allies are and speak with strength in dealing with them. when it comes to israel, they are our best and most consistent ally on the planet.

i stand with israel. it has nothing to do with any jewish lobby. i represent an area of the country in rural indiana where there is not a large jewish population at all. i have had the opportunity to travel to israel and meet with benjamin netanyahu. they are in a hostile region of the world. if those around israel stop attacking israel tomorrow, there would be peace. if those around israel disarm, there would be peace. if israel disarmed, she would be destroyed. host: do you think it was appropriate for the speaker of the house to invite prime minister benjamin netanyahu to speak before a joint session of congress? guest: i think it was entirely appropriate. the speaker of the house extends these invitations. i understand it is a matter of

courtesy over the course of history. no one has ever pretended that somehow the president has veto power over who comes and speaks before congress. could there have been more courtesy? maybe. i think we live in unique times. we need to be clear that we stand with israel. we need our best ally in that region to help the american people understand what the true breadth and depth is surrounding negotiations with iran. we cannot allow them to obtain nuclear weapons. if they ran does, the world will be forever changed. i think regimen netanyahu will be an important messenger. host: richard, an independent caller in virginia. caller: thank you. i am 86 and i have been a republican for many years until the last seven years.

listening to this congressman listening to this congressman and other leaders in the republican party, they have turned globalists and america is second. globalism is primary. i have been in two wars and now they want us to generate another one. they would stomp on us over there. they would stomp on europe in a week. they would stomp on europe in a week. guest: this conversation has gone in the direction of conflicts around the world because that is the world we live in. there is a big challenge with isis in the middle east and with russian aggression in the ukraine. i 100% agree with your caller that our core priorities need to be at home.

america cannot be great overseas if we are not strong at home. we need policies that reduce our deficit, deal with our debt, and grow the economy where jobs can help families build a life for themselves. that is my priority as well. the idea we can draw up the bridges and somehow america will be safer, both history and current events show that not to be true. as much as we would like to ignore conflicts around the world, we do not have the luxury of doing that. if america doesn't lead, nobody will. america will suffer in the long run. host: dorothy, a democratic caller. caller: one question about the disability situation. i have heard people say there is fraud and abuse, but i know for

a fact that you have to be under doctor's care. you have to go to the doctor, and you have to clarify that. i don't know how people can fraudulent do that -- how people can fradullyudully do that. we would be wiped off the map in a war with russia. it would be disastrous. host: let us take the first part of what you said because we have not addressed that issue yet. guest: no one is being cavalier about the challenge of russia. it is a big deal and one that is to be handled with wisdom. to the questions about disability you do here studies that have cited there is a lot

of fraud in all of these government welfare programs. this is america. someone who is legitimately disabled, we should try to help them. the question is do we have too many able-bodied people on disability? that has to be so. as we look to deal with many of the challenges we face with trying to balance a budget and we can balance and at least 10 years if not sooner. we need to deal with abuse within these programs and then management. the reality is i have seen an indiana -- i have seen indiana balance budgets. host: you have legislation to deal with the issue of balancing the budget. what are you proposing?

guest: i support the budget that says we could ballanance within four years. i believe in the no pay provision of two years ago. senator steve daines of montana and i've put together legislation that said no balance budget, no pay. it is our job to make the budget balanced, just like families have to do as well. whether we are able to get that bill heard will be a question we have to see. i certainly believe it is a principle that should guide us. host: we go to jonathan in florida, a republican. good morning. caller: hey congressman. how is it going? i am actually calling for two things.

i know you will not tell the people the truth, but what is going on in ukraine is actually a neo-nazi coo. host: where did you read that? where did you get the information? caller: tax wall street party website. credit 1% wall street sales tax because wall street pays more taxes. that is what needs to be on the agenda. republicans always do the attack talk. both sides work for wall street. guest: i do believe we need to protect and preserve social security and medicare. when he to make the changes it takes to preserve those programs.

those who want to continue those programs unchanged -- anyone who looks at that will say it is unsustainable. there are concerns about the influence of wall street and the fact that folks want to make sure we are looking for the main street economy, not the wall street economy. whether taxing wall street we the answer, i think when you to grow our economy. government last year took in $3 trillion, the most in history. they are not challenges of revenue. we just spend far too much. as far as your conspiracy theory in the ukraine, i am not aware of any of those facts. one president for spoke, he made the case of a free people

living in a democracy the ought to be protected. no one relishes this conflict. we did not start this conflict or cost this conflict. russia did. i have not talked about american troops being in the ukraine or having american strikes there. all i said is we need to provide it sanctions -- provide further sanctions for russia. we need to expand american energy production and natural gas production to our allies in that region are not as beholden to russia as they are today. we need to look at providing the ukraine and their military the weapons they need. host: >> representative martha mcsally washington journal.

she will discuss the conflict in eastern ukraine. and then the president house request. she will talk about her group's call for military assistance. in later, a bus tour historically black colleges continues. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern. you can join the conversation with your phone calls and comment on facebook and twitter. wednesday, the house takes up the keep stone -- keystone pipeline legislation. it would improve construction of an oil pipeline from canada to mexico. the president has promised to veto the bill.

>> february is black history month. the c-span bus is on the road. visiting historically black colleges. and wednesday, we will meet with john wilson, junior, president of morehouse college in a letter. then we will visit spelman college and speak with its president. >> according to the cdc 121 cases of measles have been reported in 17 states and the district of columbia. tuesday, there was testimony on capitol hill about the outbreak and the rise of unvaccinated children. this hearing is about two hours.

>> the senate the committee will come to order. we are holding double diseases. we will have an opening statement and introduce our panel of witnesses. after testimony senators will have five minutes of questions. we have two panels today. two hours for the hearing. we will about noon.

last september, this committee held a hearing about the ebola virus. a brave physician who worked in liberia and contracted ebola. there was and is no cure. there was and is no vaccine. this produced a near panic in the united states. it changed procedures in nearly every hospital and clinic. one chattanooga public health officer saying it is ebola all the time every day.

measles is too sick and up to 4 million americans each year. many believed it was an unpreventable childhood illness. introduction of a vaccine in 1963 changed everything. measles was declared eliminated. absence of continuous disease transmission for more than 12 months. from 2001-2012, the median number of cases reported in all of our country was about 60. today is february 10, 2015 and the 41st day of the year and already we have seen more cases of measles than we would in a typical year.

one measles outbreak in illinois has affected at least five babies, all less than one-year-old. infants and individuals who are immune all compromised are traditionally predicted by what is called herd immunity. when more than nine out of 10 people are vaccinated so they don't get sick. that keeps the babies from getting sick. that herd immunity is incredibly important. measles can cause life-threatening complications in children. eyewitnesses will talk about what is causing this outbreak and why some parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. measles is only one example. this hearing which was planned before the measles outbreak reminds us of the importance of vaccines. an analysis of immunization

rates across 13 states -- small private academies in new york city to large public elementary schools outside of boston and native american reservation schools in idaho where vaccination rates have dropped -- sometimes under 50%. california is one of the 20 states that allows parents to claim personal belief exemptions. some areas of los angeles, 60% of parents have filed a personal belief exemption and those elementary schools vaccination rates are as low as those in chad or south sudan. the purpose of this hearing is to examine what is standing between healthy children and deadly diseases. it ought to be vaccinations but too many parents are turning

away from sound science is this -- vaccines save lives. they saved the lives of people vaccinated, protect the lives of the vulnerable around them like infants and those who are ill. vaccines and save lives. they protect us from the ravages of awful diseases like polio which invades the nervous system and can cause paralysis. i can remember how parents were frightened by the prospect of polio for their child. i had classmates who lived in iron lungs. or will bring coffee is another example which causes they can mucus to acutely in the airwaves. -- whipping cough. or a bacterial infection that affects the mucous membranes of your nose and throat and can damage your heart, kidney and nervous system. vaccines save lives. they take deadly come awful,

ravaging diseases from our history. it is troubling to hear that before we have even reached valentine's day this year, 121 americans are sick with measles, a disease a limited 15 years ago. a growing number of parents are not following the recommendations of doctors and public health professionals who have been making this recommendations for decades. at a time when we are standing on the cusp of medical breakthroughs never imagined cutting edge personalized medicine tailored to an individual's genome, we find ourselves retreading old ground. i turned to senator murray for her opening statement. >> thanks to all of our witnesses for coming to share your expertise with us today. keeping our families healthy cannot be more important so i'm glad to have the opportunity to hear from all of you about the threat back seen preventable

diseases and still pose in the united states. there is no question we have come a long way when it comes to what was once widespread and extremely dangerous. vaccines are one of our country's greatest public health successes. we know how to prevent illnesses that struck so many children as recently as a generation or two ago. but recent news about the measles outbreak in many states made clear that vaccine preventable diseases are still a threat. we can't afford to become complacent about protecting the progress we have made. children across the country needed to be vaccinated. we need to be vigilant about breaking down any barriers that families may face when it comes to accessing certain vaccines and we need to which were that

in any cases where take-up rates are low, we are spreading awareness so more people can be protected. the hpv vaccine is a great example. it prevents life-threatening cancers, including cervical cancer, which impacts thousands of lives in the united states each year. cdc reports that take-up rates for the vaccine are still on acceptably low, meaning people continue to be exposed to deeply harmful illnesses that could have been prevented. i know several of our witnesses have done a lot of work on this issue. i will have questions about what we can do to encourage broader use of vaccines. i'm looking forward to an update about the recent measles outbreak and the work the cdc is doing to continue to encourage vaccines. i'm eager to hear from dr. kelly more about the role of states

and preventing and responding to outbreaks. i know dr. sawyer will be able to provide valuable insight into ongoing nationwide efforts to increase immunization rates and keep children and families healthy. i want to thank all of our witnesses for the important work you are doing and taking the time to be here with us today. >> thank you for working together so we jointly invited the witnesses today. each witness will have up to five minutes. if you will summarize your views and five minutes so senator scott a chance to give their questions -- so senators have a chance to ask their questions. we will have to end the first panel at 11:00. i hope all of us can get questions them to the first panel.

the director of national center for immunization and respiratory diseases of the sinners for disease control -- centers for disease control and prevention. she has worked at cdc since 1998 on immunization, respiratory and other infectious diseases. she is a rear admiral in the public health service commissioned corps and was named assistant surgeon general of the united states public health service in 2006. welcome. >> good morning, mr. chairman and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. our nation's immunization system is strong, protecting the health of americans, saving lives and money. this year's outbreak of measles demonstrates how interconnected we are. many threads are just an airplane right away. despite high national immunization coverage against measles, last year, we had more cases of measles in the u.s.

then we have had since 1994. since jin reversed, we have already had more measles cases this year than we have had in most full years since 2000. -- since january 1. 121 people from 17 states have been reported to have measles. most are linked to an ongoing outbreak that originated at disney parks in california during december. most cases were not vaccinated or did not know if they had been vaccinated. recent patients with measles have exposed others in a variety of settings, including a schools, child care, emergency departments, outpatient clinics and airplanes. these episodes require a rapid response coordinated across local, state and federal jurisdictions. the backbone for such a response

comes from the public health immunization infrastructure. the systems and people that protect our communities from vaccine preventable diseases. today, we are talking about measles but we could just as easily be talking about a resurgence of will bring cough meningitis on college -- whooping cough. we need a stronger musician system -- immunization system that takes care of prevention and ensures the quality of practice -- ready to launch mass vaccinations for the next pandemic. whether a vaccine is given in a private doctor's office or any community clinic, the public health system plays a critical role in making sure vaccinations are to double -- accessible, safe and effective. and that are immunization policies are based on a strong scientific foundation continually reviewed. our priorities are maintaining a strong program including presuming -- preserving core

health infrastructure at the state and federal levels . responding to outbreaks another urgent vaccine needs. coverage for many childhood vaccines is above 90%. reported cases for most vaccine preventable diseases are done by more than 90%. most parents are vaccinating their children with most of the recommended vaccines. less than 1% others have received no vaccines at all. immunizations continue to be one of the most cost-effective health interventions. the past 20 years of u.s. childhood immunization has

prevented over 300 million illnesses, 732,000 deaths and resulted in $1.4 trillion in cost. in many ways -- in cost savings. we are a victim of our own success. fewer and fewer doctors are urging parents -- because of our success, parents may wonder if vaccines are necessary and may worry that the risks may outweigh the benefits of protecting their families from vaccine preventable diseases. the increase in measles cases can be seen as a wake-up call. measles is very contagious. in the 1980's and early 1990's, measles outbreaks uncovered systemic problems with poor children having access to vaccines. it is an indicator of how

globally in -- interconnected we are. measles uncovers those people in areas in the west that are opting out of immunization. we have indications that some of those unvaccinated micro-communities may be large -- getting larger. our system has risen to challenges in the past and cdc will work with partners to keep measles from regaining a foothold in our country and. we can keep these numbers down keep measles from returning and threatening the health of our community's and sustain the enormous benefits that are immunization partnership has achieved. >> about tenures ago, a group of us went to south africa and we found the president of south africa had rejected the

science on hiv-aids and decided it was not caused by a virus and that in the cure was a elimination of poverty, setting back south africa for years in terms of its ability to deal with hiv-aids. today, there is information that is on the internet, which is where we were told the president found his information some years ago, that says there was a study in 1998 by andrew wakefield alleging a connection between measles, mumps and rubella vaccines and autism. let's say you were a position or pediatrician and a parent comes in and says i have been on the

internet and i am concerned because i found that, according to this medical journal, there is a relationship between this measles and mumps vaccine and the possibility of my child being autistic. what would you say to that parent? >> autism is a terrible condition. that paper you are mentioning has been totally discredited. it was found to be fraudulent and is not the case. there have been dozens of studies of vaccines -- they do not cause autism. they are highly effective and safe and/or a good way to protect your children from vaccine preventable diseases. guest: when you say totally discredited, what do you mean by that?

>> information was found to be fraudulent by a british investigator. there have been dozens of studies that were better to understand whether there is a link between vaccines and autism. it was a natural question some parents had because of the onset age for autism. those studies have been incredibly reassuring. when i talk to the parents, i explain that as a physician and a public health expert, i can tell you that vaccines are very safe and effective. while autism is a terrible condition, vaccines do not cause autism. >> that article was just flat wrong? >> that's right. >> numerous studies have shown that was wrong. what happened to the author of the article? >> he lost his medical license because of the fraudulent behavior. >> we have been talking about a variety of vaccines. it struck me as we were so worried about ebola last fall that many of the public health people would point out to me from tennessee that we had the flu season coming up -- how many americans die each year from the

flu? >> flu is very variable. it can be between 3000 and a good year to 50,000 men superior. -- 3000 in a good year to 50,000 in a severe ear. -- severe year. we do recommend everybody six months and over get a flu vaccine every year. >> measles is not just a runny nose. it is a serious disease. what would you say to a parent who comes in and says i will opt not to get the measles vaccine? what are the risks of that?

how many children who contract the measles die? >> before there was the measles vaccine, 400-500 children in this country died. the risk of dying is much higher in countries that are poor where malnutrition is a problem. we have about hundred 50,000 deaths from measles around the world each year. it used to be millions and that is an improvement because of high uptake of measles vaccines. >> if your child contracted measles in the united states the chances of death would be about one and 1000? >> that's right. there are other problems with measles. even a mild case of measles is a scary thing for a parent. when i had measles, she was scared to take my temperature because i looked so horrible. she was worried it was not coming down. it can be pretty scary for parents, even the mild cases. there are other complications besides death.

children can get pneumonia or dehydration or in a logic problem -- neurologic problem. >> thank you. >> thank you so much for being here and for all the work you do to protect our families and children across the country. there is no doubt the challenges remain with regards to immunization rates. broad access to no-cost vaccines is clearly a key factor in maintaining and improving our vaccination rates. we have a universal childhood vaccine program in washington which provides recommended vaccines for all children. there are a number of important federal programs that ensure access to free vaccines. can you describe cdc plus effort to ensure all americans do have access to the vaccines they need without cost sharing? why that is so important.

>> the cdc administers the vaccines for children program. we celebrated 20 years of that program. it has been extraordinarily effective. provides free vaccines to children who were uninsured and medicaid eligible. it provides vaccines for almost 50% of children in the united states. this program has greatly overcome racial, ethnic and financial barriers to vaccination. we see much higher coverage now in the era of the program. we think it has saved over 300 million illnesses and saved $1.4 trillion. cdc supports the state discretionary immunization programs to bridge the gaps that are not addressed through the program. supporting the public health infrastructure for immunization so state and local health

departments that work with the clinicians in those areas don't just investigate outbreaks like measles but work day in and day out and support provider education and dealing with vaccine shortages and distribute in vaccines -- distributing vaccines. your state has a fantastic program. >> thank you. for me and a lot of my colleagues, disease prevention was a key priority when we wrote the affordable care act. health plans now have to cover recommended vaccines without cautionary -- can you tell me what cdc is doing to help health departments build insurance providers? to cover individuals >> the affordable care act means more people have insurance and more insurance is excellent for

vaccines because it requires insurers provide all recommended vaccines with no co-pays or deductibles. cdc has been supporting 35 states to set up billing practices so that ensure people need to get vaccinated, that health clinic will be able to bill the insurer and recoup the money. the federal dollars go to protect infrastructure and the insurers pay their way. >> good. i am really proud of the number of organizations in my home state where they are global leaders in providing vaccinations worldwide.

we are incredibly lucky to have people who have witnessed death by disease -- you have worked with these issues across the globe. can you tell us what you perceive are the key challenges to achieving optimal immunization rates here? >> we are so fortunate to have a strong health system and access to vaccines. many countries, even with an alliance that provides vaccines for free, the infrastructure is very weak. strengthening health systems overseas so they can deliver vaccines is vitally important. there are a number of public-private partnerships that have been helping in that arena. the measles rubella initiative were responsible for more than a billion children getting measles vaccines through campaigns and other areas and we think about

15 million children have been prevented from dying from measles in the last 15 years through the initiative. >> the public health infrastructure we have here is critical for issues like this. >> absolutely. even if every single american were insured, we still need public health to make sure we are addressing the needs of communities. >> thank you. we will now move to five-minute rounds of questions. senator collins, senator mikulski -- for those who have just arrived, we will move to the second panel. we will pick right up where we left off with the senators who are next in line. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the president's budget request includes a $50 million cut to the centers for disease control and prevention section 317 immunization program. you just responded to a question from senator murray about the importance of the state and local public health infrastructure. more than just paying for vaccines, section 317 supports outreach awareness surveillance efforts by the state and local public health agencies.

it is puzzling to me that the administration would propose to cut this program when we are in the midst of a measles outbreak. when you would think that you would want increased public outreach, awareness and surveillance. you have just talked about the importance of the state and local roles. could you explain to us why this cut has been proposed? >> the public health infrastructure at the state, local and federal level is vitally important to protecting americans.

these threats are an airplane ride away. reduction in resources requested through the president's budget will be accounted for through a reduction in vaccine purchase. instead of paying for vaccines for insured people, the health department will be able to build the insurers so they will pay their way. protecting the public health infrastructure at the state and the level is critically important, as is the communication outreach and the provider work we do. >> it seems to me this is exactly the wrong time for us to be reducing funding in this area given the importance you just outlined. historically, access to health care and the cost of vaccines has been the major barriers to achieving high vaccination rates. increasingly, it is clear that other factors have come to bear

as we are seeing declining vaccination rates in some extremely wealthy areas of our country. there was a recent article in the atlantic magazine that recently compared unfavorably the vaccination rates in wealthy areas of los angeles to the higher rates in the south sudan. how should our public health strategy change to reach those parents? you would not think that would be the areas -- they can obviously afford the cost of the vaccines and have ample access to health care. certainly better than those in south sudan. >> 25 years ago, we were dealing with the problem of children not having access to vaccines. what we are seeing more and more these days as parents opting out of the system. i like to start with the premise that every parent wants their child to be healthy and safe and

that is number one. for a number of parents, especially in some of these communities were opting out is common, they don't realize the diseases are still around. when measles virus comes into a community, they are at higher risk. i hope parents in those communities are recognizing that the threat is real. another factor is misinformation. it is really easy to get information of all types. much of it is not very good. we try to have the best information possible available to make sure people see the sources of the information and can check the facts themselves. we work closely with clinician groups. what our research suggests is that parents want to hear about these things from their own doctors who know them and their family. a lot of the attitudes out there might be from complacency that these diseases have not been visible. this year, the disease is getting more visible. >> thank you. i think the study also played a huge role, unfortunately. a lot of people still mistakenly believe there is a link to

autism and are unaware that that study has been thoroughly discredited. >> thank you. senator mikulski? >> on the reduction of $50 million in the 317 great program , which is to take care of the uninsured and vaccine safety outreach and education. you are saying that that reduction of $50 million will

have no impact on those services related to vaccine safety outreach and education? >> i can't say those reductions will have no impact. what i tried to say is the way we would address those changes would be to reduce the discretionary vaccine purchase and try to increase the billing of insurance. it is vital infrastructure be protected. >> we feel the same way. the issues related to outreach and education -- this is not an appropriations hearing. when we do deliver, this is a valid area of inquiry and

bipartisan cooperation. this takes me to science and misinformation. does cdc track the correlation between vaccine compliance and raise in autism? mississippi which has a 100 percent compliance rate, what is the autism rate in mississippi? >> i don't have that information. there are a number of ways we have tried to understand trends in autism and vexing exposures. a number of different study designs have discredited any links. >> i believe the solution to misinformation is more information. and that it besides an evidence-based. my question is, do you track that? do you track the correlation? >> we track the trends going on

in autism and the trends going on in vaccination around the country. the trends in vaccination are that almost everybody is getting vaccinated with most of the vaccines state-by-state, there are differences in particular vaccines. mississippi has a -- does not allow personal believe exemption. many people feel the only exemptions that ought to be allowed our medical once. >> i'm not here trying to get into it. i'm trying to get into the epidemiology. where there are high rates of compliance, how does that correlate? >> there is not a correlation between vaccine uptake and the autism. >> you have the epidemiology to support that? >> is. -- yes. >> i think the committee ought to think about our efforts in the area of autism. we have been very focused on

alzheimer's and others. it really is an epidemic. mothers will do anything to protect their children. they need good information, real science and for families facing these challenges, they need to have answers. i want to shift gears to immigrant children. their backs nations. -- vaccinations. what are the outreach efforts and how do we deal with this? 60,000 children came to america last year. many of them are in maryland.

hopefully they are in the sunshine, going to schools and so on. in states where there are high rates of new immigrants, where the immunizations of children are addressed -- there is this whole attitude that they should not get our public health infrastructure. this is what we are talking about. central american kids are going to schools side-by-side with the gentry kids. how do we ensure those children are addressed and therefore the needs of american children are also addressed? >> vaccine preventable diseases do not respect borders. it is important for individuals to be vaccinated for their own health and to protect those around them. it is very important in an arrow were measles has been eliminated from north and south america for us to continue to make sure that there are strong immunization efforts another parts of the world. -- in other parts of the world. it is important to make sure people have access to vaccines regardless of where they are from. >> senator cassidy? >> of those folks infected in the california epidemic, how

many were native born americans and how many have immigrated here? >> i don't have that information. most of the importations we have of measles each year are in the americans traveling abroad. american-born. >> we have heard a lot about how the families from the wealthy committees of santa monica and los angeles are not vaccinating their children. is that where we are seeing these cases? i did my residency in los angeles. a lot of the immigrants may have fallen between the cracks.

do we have any sense of who is contracting this? >> for the measles outbreak, we are seeing spread in some of the wealthier communities. years ago, we had a lot of importations of measles from latin america. the americas took on the elimination of measles and did major campaigns around all of the countries and had great success. >> when someone immigrates, what is their requirements in terms of immunizations? >> there is a requirement for documentation of the vaccination against the vaccine preventable diseases. the program makes sure that refugees would have access. >> that is poor children, by definition less than 18. what if an adult immigrates from the philippines? >> that is not the case there.

most of the spread is coming from -- most of the risk is in children. if you survive to adulthood, you have already been exposed to the measles. >> those adults going to the philippines and coming back, is there any travel advisory -- any effort in the philippines? you mentioned how the americans have popped up their efforts. >> there are efforts there. the philippines and suffered that horrible hurricane. much of their immunization infrastructure was destroyed. they have had a bad measles outbreak. cdc another is have helped respond. the biggest outbreak we had last year was in a couple on the

show adults who traveled to the philippines who had never been vaccinated and brought the virus back to ohio. the image community stepped up to be vaccinated. that was a large community. in the u.s., most communities have high immunization rates. it is these newer committees where parents are opting out that we are quite worried >> we need and immunization record to travel overseas. was he required to show his vaccination record to go? >> he was not. we hope that we are reaching him through our outreach efforts. we were concerned that with the ohio outbreak, we had not reached the travelers. they were misdiagnosed. >> that can be an easy thing to do. to put in a note saying you are traveling to a place with endemic measles. >> there are a lot of electronic prompt that it will alert you. >> is that something that when we approve a visa -- there should be some process by which

somebody is traveling to and endemic country, we would remind them of their risk. what about immunization rates since 2009? >> they have risen for some of the newer vaccines and are stable for the others. we tracked closely the percent of children who receive no vaccines at all by h2. -- age two. >> you seem to concur that the affordable care act may have improved immunization rates. the vaccines for children program -- that cost has not been a barrier for immunization of children for some time. would you accept that? >> its adults were the rates are

low. we have some lacking coverage and teenagers. it covers through age 18. the aca would cover vaccination of the nettle with hepatitis b if they were in a recommended -- >> if they were at risk. i think it is important for the record that the portable care act is -- affordable care act has not hurt but not augmented. >> it has been a wonderful -- >> we need to keep moving. senator warren? >> when the vaccine became available for the first time parents lined up to make sure

their kids would be protected. they lived in a world of infectious diseases that destroy children's futures and they desperately wanted to leave that world behind. these vaccines worked so well, the memory of these diseases has faded. last month, the depew center found that while 80% of seniors believe it vaccines should be mandatory, only 59% of people under 30 hold that belief. now, measles is back. you are the top immunization official in the united states. i want to walk through the science on this with you. is there any scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism? >> no. >> is there any scientific evidence that vaccines cause profound mental disorders? >> no, but some of the diseases we vaccinate against can.

>> the diseases can, but not the vaccines. is there any scientific evidence that vaccines contribute to the rise in allergies in kids? >> no. >> other additives that can be toxic to kids? >> no. >> is there any scientific evidence that giving kids vaccines further apart is healthier for kids? >> it increases the risk. >> it adds to the danger. is there any scientific evidence that kids can develop immunity to these diseases on their own simply by eating nutritious foods or being active? >> no. >> how do the risks of a child responding negatively to a vaccination compare with the risks of skipping vaccination and risking exposure to a deadly disease? >> vaccines are safe and highly effective and it's important for parents to know they are the

best way to protect their kids. >> said parents should know that all of the credible scientific evidence suggests that modern vaccines are safe, modern vaccines are effective, and modern vaccines or our best chance of protecting our children from diseases that can kill them. is that right? >> that is right. >> thank you. thank you, senator. >> thank you. senator roberts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your holding this hearing. in kansas, we had 19 cases of preventable diseases, and the most was measles greed we have not had any new measles cases reported this year. public health care workers are concerned, and the problem is

our immunization rates are down. for the 2013 year until the 2014 school year, the percentage of those receiving this is not good. for the record, i had measles. chickenpox and that that people had back in the day. if i can get to you very quickly. if immunization rates continue to decline, what advice do you give to the youngsters and parents you have to choose the vaccination to help protect their own? >> the lower the rates are, the more your children are at risk so we want to make sure your own children are vaccinated. some kids cannot get vaccines, because they have leukemia, for example. they cannot have live viral

vaccines, so our next is the community vaccine. >> you highlighted some of the reasons, fear of side effects religious, or philosophical objections, and there are a whole bunch of paragraphs here in the background information which is states it is easier which are easier to get a philosophical objection, a simple letter signed by a doctor. how often, however about the mistrust of recommended vaccine schedule, how often would you say it is the latter that the vaccine schedule is too rigorous, and what assurances can you provide to parents on this concern? >> many parents do mention the number of shots they get at a particular visit as something that concerns them. we like to let people know that the vaccines are recommended at the times they are recommended because of the way they work and because of the disease risk, so our advisory committee practices

and reviews the sciences and updates the schedule every year based on the best information available, so we strongly recommend parents get their children vaccinated on time and according to the schedule. >> in answer to the chairman's question, which really nailed the issue right off the bat there was a major danish study of list in 2002. 540,000 children showed definitely there was no relationship between mmr i.e. measles vaccination, and any kind of problem with autism, and the institute of medicine report in 2004 did the same. along the way, there have been studies from the national institute of health, centers for disease control, and hundreds of academic groups. all of these point to the same conclusion.

the body of evidence was firmly established a long time ago. however, this is a state issue, and that seems to be the problem . cdc is doing the very best that they can to try to convince every state. we are at the bottom. or not at the bottom, very close to it area and i am very concerned about it, but at least the media, i think, today at least realizes that one study which was totally discredited there should be a very strong statement by everybody involved that they should go ahead and get these vaccinations so i strongly recommend that, and i thank you for your leadership. >> thank you, senator roberts. we will now go to senator baldwin. i want to mention again to the

senators that at 11:00, we are going to excuse dr. schuchat and caught a second panel, but anyone who has not been able to ask a question will be the first one up. senator baldwin? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i also want to thank you for holding this hearing. it has reduced human suffering and saved lives by preventing and reducing the outbreak of preventable diseases, and thanks to national policy, including the affordable care act now millions of families have access to free immunizations. and it is why i am so concerned as i know many of my colleagues are, about the recent measles outbreak and the surge in misinformation, exacerbated by the media and even some national figures,