donald trump. will forget that he deliver today his tax policy. you can see it on c-span 2 and follow it on c-span.org. this will be george from pennsylvania. caller: this is a great time for those of us to hate anyone who is not a white christian male. unfortunately, i think the ghost of adolf hitler is running the republican party. host: that will be the last call on the topic. topic, continue the joining us next for the conversation, paul singer. later on in the program, credit card companies are taking measures to make sure that customer information is protected from hacking. "washington journal" continues after this. >> tonight on "the

communicators" we will talk to scotty jihadi about how the government is governed. >> governments today have an an.isory role in ic they cannot directly make policy or have a seat on a board of directors. this is very much, in fact, a triumph of showing how private sector led in situ since --

institutions that have government as an important advisory body, the have a broader base, including input from civil society, academics, etc. that is advice that informs the activities the board incurred by the fact that the government continues to play an advisory role. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: what is the likelihood that the government will be shut down by the end of the week? guest: pretty little, i think.

it seems that with the departure of mr. boehner on friday, the pressure has relieved for the shutdown vote. we anticipate a vote in the senate today to move that process forward, it's actually find the government. we expect of oh in the house by wednesday. this thing, we believe, we believe, we believe that by wednesday evening they will come solution.short term this is called a clean continuing resolution, basically extending the current budget through december 11 with no policy changes. importantly, not including the language that conservatives are looking for. this was a sticking point. a look slick they will have a different approach to this problem. host: on the senate side, what happens to folks like ted cruz, who said they would rise up in

opposition, and senator rand paul? is that likely to happen? yeah.t: the votes are going forward. rand paul and ted cruz do not have enough votes to push the on the senate floor. the center operates in this weird world where minority of senators can complain a lot, but at some point, you have to get decide to move the bill to the floor. if they cannot get the vote, it dies. it looks like that is what is happening in the senate. host: that brings us to december. what happens in december? guest: i canceled my holiday travel plans. i recommend you do the same. we really don't know. in december, we will face a number of things all at once. government funding will again be expiring, they will have to figure out what to do. we will also hit the debt

ceiling, and they have to figure out whether or not to raise the debt ceiling once again. this becomes an issue that for conservatives, it is really a fundamental argument about going into more debt. the whole argument about how we are mortgaging our future to china. and yet, the democrats argue frequently, and usually with success recently, that you cannot default on all promissory notes by failing to take the debt and spend the money. that will be a december battle. we have a highway funding bill that has to come up sometime between now and then. there's a whole bunch of stuff that is going to have to be hammered out over the next few months, and keep in mind, we don't know who the speaker is going to be and who the rest of the republican leaders will be. significantend some

quality time arguing over that first, before they get to the substantive issues. as december, is the possibility that they can pass another short-term extension of they want to? guest: sure. the way congress operates is they are best when they kick things down the road for later. unt onould certainly p a funding bill for another week, to lease, three weeks. lester, it was the middle of january before they got the bill passed. they can do whatever they want to do. the debt ceiling is a bigger issue. they have less flexibility there. the treasury department always has some emergency tools at their disposal to stretch this deadline out as far as possible. sooner or later, they will need to vote on that with a little less flexibility. possible government shutdown scheduled for october 1. paul singer talking about that

and other issues. he is a washington correspondent. if you want to ask them questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. .202) 745-8002 for independents go ahead and call us, and we will take those calls in just a moment. talk about leaving planned parenthood out of this equation as far as the shutdown vote. guest: this you have -- the issue you have in any of these battles, if you want to defund planned parenthood, and we will talk about is in the short term that would be meaningful. the democrats that say that the money planned parenthood gets from the government has largely been issued anyway until february or march next year when next year's grant are up. you can make an argument that any bill you past until december has no real planned parenthood money and it anyway -- in it anyway.

it would have to get through the senate, and they're probably not enough votes on the floor to get it to the senate. it would have to give the president of the united states, who would likely veto it. they're certainly not enough votes in the senate to override a presidential veto. while the very conservative of house republicans want to force president obama into the argument, they want to force them to make that decision and announce, yes, i want to accept shutting down the government plannedi want to defund parenthood. it is not clear if there is a path to get back to his desk. host: the first call for you comes from rick, democrats line. caller: good morning. i question for your guest is the republicans want to shut down wal while in ourd foreign aid package, like to

israel, they have the most lacks abortion policies in the world. a teenager in israel can get an thetion at any term during presidency. the kicker is the government spends 100% for those abortions. i would like to hear the republicans explain why they are against it here, yet supported around the world. guest: i do not know anything about the policy, yet i will tell you that in the number of bills, the united states congress has limited the use of any u.s. money for abortions overseas. there has been a whole series of orders on whether or not you can use foreign aid money to counsel known't abortion

whether there is any direct u.s. funding to israel that can then be used for abortion services. i honestly don't know. hi.: francis from oklahoma, who is going to suffer with all the stuff going on? we are the ones that will suffer if they shut down the government. good: it is a very question on the impact. if the government shuts down -- we have been down this road a couple of times now -- there are a number of emergency provisions in place to prevent disaster , which is to say

the defense department is still working, the folks doing security at the airports. anybody serving an emergency function still comes to work and get stuff done. there is always this question of will it affect the social security checks going out. again, my recollection of how this works is they will actually slow down over time. , sooner orets paid later, even the government workers like it laid off was suspended during this time, they get paid sooner or later also. in fact, it ends up costing the government more to do that because they have to back pay the employees. the question is exactly who is infected first. the most direct impact is if you are waiting for a less urgent

government service -- a national park permit, or some sort of museum, to get into an event. that sort of low impact stuff is what they will close first. i believe you will find the administration has the flexibility to take those services that have the best pr. it is great to put "closed" signs on the museums because all the reporters go and take pictures. it is excellent not like a light switch. ,ost: you said social security what about safety net programs, are they affected as well? guest: the mandatory program still get paid. you still get food stamps, or whatever it is. you may not be able to reach someone on the phone for a

customer call it mind. that is where you get into issues of who is considered an essential employee and who is not. host: tony doing us from sioux falls, -- joining us from sioux falls, go ahead. caller: i was going to see how it will affect play social security, section eight, medicaid, vocational rehab, different things like that. is it going to affect that? guest: my understanding is that when thedon't change government shutdown takes place. again, if you are receiving a government benefit that is one of these entitlement programs, you continue to receive that. the trouble comes if you are receiving secondary services. if you have a difficulty with

your check and need to make a phone call to somebody either line, -- at a one 800 that is where i think you will see an immediate problem. again, first of all, i don't think we will have a shut down this week. second of all, one of the reasons that it becomes harder to shut down the government in december is that they do not want to get into these kinds of issues at christmas. it is terrible pr. host: one of the people who says it will be a shut down is house speaker john boehner. he was asked specifically about this question. here is some of his reasoning. [video clip] the senate is expected to pass the continuing resolution next week. the house will take up the senate bill. we will also take up a select committee to investigate these horrific videos that we have seen from abortion clinics in

several states that really raise questions about the use of federal funds, and raises questions about the abortive ed fetuses. >> the continuing resolution, will that require democratic votes? , i'm sure it will, but i believe my colleagues want to keep that government open as much as i do. guest: one of the issues that is out of drove mr. boehner office really is the conservatives in his party want planneda way to defund parenthood. these videos they came out over the summer that suggests that people in the organization tissue fromlling abortions for profit. they say these were heavily

edited videos, taken out of context, it is not what they do -- whatever, i don't get into that debate. the political issue is conservative specifically want to defund planned parenthood. how do you do that? they tried to do it on a short-term spending bill, but could not get the votes to get it through the senate and to the president's desk. meanwhile, there are several investigations going on in the , several committees investigating planned parenthood to see whether or not some criminal activity has taken place, whether they have done what is alleged, and if so, what are the ramifications. my impression is what mr. weiner is trying to do is find other to give republicans opportunity to investigate this matter, vote on this matter, and raise their concern, which i ahink is legitimate --

legitimate concern. our things being done with taxpayer money that we do not approve of? they will pursue that. they will also try budget reconciliation, which is a whole nother process that would take away the planned parenthood money. host: you had said initially that the act of john boehner residing could possibly help the government from shutting down. how do you figure that? guest: part of the argument about the shutdown was the argument about john boehner's leadership. the conservatives feeling they were basically elbowed out. they were not given a vote. boehner's departure basically gives them -- it sort of takes away a point of argument. we will fightch the speaker, we will push for a

shutdown. said,eaker has basically see you later, and what we are at it, we will pass the bill and move the government forward. the conservatives clearly don't have the vote to stop this bill. they will probably argue against it vehemently. host: jerry from georgia, democrats line. caller: hi. i just wanted to make a comment really. i am retired from the government. the rest of my family are either retired from state or federal government jobs. i respect what the government has given me through my life. i appreciate it. they have this tea party mentality where they would love to see the government shutdown. they hate the government. from they are, retired government jobs, on medicare, getting all the services that

government can provide them, and they hate the government. can you explain that disconnect to me? irony there has been this that we have talked about for years about people saying they did not want the affordable care act, and keep your hands off my medical care, basically, and yet, they were receiving a great deal of government care. all of us, in fairness, would say, we do not want yet,nment assistance, and there are government assistance programs that we take advantage of all the time. i think you do not see how pervasive it is in your life until you stop and have this conversation about what exactly does the government do for me on a given day. benefit,t is my tax the security guards thou me get in and out of the capital building, whatever it is. in your daily life, you do not think about how much you

interact with the government on a regular basis. , since thehing is early 1990's, there has been this drumbeat of conservative thought that the government is too big, it controls too much of our lives. it is not only no longer helping us grow, but in fact is impeding our development as a civilization. it is a philosophical point. there is a worthwhile conversation about that philosophy. i think it comes to your question -- where does the philosophy of the government has gone too big interact with, yes, but there is still stuff i want the government to do for me. host: paul singer with "usa today" joining us to talk about a possible government shutdown, and other topics. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. from indiana, here is dave. caller: good morning.

problem with how this network is talking about the shutdown. every time you talk about the shutdown, you blink it like -- like a gop shutdown. that is not the way it is. only person holding up them doing their job is harry reid. if they were to do the nuclear option, blow him up, pass it, and put it on obama's desk, the congress would have still done its job, and then it would be the president who would sign it or not. if he does not find it, the government which it down because of -- would shut down because of his action. you notice, it is never a shutdown where any of the people they get the money to the democrats -- they never suffer. it is always some poor little better that cannot get into a monument somewhere. tango.it takes two to

you're exactly right. if the president wants to over this shut down, he could say, ok, i will is that all of the policy amendments that republicans want to make an order to fund the government. that is true. it is also true that republicans are pushing policy provisions that they know the president will not accept. i think the caller at his point. i think he is exactly right. this is not a one-party government shutdown. or shutdown, which are don't think there will be. dance.s a delicate the whole point of the way government works is the various branches have to agree on a forward.ward -- a path if neither side is willing to compromise, we reach this screeching halt.

i do not assign blame to who is the responsible party, but the fact of the matter is the republicans passing for this particular piece of legislation, no from the outside that the only way to get that done is force a showdown with the president over shutting down the government. they want tohat take his force it into a shutdown conversation. host: on the idea of a path forward, let's talk of the path housed for the leadership your lips are with kevin mccarthy. what does he bring to the table? guest: he is the majority leader, the second in command in the republican party. he has not have that job very long. he took it over about one year cantor lost ac primary to a tea party challenger.

mccarthy has only been in congress about one decade. he is fairly new for that role. i think he is very likely to get the speaker's job at this point. one of his strengths is he's a very personable fellow. he has a habit of posting members in his office all the time to chat about stuff, even conservatives who are unhappy with john boehner say they feel like he has skills of listening to them that they appreciate. a challenge. there will be a tea party candidate, but even the house freedom caucus -- the leading vanguard of this tea party movement in the house now -- the freedom caucus members have said they do not think they have enough votes to elect the speaker, but they have enough votes to affect the process. i think part of the process will be these vaunted discussions of sitting down with mr. mccarthy and say, we want to be included in some of these dialogues.

host: i know daniel webster has expressed interest. have they propose a candidate of their own? guest: they want to meet the candidates and talk to the candidates. keep in mind, we're not talking just the speaker's job, but if kevin mccarthy leads up to speaker, someone has to become majority leader, and there are about a half dozen leadership positions that will be open for discussion, debate, and bot a v. the freedom caucus, what they have asked for is a little bit of time. they don't want to rush. they want to have time to discuss the various confidence -- candidates and where the party is going. there is a pretty significant swath in the republican party that were supporters of john

boehner the argue that the freedom caucus, while it is a valuable contributor to their majority, is also a minority view in the republican party. you cannot just give them the keys and say, run the place however you want. that will be the discussion. how do you make this particular hardline group feel included while still not letting them run the institution because they are ultimately still a minority within their own party. host: assuming kevin mccarthy gets the position, how does the house freedom caucus operate in the party now? guest: i do not actually know. this will be the beauty of this autumn, we will see this interesting moment where the speaker has stepped down, in part because of a revolution in his own caucus. thedeparture removes pressure of the revolution for a few moments, and we have a new leader take the reins, and attempt to steer this fractious

caucus in some other direction that does not have a catastrophic ending. i do not know how they do it. host: teresa from florida, hi there. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is this. i am pro-life. i also believe in the law. planned parenthood has not been found guilty of anything at this point. so, why are they making such an issue of shutting down the federal government before they have a chance to go through the legal system? it is just ridiculous. my second point is i work for the national park service, can we please, somehow make it a point that that that service stays open when you shut down the government? guest: no. in fact, the park service is one of the first things that shuts

down in a shut down. i apologize for the bad news. again, it is not considered and large.by it is a great way to attract publicity, if you are in the government, and want to make people feel the pain of the shutdown. you just hang a sign on the "washington monument," and say, "closed for business be ago as far as the planned parenthood diane blackessman had a bill in the house. her argument was rather than borrowing funding for planned parenthood, let's do a one-year moratorium that allows for investigation into this matter to determine if something criminal has taken place. i think, if you have seen the videos that this whole debate is about, they obviously represent

-- they are hard to watch, and discussionopic of . because we don't know exactly where the video came from, how they work produced, it is improbable for us to conclude, like you said, that some crime has been committed. it is certainly enough to generate concern. gets to a deeper point that there is still a great deal of opposition to abortion in abortion.ry, just as nevermind what is in these videos. few weeksi went to a ago started to be a hearing about these videos, but really was about is abortion ever right . as a philosophical dispute that will continue on for some time. this whole argument of the

videos is just sort of the cast point that has started that argument again. should be about abortion in this country? , for are people who ethical and religious reasons, will say, we should not. host: a viewer on twitter asks if someone has had an investigation into the videos to see if they were altered. guest: this is what democrats are asking for an investigation into the videos. the organization has apparently -- i do not know the details, but there was a dispute as to whether they falsified information to the irs. i do not know. some democrats have requested that information and an investigation. week or sojust a ago, the oversight committee asked the four division to turn over its videos. a republican-controlled oversight committee is less likely to investigate the videos and more like lead to

investigate planned parenthood. this is where we get into the issue of partisanship versus policy. there are probably issues to be made on both sides. gerald up next. caller: good morning. how are you on this wonderful day? guest: still breathing. caller: outstanding. please, mr. moderator, i am a disabled vietnam veteran, please allow me these comments. the 14th amendment says that the public debt by the united states should not be questioned. my question to you is basically, is this a violation of the constitution? mr. moderator, i have a question with c-span, and most of the media lately. they seem to want to put the democrats on a singular vision. offther words, you leave the subject. you say "democrat" instead of

"democrats." why not refer to the republican party as "republic." godspeed. one last item here, if you please. for those who are focusing religiously on those videos by planned parenthood. i do not take my religious belief from the text. democrat-democratic thing isn't adjusting cast by the caller. in the early 1990's, several republicans started using "democrat," instead of "democratic" as sort of a sl ur. it was intended to be a poke at the democratics, i don't know why. i think it was a newt gingrich

adventure. it was really to get under the skin of the democrats. it seems to have stuck. know that there is much of a difference, and i don't understand exactly why it is considered a slur, but is one of those great moments of american politics that republicans have decided to slightly change the name to test the democratics. host: democrats, (202) 748-8001. republicans, (202) 748-8001. jim, go ahead. we will move on to thdee from oregon. caller: i want to make a couple of comments and then ask a question. i want to thank you for taking my call. i am a 60 three-year-old woman. in the early 1970's, planned parenthood was the only option for young, unmarried women to

get information about birth control. they never discussed abortion as a form of birth control. they did not discuss abortion at all. evenquent business, after roe v wade, there was no propaganda of abortion at all. women of all ages and races will have to find another means to have pap smears, breast exams, and other women's issues. over $200 to get birth control, not covered by public companies. private doctors performed therapeutic abortions, they were called. i do not believe the videos where representation of the conversation that really happened. i believe the videos were shown weree videos shown

propaganda. i just have to ask, where do women have to go for health care when the republicans are getting rid of the affordable care act, planned parenthood, they shutdown down a lot of medicare, and say there is no funding. get the money to do the budget changes from the overfunded military budget. is weapons that our country developing and selling around the world, especially in basis that are not part of true america -- i'm not against the military at all, i father fought in world war ii, but i think we spent billions of dollars developing weapons that we do not need, and they are sold to other places. guest: let me stop you there. i think one of the issues you touched on is one that republicans have, i think, recognized and embraced. there are medical services other than abortion that planned parenthood does provide to women . in fact, the proposals that have

been coming out of the republicans over the past few not to simplyen eliminate planned parenthood's funding, but transferred to other community health clinics, or women's health services to, in theory at least, provide supportme medical opportunities to women, who otherwise would be getting those services from planned parenthood. the democrats will tell you that that is a fiction, though services do not exist, those community health clinic are not equipped to provide those services, even if you gave them more money. i do not know the answer to that question. i'm not in a brick in women's health care stuff -- i'm not an expert in women's health care stuff.

republicans have said, we do not want to take money out of women's health care, we just want to take it out of this organization. from plano, texas, pat. caller: good morning. to take a little to of exception with what you said earlier, several calls ago. all these calls seem to be about entitlements, one way or another. i am 70 years old. re forying into medica many years, not necessarily because i wanted to. it is an obligatory thing. it ultimately goes into a trust fund, which we know is empty. it is getting conflicted with these entitlements -- medicaid's, and all these things. i definitely think that the today,"nt, and "usa honest onmuch more

differentiating between things that are truly a trust fund. if you want to eliminate it, that's fine, but do it up front. i don't think people recognize manye just created so entitlements out of nothing, and now we are grieving a class warfare think. i don't think you help yourself , i'men people get medicare getting it, but i paid into it. if you want to eliminate it, eliminated for everybody. i think you should take on some of the other entitlements that are running out of control. honestly. that is my comment. aret: the entitlements really just a because the federal budget every year is about $4 trillion, and yet, congress is really managing an $1 billion about because the rest of it is wrapped up in these programs. i cannot explain which ones are

trust funds, but the fact of the matter is you are right. there is enormous growth in in medicare, and particularly for senior citizens . elder care is awfully expensive. we live longer. it is awfully expensive for a lot longer. it is an issue that, at some point, we will have to have a serious conversation about. , it is mr. boehner supporting conversations, i think it was on "face the said heyesterday, he really felt he was close to a grand bargain with the president that would be a broader attempt to address exactly what you're saying. some of the entitlements have gotten out of hand, we cannot afford them anymore, the budget

is sort of a mystery set of boxes. he and president obama were close to a deal. it disappeared in the end. they can point fingers at one another for why disappeared. sooner or later, you can expect that we will have a longer conversation about what benefits we can really provide people, and for how long. host: from maryland, mike, good morning. you guys keep talking about the government, as if it is this huge entity that makes money or has money like god, or something. quit calling it the government, and call it my fellow americans. the government is of, four, and by the people. guest: yes. ultimately this is tax money that comes out of levees on all of us. you are right.

this is your money being used for the causes that congress things you want it used for. host: bill up next from marietta, georgia. caller: good morning. i love the conversation with the gentleman from georgia that you had. my point is on the first party issue, you had collins from republicans. i was wondering why is it that they can't just tell what they expect from republicans, and not even mention president obama the democrats? you have 400 plus lawyers and businessmen going into congress from pretty pr privileged areas from all around the country. they don't believe in seniority or unions. then, you tell the people around the country that they have to protect themselves. have a good afternoon. thank you. guest: one of the reasons the democrats are not part of this

in the house,s impactority party has no on legislation. the republican majority can basically dictate what will pass, if -- this is why speaker boehner is going to step down -- if the republican majority can ,eep its party unified everything is majority rule, they can pass it. the reason speaker boehner is stepping down is because he could no longer keep the party unified, so he was losing 30-40 votes on every bill. you will see this week when they go to pass a clean continuing resolution to keep the government open. it will be a significant chunk of the republicans, majority, but not all of them, unifying with the majority of the democrats. it will be -- they will have to rely on democratic votes to get

this done because the republican caucus is unable to agree with themselves on how to do it. the next become will be a topic for the next few weeks. is there a timeline for when we get a new speaker? i have heard several different numbers, dates. maybe by the end of this week, next week, but i have not heard anything solid. for the freedom caucus types, they would like to take some time. they don't want to do this in a rush. obviously, we will need to have some sort of a vote before october 30, when mr. boehner leads. 20thime in the week of the would not surprise me. i honestly don't know what the timeline is. host: from massachusetts, this is john. go ahead. whyer: i do not understand they want to close the government down, and yet they are getting paid.

retired thatat are the this money are not getting paid. the other thing is if they want us to live in a government run by religion, why don't republicans, or "republics," as you people want to refer to yourself, move over to iran? thank you. guest: there is a question about faith -- imacs are working on a story on this topic right now. there is a question on the role of faith and its role in our government. it is interesting. it is an interesting tension in and united states between -- you see a play out in the republican presence of campaign over the past few weeks. in ae one hand, we believe separation between your government responsibilities and your faith. on the other hand, we also respect a great deal people of great faith. in some cases, we use that as a

litmus test to decide whether we want to hire them for political jobs. we want someone, often, who is of great faith. it is attention. host: judy from maryland, go ahead. talk about theto fact that when they shut down the government, they divide the services into essential and nonessential. teaeems to me that when the party talks about cutting -- what ends up getting cut is the v.a., child protective services and roads and bridges. is there some way that that can be separated out? so when the tea part get -- the tea party talks about no government, people don't want that cut but that is what ends up being cut. guest: this is a political

question. we might agree that the government is too big and expensive, and we are concerned about the growth of the debt, and it seems too expensive, these are reasonable points to make. wanthe question is, do you to cut bigger programs or my programs? if you want to cut bigger programs, i am in favor of that. we are not government funded. just to be sure. [laughter] sherry is in oklahoma city. good morning. caller: hi, i just wanted to make a few statements. there is a big push by the faction of the republican party that wants to push forward with the defunding of planned parenthood.

however, we actually spend millions of dollars in -- we actually send millions of dollars to israel, who pays for their abortions, their abortions are illegal. the insurance government -- the insurance companies pay for it. the republicans who support israel do not supplier -- do not require that the conditions of receiving the money is that we -- guest: can i ask you a question? this is the second question we have had on this point. did you read about this? yes, one thing i have noticed about listening to do is that you dance around some of the truth. i know you know your

correspondence. andf you want to find out, you arehat you know it, soashington correspondent, another thing i want to say is is a whitemccarthy supremacist. i can't prove it. i have no evidence of that. these are the sorts of things where i am interested to learn, as israel saying, it came up twice if the brief time as we have it on the air, it must be coming from somewhere, i would like to learn more about that. but i don't make allegations i can't prove. host: joni, you are the last call. morning, i think the issue actually is that it is all

about politics. planned parenthood is funded all the way through spring. this is all about elections and politics. none of it is going to happen. coming up with bills one at a time and everybody should take responsibility for their votes instead of hiding behind these put together packages where some people object and others don't. and the lady who made the , -- thee to israel islamic tribes, as well. parenthood, it is a private entity, they get plenty , this is also much a do

about nothing. the problem is that we have people complaining about the death penalty for criminals who nobodyous crimes, but says anything about the premeditated murder of children. there is no other way of looking at it. you can dance around it or sugarcoat it. guest: this is part of what i was saying before. i was interested in this hearing i went to on the planned parenthood issue. if you scratch the surface on whether or not planned parenthood is doing these different things, taking advantage of different tactics to improve the sale of these past that,e you get it is the deeper question of whether abortion should be legal in this country.

nevers something we have made peace with in this country. so it continues. in some ways a stalking horse. planned parenthood may or may not have done something wrong, but i think even if you decide that we are going to defund planned parenthood, that will not continue. the correspondent for washington, joining us today, thank you for joining us. you may notice that your credit card has changed to have a small chip on it. up next we will talk about that the ceo of the electronics transactions association with jason oxman. and later, the united states is expected to pay to the budget,

we will talk about how we manage contributions from around the world with barbara adams. that, when washington journal continues. ♪ >> when you look at the role that the supreme court is playing in our society now, our history series has to have relevance. so as we thought about what we can do to give relevance to our program, a series on the court made all the sense in the world. equal branchis an of government. it is the third branch of government. it has a fundamental impact on americans lives. inside this elegant building is a courtroom where cases are

heard and decisions are made, and it impacts all of our lives. there are so many incredibly interesting cases in the courts history. we have all heard about roe versus wade and brown versus order education. but for so many people they are just names in a textbook. so we want to talk about the legal side of these cases but also the human side of these cases. feltwere human beings who that they were wrong, and they brought their cases to the court. i think what people will find most fascinating are the personal stories. is mappy favorite versus ohio. i think when people will hear this story, they will fall in love with these stories. you'll find out why they matter and why they -- why you should

care. picking these cases was tough, they represent our involving understanding of rights in america. , weake a look at dred scott learn about the history of the country but the evolving rights in america. cases, historic supreme court decisions. thatpreme court decisions significantly influenced our nation's story. at 9:00day night eastern. on c-span and c-span3. and as a companion to the new series, the book, landmark cases. there is a brief introduction byo the background, written a veteran supreme court journalist.

it is an imprint of sage publications, landmark cases is plusable for $8.95 shipping and handling. washington journal continues. our next guest is jason oxman, he is the chief executive officer of the electronics transactions association. good morning. who do you represent? guest: we are the 25-year-old association that protects the payment -- they are the companies that make it possible for americans to use electronic payments. credit cards, debit cards, electronic payments using mobile , our members are financial institutions credit , everyone in the

ecosystem who makes it possible for us to pay electronically in this country. one of the things we are talking about is financial security, especially with what we have heard about data breaches. and one of the cards you get in the mail may have a new thing, an electronic chip. guest: this is the week when we migrate to electronic chip. the chips are microchips in your credit card. and starting this week, american consumers will be replacing the 1.2 billion credit and debit that have magnetic stripes on the back of them, a 40 year old technology. we are replacing those cards with microchips. we are using computer chips to upgrade the security in the cards, it will make it harder for criminals to create counterfeit cards, which are, as

we know, and increasing threat. host: how so? guest: here is the big difference between the chip card and the magnetic stripe. the magnetic stripe is static, it is the same every time you use the card. or chip generates a new dynamic security code every time you use it, so it is impossible to create a counterfeit credit card. counterfeit cards are the number one source of fraud in stores today. get ourcyber criminals cards through a data breach, they print up these cards and use them in stores. with this kind of chip, you cannot do that. 1, can ion october still swipe it? still have thel magnetic stripe on the back, the reason for that is because

merchants will be upgrading devices to electronic readers and that will take some time. so that magnetic stripe will still work. if you go to a store that has a chip reader and you try to swipe your card, it will prompt you to use the chip. host: you brought up some examples of things that people may be seeing in the next few it, let me insert try, and then what happens? andt: you will get a prompt the transaction will be processed. the one big difference is that with the magnetic stripe card we are used to swiping the card, needs powerhe chip from the device to generate the security code, so you leave the card in for a few seconds while the transaction is processed and is generatedcode

and verified, and then you are prompted to take your card back. so that is the difference from a consumer perspective. so that is more of an ipad -based thing. is everyone going to have this kind of technology, october 1? october 1 is significant because it is the start of the transition. not all cards will be replaced by that time. this is a mammoth undertaking. the first upgrade to the security system in 40 years. 8 billion merchants need to their systems. that will take some time to play out for small businesses, and especially small businesses who don't have fraud, they will take more time to upgrade their system. it will take some time. we have jason oxman of the

electronics transactions association with us. if you have questions for him about this technology and how it (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republicans and (202) 748-8002 as independents. we have plenty of information from outside the united states where this has been deployed, and every market where this has and introduced, we see a significant reduction in fraud in stores, and again, that is why we are doing this. we know cyber criminals are sophisticated, they are attacking retailers to try to capture card information, using counterfeit cards. onwe know that our database outside the united states, it is

very effective. it is a very important first step. host: the first call comes from benjamin in connecticut. go ahead. caller: good morning, jason. i want to ask you how safe the one creditin capital managing system. oneve a check in the credit 360 account, is the capital safe in those banks? the financial institution get any backing from the federal reserve? i can't space to any particular account in a particular bank, but as you know, the federal bank does have a number of programs to provide insurance to savings accounts,

checking accounts and related accounts. the chip ineaking, your capital one card is providing you an additional layer of protection. it makes it impossible for a thief to access your specific credit card. i'm glad you raised the question of liability with the banks that you have. we should talk about that. liabilityers have no for any fraud that takes place on your credit card accounts. so if your account number is compromised, you have zero liability, that is true today in the magnetic stripe card, and it is true going forward with the chip. in this case, the merchants are the ones who assumed the liability? is that right? guest: there is a change in liability. consumers do not have liability but the rules change this week.

for assignment of liability for credit card fraud. who did thehe party transaction, the issuing bank of partyedit card or the with the credit card reader, you have liability for a counterfeit card, so a couple of examples. -- acard issues a new bank new car to a customer and the merchant has not yet hughes and electric chip reader, then they have liability. but if they do have the electronic chip reader, then the bank is liable. it is an incentive for them to do what they are supposed to do. the only circumstance, there is only one in which the merchant will be liable and that is if the merchant has not installed the card reader. if the merchant has not chosen

to install the card reader, and they don't have to, it is not a law, but they will assume the risk for liability. the theory is that the bank has issue theesearch to banks, and then the merchant hasn't taken up the responsibility of getting a new reader, then the liability falls on them. these are industry driven, these ines were first laid out august 2011, more than four years ago. host: grayson from georgia, hello. thank you so much c-span, you guys are just fantastic and i want to thank jason oxman for coming on the show. ofm guessing that he is part an industry lobbying unit, which

is fine. i started getting all of my cards in the mail. i couldn't understand why. which iead on facebook, am ashamed to admit, but it is true, i actually was informed that it was because of these chips. my big question is, what does this mean in terms of -- i read about these dark pools of money that are floating around. ofld you tell me, what kind -- in terms of hacking and danger to the system, what has prompted this type of reissuing of cards? is a great question, it highlights what we all know, the increased sophistication of the cyber criminals and the way in which the week -- which they are targeting our information.

the chips are part of a larger upgrade we are making to a technology package. they will address the number one source of fraud, credit card fraud. what criminals do is that they print up counterfeit cards and the chips prevent that going forward. but we are doing more than that going forward. tokenization is another technology, use in mobile payments like apple pay and , and what that does is replace your account number with a mathematical representation of that number. so even if it is stolen, it cannot be used. so other things we need to do is to get credit cards out of the system so they can't be stolen. and we need to encrypt our systems, all parts to address these cyber security. yes, sir, i recently had

might rank of america debit card , which i took the trouble of putting my picture on to create additional security, but someone created a facsimile of this card and tried to use it in pennsylvania. they locked up my account and since i moved to delaware, i have to drive to maryland to a retail place to get it straightened out, but i ,ave a friend to is a retiree and he has created the ultimate system. of hers as much purchasing at local merchants and uses the old check system. she does that mainly because she wants to avoid all of this craziness with the credit card

system. what do you think of that? guest: i think that one of the things that is important to remember, and i am sorry to hear that you are a victim of credit card theft, it is a hassle, i have been a victim as well. but continuing to use credit with chips is the 100% protection. it does take time to get the new card in the mail, and it is disruptive, but it is important to remember. the criminals pay for that because they are responsible for that happening. that the safest way to pay is using these electronic payments because of the protection from fraud liability. good morning, thank you c-span. i was wondering, how do merchants upgrade? do they have to get a new

machine? and what does that cost businesses to do this? future, are we headed for pictures on our cards? thank you. question,t is a great james. the cost to the merchant for an upgrade depends on the size of the merchant. have done allmart of the work necessary, it can reach hundreds of millions of dollars. for the small merchant, there is a solution as little as $49, depending on the size of the merchant. it can be very inexpensive. many merchants aarti have the capability at the point of sale, they just need to flip a switch to get the capability turned on. another advantage is that the , we know a lot of

technologyre using -- and it is the same technology that is in the phone, so you can use the same equipment to accept check -- except chips. point 2 billion credit and debit card machines are sayed to upgrade, they $3.50 is the average cost for issuing a new chip reader card. $500-1000 dollars is the average cost of upgrading a point-of-sale terminal. does that sound right to you? low-cost options are available for small merchants. so the larger merchants will be prepared better than the smaller merchants? stages,n the initial

that would be true. done.rge retailers are in some cases, the smaller retailers are turning on the capabilities as well. there is a small town in greenbank west virginia, i went yesterday and walked in art article with a chip reader. to say thatfair those who want to get this information, when they target the small merchants? that is certainly a possibility. it is a big reason for the small merchants who have economic calculations to not upgrade yet, to do so. criminals are thwarted to use those chip card so they will go out and look for the swipe cards. good morning, how are

you this morning? host: go ahead please with our guest. i understand it should be a relatively simple .ransition for retailers however, it is not obligated for seems like the liability still falls on them should they not. i am curious as to how the legal ramifications for that make sense. i may have missed this, but how fraud chip protect from online, because some of this information is put online. guest: two great questions. theree absolutely right, is no legal mandate, it is not a

matter of law or regulation for merchants to be required to upgrade their terminals to chip reading capabilities. however, they will have liability if they choose not to do so. that is simple fairness. banks are investing millions of dollars in upgrading their own infrastructure, and a merchant who chooses not to upgrade their equipment in order to accept chip cards, they should have liability if a criminal comes in to use that counterfeit card. the reason is that if the merchant had upgraded, the crime could not be committed. it is only fair to assign liability where the party for the transaction that did not do the upgrade is the reason that counterfeit card could be used. for the second card, online fraud, that is a great question. the chip card upgrade will not prevent online upgrade.

that is one of the reasons why we are upgrading in other ways to prevent fraud. encryption technologies prevent dialing into systems and accessing data from the outside. we don't have chip readers in our houses. so they won't stop online fraud. host: how long does the processing take before -- does it increase the time of a transaction? doesn't increase the amount of time in the transaction, it increases the amount of time that you are involved in the transaction. in the same way that the magnetic stripe transaction would have transmitted information to the network to verify your card, it is doing the same thing but your card is in the device. do i have i do this,

to put in a pin? guest: you don't have to. if you had to put in a pin in the magnetic stripe card world, you will have to do so with the chip card. a couple of examples is if you a use your debit card at grocery store to get cash back, you will have to put your pin in. if you get a cash advance at an atm, you will have to put a pin in. but where you don't have to use one today, you won't have to use one with the new reader. host: from fairfax, virginia, hi. it is my understanding that the merchant has to pay a certain percentage to the bank, does that change under the new chip system? guest: that does not. the merchant does have to use a fee to use credit cards and

debit cards at the point-of-sale. the reason for that is because the bank is taking a great deal .f risk there are variety of reasons why those fees are in place. host: devin from birmingham, it alabama. my question is similar to the lady who called about the online transactions. say you have a doctor bill or a and the only way you can make a payment is by doing it over the phone. i guess it would be the same way as the online transactions, it would not be protected? guest: that is right. merchant, hospital or a retail store, it would not change. as far as the technology

is concerned, talk a little bit -- was it the home depot attack that brought this changeover? were there under -- there are other things happening? guest: we have seen increasingly sophisticated crime or -- cyber criminals, many located outside of the u.s. who are engaging in data breaches. you mentioned one of the large detail -- data breaches. what is important to understand with those breaches is that the technology that we are deploying is theese chip cards second step of the process as far as the criminal activity goes. criminals breached these databases, steel account numbers, and then what do they do with them? chips wouldronic not have stopped these data

breaches, it is the fruits of the labor of the criminal activity that this stops. it prevents the criminals from making counterfeit cards. our hope is that it deters criminals from engaging in those reaches because it makes it more difficult for them to monetize their activity. byt: you talked about paying phone. as far as a trend, how is that concerned? it is decreasing considerably. mobile payments are the fastest-growing way of payment in the united states. 85% are smart phones, and we have great technology companies like apple, samsung and google who are deploying mobile payment technologies that are quickly replacing the older forms of shopping and telemarketing, using the phone and shopping online.

mobile phones are increasingly being used rather than our laptops. long will it be before we out date a card altogether? i think consumers have shown that they love when they have the opportunity to use mobile devices, they love the opportunity to explore new markets. think about, it was just 2007 released.phone was all of the things we couldn't do before. around, our music payments are the future on the phone. kathy is next, go ahead. my question is about the magnetic stripe. --long as it is on the card

i know they talk about people who can walk by you and get the information off the strip, does this do anything to change that? i have seen those advertisements for the wallets that protect against that. uncommon, iftty not incredibly rare, circumstance. someone would have to be on top of you with their hand on your wallet for that to happen. as far as the magnetic strips themselves on the cards, they will be there for some time, because we need to keep those on until all merchants have upgraded to chip capability. we want to make sure you can continue to use your card wherever you would like to shop. but it is important to remember that if that does ever happened to that, you have no liability for that.

host: and just so you know, this is a demonstration with a chip and a stripe, this is how they would be. guest: exactly. years, be a number of u.s. consumers charge more than $5 trillion a year, it is important that we give our customers the opportunity to use their cards everywhere they want to shop. it is important for merchants to know that they can use whatever car they want when they come to shop. we want to make sure that the ubiquity remains in place. from fran and ohio, good morning. i have had a card with a chip for almost five years, and i know in europe, they have had a card with a chip for 20 years.

but i have been hacked. i know i am not responsible for the money, but there has to be another way. works in-law washington, d.c., we are supposed to be the number one country, but someone has to get behind this and get ahead. there has to be another solution. the younger generation has to withehind it, come up another solution. we need some help here. thank you for listening. you are well informed on the issues, and that is a great question. we do need to upgrade our technology, and this is the first step. it is the first step because it addresses the number one type of fraud, but we do need to do more. that thenews is payments industry is employing a number of other technologies as well. you mentioned fingerprints, the great thing about this is that

do aes your fingerprint to transaction, that is a very unique biometric tool, and it makes mobile payments equally or forms.cure than other we are also using tokenization technology. the chipnews is that cards are a very important first step, and we have a lot of great upgrades still to come. host: will there be a public education campaign? guest: there is education happening on two fronts. people are getting cards in the mail, and they are being explained to them what is happening. that is happening from the bank side. and on the merchant side, our

website is taking the lead. we are giving information to merchants to help them better understand. that initiative is happening right now. from maryland, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i have a quick question. even though you are saying the chip offers an extra layer of protection, because the code continually changes with every transaction, if an organized criminal group were able to reproduce the design of the chip and install them in fraudulent cards, could the program in the codenot be reproduced or written for fraudulent chips to work? guest: that is exactly right. brief touchs a very

on how the technology works. when you insert the chip into the reader, the server on the side,ide -- on the bank's it knows what chip code is to be generated. generated --to be tried to be regenerated, it wouldn't know what the code would be. you could try to guess what the code would be, but there is just no way it would work. and once the bank saw that the first code generator is wrong, it would shut it down. on the magnetic stripe card there is a security code at the end of the line on the back of the card. will that still be the case? guest: it will, that is on there for online shopping. that is different than the code that is generated.

ont code will still be there, but it won't be necessary for shopping in stores. winston, salem. good morning. when i was -- they brought in the pin and chip system. why aren't you guys bringing in the pin? europe was where the cards were initially rolled out starting around 10 years ago, there was a pain associated with each card, and the experience of shopping in europe is very different. i will give an example. cafe, thesitting in a bill comes out and the waiter brings a handheld terminal to you at the table, you insert your card and type in your pin. the reason you have needed a pin historically is because the

terminal is not created to the network. it can't communicate back to the bank to determine whether the transaction is authorized. that the pain in the card authorizes the transaction. in the u.s., every single terminal is connected to the network, so it can be authorized off-line. so in europe, you need the pin because it is the only way to make sure the card is valid, but in the u.s., because transactions are authorized online, the pin is not necessary needed -- is not necessary to verify. on cell phones, where you swipe your credit card through, is that going to be impacted by this technology? you have one on the table, it is the card flight device. swipe reader and

also the chip reader. you see the audio jack device, that goes into the tablet or smart phone, and it upgrades to a chip reader. oxman, from the electronics transactions association. jim, thank you for calling. caller: thank you, good morning. payments are international payments, so i use a third service provider. also transfer funds from accounts into my account. takesue is that it anywhere from 5-7 business days to get this stuff to be authorized. why is it such a cumbersome and lengthy process just to get the money process into my bank account? guest: youave highlighted an issue that is a normatively

frustrating, the time it takes process payments. the real complication comes in the regulatory arena. , moneysl institutions that move across borders, it is very heavily regulated. with yourhing to do specific business, they are applicable to every company that moves money across borders. unfortunately that is complicated by different regulations from different countries. jim in connecticut, good morning. hello, the question i had is that if i am on the tod, and i want to come back my office to key in a credit card transaction on my tablet, will let still be allowed if i don't have a chip security?

will still be allowed. there are different ways of entering card information. the chip is preferable because it has the anticounterfeiting measures in it. but if you need to key in because you don't have your reader with you or because you are taking an order over the phone, or because the reader is not working or the power goes out, or the internet connection goes down, there are a variety of circumstances where you may have to fall back to manual entry. what rules and regulations oversee your industry? guest: our industry is very heavily regulated by a variety, there are over 18 regulations that oversee us in some way. companies that are involved in the payment infrastructure are financial institutions which are even more heavily regulated. we are very heavily regulated and that is very important.

what we do is very important. ise than 70% of the u.s. gdp sales that are powered by electronic payments, so obviously our hope is always that regulators and lawmakers see the important role our industry plays in protecting merchants. we are not looking for a technology mandate from the government. the chip migration is a great example of how the industry has been able to do that successfully. from florida on the republican line. morning, those readers that people use on the smartphones, i forget what they are called but people who are artists in a studio, it reads a swipe, is there a unit that will plug into a smartphone that will

read a chip? guest: there will be. there is one company that does that, there are other companies with those technologies as well. but the short answer is that those readers will be updated on the tablet. we are with jason oxman from the electronics transactions association. the deadline is october 1, the beginning of the chip migration. it is coming up this thursday. you will want to find out more about your information, is there a website that you can direct them to? at e: we are on the web lectran.org. jason oxman, thank you for your time. the president heads to new york to talk about the united

nations. coming up, a look at the money that the u.s. and other countries give to the u.n.. we will have barbara adams with the global policy forum. washington journal continues, up next. ♪ >> a signature feature of book tv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals across the country with top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule. festivaloctober, the of books in nashville. the week after that, we are live in austin, and at the end of the month we will be covering two ink festivals from wisconsin madison and back on the east coast, the boston book festival. at the start of november, we are , followed by the

national book awards in new york city. and at the end of november, we are live from florida for the miami book fair international. those are a few fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's look tv. ♪ the roleou look at that the supreme court is playing in our society now, our history series had to have relevance. and so as we thought about what we could do to give relevance, a series on the court made all the sense in the world. >> the court is an equal branch of government. it is the third branch of government, it has a fundamental impact on american life. building this elegant is a courtroom where cases are heard and decisions are made that impact all of our lives. ,here are so many incredible

interesting cases in the court's history. versus heard about roe wade, but for so many people they are just names in a textbook. what we want to do is talk about the legal side of the cases but also the people involved in the case. human beings who felt so passionately that they were being wronged that they brought this case to the court. >> i think what people will find most fascinating about these cases are the personal stories. one of my personal favorites is mapp versus ohio. i think when people hear the story of this women, they will fall in love with these cases. them passionate about what happens in the court and why it matters and why you should care. cases was ane 12 arduous task, it was a fun task, we learned a lot, but these

us anreally give understanding of america. thereally do learn about history of the country and the involving rights -- the involving rights in america. landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions. delving into 12 supreme court cases that significantly influenced our nation's story, and our evolving understanding of rights in america. live, beginning october 5, on c-span and c-span3. companion, landmark cases, the book. it features the 12 cases we have selected for the series, with highlights and the impact of each case, written by a veteran supreme court journalist. .ublished by c-span an imprint of sage publications, incorporated.

$8.95 plusable for shipping and handling. >> washington journal continues. from the united nations, that is the secretary general addressing the opening assembly of the general assembly. obama is expected to speak around 10:00 on a variety of issues. there will be a meeting with vladimir putin. talking about the funding of the united nations, and joining us from new york is barbara adams, she is with the global policy forum. guest: good morning. host: what is it that you do? we are a policy watchdog, we are a think tank, we undertake a number of research policies -- projects and we produce a number of reports.

we are involved in a number of policy engagements, mainly with governments, but also supporting some of the work with the nongovernment community. host: we want to talk about the funding of the united states, not only for the -- the funding of the united nations, not only for the united states. funding for the indicted nations is varied. on one hand there is a mandatory contribution that members have to make to be a member. this is called an assessed contribution. the budget of the that applies to the peacekeeping arrangements. work ofr part of the the united nations, most of the work of the united nations is

funded by involuntary contributions, mainly from governments. that covers a whole range of emergency, developing relief, food and support to refugees. the split is 60% to the voluntary contributions and 40% to the assessed contributions, which is more or less half and half between the peacekeeping on the one hand and the mandatory standards of the work of the united nations undertakes. host: if you look at breakdowns of the contributions, the united states is on top of that list with over $600 million. as well as japan, germany and france. the figures that you are looking at there, they are related to a formula.

the formula is more or less related to the worth of a gross tos related to messick product. corrects the percentage, it would be a higher percentage that the united states pays, but it is important that no one country should pay over 25%, so the top level was ,educed and at the bottom level so the countries at the bottom, it ended up being that they should pay much less than they should pay. there is a ceiling and a floor. as far as the voluntary contributions, how are other countries doing, including the united states, as far as meeting their commitments? voluntary,use it is

it is up to the government. if you look at the patterns with the united states, you might see something like a similar average across the whole of the system. terms of, 20% from contributions. but if you take a closer look, you may see that some issues receive 30%, because those issues are considered a priority for the united states. and maybe less where the united states feels there is something they don't want to be involved in or contribute to. it is more of the assessed contributions where you have people not meeting what they are obliged to contribute to. there is an honor roll. the honor roll is those governments that pay up in time,

in full, at the beginning of the year, because obviously this is the money that the u.n. needs to meet its budget, and there are currently 25 countries on that honor roll that have done that this year, and the united states is not one of those countries. host: we are talking about the funding of the united nations. barbara adams from the global policy forum is joining us for this discussion. talk to us about the overall budget for the u.n.. what is the figure? and what gets done with the money? the overall figure is just over $40 billion, that cost -- that covers all of the activities of the united nations. the full range that you could imagine, it is a figure that is smaller than the budget of the

sitting,hich i am now new york city, it is a figure two sense ofover the world expenditure on military. while on one hand, we can talk about how much gets done with the money, it is important to put it in the context that in fact, it given what is going on with global challenges, it is clearly not enough. it averages out to be about six dollars per person per year. terms of what gets done, anything you can imagine in of peacekeeping, negotiations and delegate , support tos refugees, advocacy for women's writes -- women's rights.

of access to water, givenng you can imagine, by governments to a mandates to the system in terms of what it needs to do. in terms of the programs that are funded, i believe they refugeentary, assistance, poverty and inequality. how many programs overall are supported? of the agencies, there are about 33. you can make an analogy at the national lever -- national level with various industries -- ministries. thewill see that at international level, there is a counterpart. view of thent of different agencies, you have a large number. in terms of the number of

individual programs, that has to be running into the thousands. because the programs themselves will be translated into a whole range from looking at the u.s. specifically as a bureaucracy, i guess, are there too many programs? are there efforts to consolidate or perform some of the aspects of the united nations? guest: yes, there are. as with any structure, you get a .ot of inter-agency work certainly, there is a lot of discussion. there has been since the u.n. was founded about whether or not it could be structured to be more efficient. there are a lot of ideas about how to measure efficiency. for some people, you would measure efficiency by making sure that the same agency does not seem to be running the same program. parte other hand, a large

of the united nations is actually deal with really difficult issues, and keep governments together, and keep them talking. that is kind of a difficult thing to measure, depending on how you are looking at result. host: barbara adams of the global policy forum talking about the united nations. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. let's start with darren in washington, d.c., independent line. caller: good morning. we love c-span. i have two questions for you. one is could you explain the process a little better about how the head of the u.n. is .lected i know currently it is ban ki-moon.

secondly, what is the u.n. doing to combat irruption? there was a story recently, i believe with the indian government, they found weapons and drugs on a ship -- do you know anything about that? if you could touch on that, that would be good. thank you again for coming on. guest: thank you. thank you for your questions. certainly, your first question is very very topical right now. we willetary-general, be having a new secretary-general chosen next year by the governments. the full process for doing it, the established way of doing it, is that the general assembly of the united nations, which contains all of the members, actually of points, and makes the final decision. they make the decision based on a slate or recommendations that are brought from the security council. it has been the case in the past

that the security council has only put forward one name. it has also been the case that the security council has essentially been through a lot of negotiations amongst itself to choose the leader. .hat has not always been smooth in the security council, we have five permanent members who have a veto and can say no to any particular decision coming out council.curity this has been exercised by different governments over time will beho secretary-general. right this minute, there is a campaign being launched to make the whole process more transparent, to basically make sure that there are qualifications that are required. they put a very funny ad in "the ,conomist" not long ago pointing out how it works and saying, it should not work like this. the momentum is building behind idea that the security council would actually send some real

.hoice to the general assembly the general assembly would be able, with all the members, to actually do a proper job of choosing who the next secretary-general will be. host: conroe, texas, george, you are up next. caller: i have a question of the ministry of overhead for the u.n. budget isntage of the spent on administrative overhead as opposed to funding actually programs? guest: for program funding, there is a formula. i believe that the current figure is 7%. .hat is from the member states also, we are beginning to see the beginnings -- that was a silly sentence, wasn't it? we are beginning to see more

private funding contributed to the united nations. that, in some cases, follows either the same formula, or it would have a different kind of formula. areof those arrangements done individually. we are facing at the moment a little bit of a mess of fragmentation of different initiatives driven because of the need for the u.n. to raise more money to do what it is doing. unfortunately, meaning that you have hundreds of different initiatives, which could be arranged, or reported about, in different ways. this essentially contributing to u.n. staff having to do multiple s to a variety of different initiatives, and from my point of view, contributing to the inefficiency that people talk about. host: there is a viewer on twitter saying that millions of , again,flow overseas

what does the u.n. do, and are they just a figurehead? and terms of the amount of money that flows directly to developing countries, or emergency situations, the amount that goes from the u.n. is not, by any means, a major percentage of that figure. the role that the u.n. plays is basically to bring together the different donors organ to contributors to make sure there is some sort of cohesion, and make sure that people are not tripping over each other. i do not think that is quite a figurehead, from the point of view of what you said. i think it is also important that what the u.n. was set up to do, and what the u.n. can do very well in a number situations , is actually to bring together parties that find it difficult to come together otherwise, that would not talk to each other otherwise.

it is the impartial, if you like, role of the united nations , according to what it was set up for, in terms of addressing human rights, protecting civilians in times of conflict. host: from virginia, here's paul, republican line. my phone is about to die. hang on. host: are you there? we will put you on hold, paul. let's go to tony in national, tennessee, independent line. caller: my question is this. number one, you were talking about private funds coming into the union. when you elect the different officers, and elect to do things, it is done by how they

countries are and who has the most votes, etc. there is no is -- way you can do it fairly. the unitedhing is states contributes the majority of the funds to the u.n. , which is astion question, why does the united states need the u.n. when we contribute to all these other countries anyway? that would be my question. why do we even need the united nations? thank you. that the fact that the u.s. contributes to the 60% the i mentioned that is voluntary contributions, not required, is one of the ways that the u.s. is answering

the questions of whether or not it needs to be involved, or whether the u.n. is helpful. there are some racing technical things that you will get with regard to radio waves, and postments with regards to systems. those are technical questions that need to be sorted out, and you need something international to do it. i don't know if you saw the speech -- there was a speech yesterday from president obama to the united nations in regards to sustainability goals. president obama was pretty straightforward that development should be seen as an investment for everybody's security. it is directly connected, if you like, particularly in today's world, where so much of what is happening that affects us all is not happening only inside our

.ountries in terms of your comment about the percentages and how much the u.s. contributes, while the u.s. is the largest contributor, it is also because, as we hear often, the u.s. is the largest economy. there is a formula that is related to that. in fact, if you take a closer look, we are seeing how much is contributed, but you don't see how much is actually reimbursed. it is not just a one-way contribution. totalcekeeping, the peacekeeping budget, that is actually paid back to the individual governments that make the contribution. the money that comes and goes right back to the governments. on the amount that the united states needs to contribute -- the 22% confirmation to the regular budget -- the u.n. is consistently behind on the payment.

the: barbara adams with global policy forum joining us to talk about funding and the u.n., especially as it meets today. this question,d who is responsible for auditing the money given to the u.n. by member countries? guest: one is that governments themselves. they each other some difficult questions. there is an independent group that looks at the u.n. budget. i will not spell out the acronym because then you will think i just do u.n. acronyms. it is a particular group that is the expertise on the financial side that examines the u.n. budget before it goes for adoption. there is an office of internal oversight. there is an independent

evaluation office. there are a variety of different mechanisms. ,ome of them of the governments and some of them independently, they are monitoring the payments of the united nations. host: from alabama, charles is up next. caller: good morning. it is good to talk to you this morning. those calling -- independent and government institutions that oversee each other, acting as our government does, is great. ist could -- my question what could a disabled american civilian contribute? how could i contribute as a disabled american, in light of reports that some jobs, lots of jobs, were mishandled,

and given to people who were supposed to be given to disabled americans? what can i do as a disabled american with a psychiatric, yet treated and controlled, disorder do to help the united nations in my own community? i will take my answer off the air. what i did not mention in the previous question, would you have given me a wonderful opportunity to comment on, is the work of the independent nongovernmental organization civil society groups that actually monitor the work of the united nations. we have just released a report on that, raising some of the areas where the u.n. needs to pay attention and improve. on the issue with regards to people living with disability, that is one of the areas where nongovernmental organizations, people living with disability,

have organized together consistently over the years, and have been very influential and making sure that the u.n. adopted a number of years ago a eew convention on th rights of people with disability. i cannot give you, right now, the name of the organization where they were together, but they continue to be active. yesterday, when i was in the united nations, i saw the person working with the organization. they are both very effective in terms of advocating for people with disabilities, and monitoring to make sure the u.n. supports employment opportunities in that area as well. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. barbara adams. she is a senior policy fellow of the global policy forum, joining us from new york, talking about the funding of the united nations, as the general assembly

meets today. let's go to nancy, in georgia, independent line. caller: good morning. , tonted to ask ms. adams get back to the u.n. charter. a person wrote a piece about the u.n. charter at the beginning of the bush administration. recently, there was a court case, that goes to the previous caller's question about domestic law. it was bond versus the united states. this was unanimously decided against mr. obama. putin toto welcome mr. america today. i'm really pleased to see him here. i also want to reiterate that russia pays out a lot of disability payments to ukraine, which is one of the reasons they have an interest there. the primary purpose of the united nations is to prevent nuclear war. i think that should be remembered, and we would have a lot left waste -- lot less

waste. guest: a number of the decisions and the legal obligations that are struck by all governments in the united nations have eventually been taken back to the national level and turned into legislation. different countries have different ways of doing this. this has been something that has been particularly difficult for the united states. they have not been able, i think because of the state-federal arrangement, but i am by no means an expert on this, they have not been able to ratify so many of the treatise here in you referred to the u.n. charter -- not that one, but so many theties with regard to rights of women, indigenous people, and so on. somebody other than me would be to explain why that is the case. host: you talk about what you referred to as the sustainable development goals. that is the lead editorial of "the new york times" this morning about the countries of

the u.s. agreeing to them. could you tell us a little more about the price tag for this and what is expected by the member countries? guest: the price tag is way what we have looked at in the past with regard to developing programs in developing countries. the price tag is very large because the sustainable development goals are universal inclusive programs, addressing a full range of things where every country in the world needs to universality means that every country in the world needs to address them. it is looking at issues not only dealing with poverty and poor countries, but poverty and once own country, issues dealing with inequality, climate change, the rights of women, education. that theo understood

transformation that economies will need to go through, in terms of how they actually produce wealth, and how they go through production processes is going to need to change radically if we will come anywhere near meeting these targets, which is think many people agree on is essential. that there is a fund in the u.n. in which all of this money will be put. the funding will take place mainly at the national level by governments and countries. it is up to each government that agrees to these goals, to work out how to implement them at the national level, as well as supporting the work that needs to take place internationally. host: from "wall street a 2030," saying

deadline, does that sound right to you? guest: yes, it does. a huge amountieve of this on the way to 2030. we really need to start immediately. host: long beach, california, darrell is up next. caller: good morning. my question for mrs. adams is how she heard -- i mean, i heard something to be affect that the united states is putting nuclear weapons in the netherlands, and now we plan on putting 20 nuclear weapons into germany. i'm thinking, why would we want to take and give opportunity to other nations that have this kind of awesome power, and then realized that we are putting it into countries that have areories of today they good, tomorrow they are bad. that is my question. guest: i'm not sure i can answer the details about nuclear weapons. i would say this. puts weapons, or

when it has a military presence in another country, it is in the military base, in most of these cases. there are -- i don't know the figure, i think it is close to 100 military bases around the world. it is not a question of just loosely giving nuclear weapons to somebody else at their from that particular point of view. of course, the other part of the question would be to us people from the netherlands how they feel about this and what kind of conversation is taking place there. hi.: mary in washington, caller: i have a question about the organization of islamic cooperation in the u.n. i want to know what the u.n. plans to do to hold them a little more responsible for the refugee or economic immigrants that is happening across europe. another question i have is recently the iranian president

had announced that he plans on , to hezbollah, with the funny that america has now given over with the iranian bill -- can she answer my question on that? the seconderms of , that is a level of political affairs that i'm not sure i am anymore qualified than anyone else to comment on. one problem going on in the united nations, and more of the government spend the united nations itself, is that so much of the politics, or agreements, making, tend to follow the pattern that the enemy of my enemy is a friend. you do find an alignment of interest taking place for that reason, which might not necessarily be what you expect.

in terms of the question -- did not quite catch the first question. she: i miss that, but mentioned the refugees. if the current situation putting a strain on a budget set aside by the u.n. as far as refugees are concerned? is that is the case, can member countries contribute more? guest: it is certainly putting a strain. there is no budget that could be adequate because one cannot anticipate these problems. yes, it is putting a tremendous strain. there are a lot of conversations, the second day general, i think you are aware, has been holding a lot of meetings with governments to address this situation and asked for increases in funding, including talking to all governments in the region about the responsibilities that they

have in this area. one of the other things that happens that is really important to understand is this united big role ina addressing the causes, not only responding. that is what exist back to some of the comments about development and sustainable development goals, to make sure that countries grow and are more prosperous so that there is less conflict. host: in the area of development, before the new announcement, there was the millennial development goals. what kind of money was raised for that? what can we say came as a result of that? guest: in terms of the millennium development goals, the amount of money that was theed -- i do not know exact figures. i know we were talking about their needing to be $200 million raise. this was more related to the

overseas development systems, the public budget from donor countries. in terms of what was achieved, the millennium development goals targeted seven key areas of activity, in terms of women's childrend rights, health and education, issues dealing with water and sanitation, in terms of reducing poverty, and so on. there were particular targets and indicators for measuring success. if you look of the results of that, and there are a number of good reports on this, you will see that there was some success. they were not 100% achieved. in a way, there was a little bit of a mistake in terms of how we measured success. some of the countries that show the most progress, and these were a number of countries in africa, actually, because you had an absolute target where they had to reduce poverty by withif you are starting

much more poverty that other countries, even if you have much more success, you cannot reach the target. it was an unfortunate way of targeting what we call success. host: but your from mark and tennessee. caller: good morning. toould like to ask ms. adams answer, if she can, what would the world do without the united nations? i would remind them that the that aof nations president went to organize was turned down by the united nations and others. it might have prevented world war ii. i think the peacekeeping of the snited nations since 1945 hav avoided major conflict. and, the many good things that happened in agencies are

vital to the peace of the world now. thank you. guest: i am sometimes tempted to answer that question, which obviously i am asked quite often -- i'm pleased to take this lightly tongue-in-cheek -- ani am sometimes tempted to answer that if we did not have the united nations, maybe we would be committed to creating something much more stronger and better finance. it is very clear that we need some real commitment to face the global challenges that we have. we have to have this kind of global space. it has to be a lot stronger than it is. host: robert in montrose, new york, independent line. caller: good morning. one thing i'm interested in is that what we have a world population now, here in the united states we are only 1000 million, less than 4% of

the u.n. budget. why is it that we have to spend so much more to the u.n. and other countries that are members of the u.n. do not pay their fair share? another thing i am interested in , and i would like to follow up on the gentleman from tennessee -- even at my age, i do not remember the league of nations, but i remember the early conservative movement in the 1950's and 1960's. we had an organization called the john birch society that projected in the future that they would be ineffective. why is it that most of those who are dealing with the issues of war in the middle east are being a burden to western europe and the united states? why not move east and move the population and disperse it around the world. think you very much.

guest: the issue is not so much that one is measuring the by population figures, but by the economy, dollars. in that context, the u.s., even as less population, it has more to contribute, and much more to gain, frankly. reducetribution, if you it to per capita, rather than taking the overall figure, you will find that the contribution tot the u.s. is making the u.n. and dealing with issues around the world is actually quite small. on the overseas development assistance ranking, the u.s. 29 of what out of contribution it is excellent making in that particular area. in terms of the question of how

issues, and how different countries are actually getting involved, it is very desirelt to separate the and need of people to seek a better life, from wanting to go from countries to other ones that they see a successful. i do not think it is a geographic ink. i think it is obviously related to where things seem to be going better in the world. host: when it comes to issues of funding, and what countries contribute, is that settled before the opening of the general assembly? is it done all year round? is there a special session to determine these figures? guest: that is not the business for today. the business for today is related to the sustainable development goals and the issues that your callers have race related to crises around the

world. the u.n. has a budget set every two years. it prepares for that within the is aed nations, there committee, finance and administration, i think, that is dedicated to this work. the delivery and negotiate with each other on what they prepare as the budget. in budget has not grown real terms. even though the mandates that governments are giving the u.n. are growing over time. host: one more call. this is patrick from michigan. theer: my question is problem that happened in haiti, where the u.n. set up a camp, and they dumped raw sewage into the