from the accountability office, we look at the estimated cost of conduct and the 2020 census. as always, you can join us on ♪ morning.d it is monday november 9 2015. in onnate will not be wednesday in observance of the veterans day holiday. he bumped preparing for a meeting with benjamin netanyahu -- president obama is preparing for a meeting with e the benjamin netanyahu. a case about the birth control mandate that is part of the affordable care act. the challenge brought by faith-based colleges and ministries has put a key component of the president's

health-care care law before the nine justices. we are opening up for months to hear your reactions. give us a call. .emocrats, (202) 748-8001 .-democrats (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents (202) 748-8002 outside the u.s., (202) 748-8003 . you.monday morning to headlines about the supreme court cost decision -- the supreme court's decision. health law back in the high court to the front page of the national section of the new york times, the supreme court to hear another case of contraception and religion. partontraceptive mandate of the affordable care act requiring employers to cover 20

types of fda approved drugs and services as part of their health plans. the washington times noting the glue -- the groups that brought this case equate morning after pills with abortion. to explain more we turn to lawrence hurley, reuters supreme court correspondent. good morning. explain what is being challenged and who brought this case back to the supreme court. to an this is a challenge accommodation the administration introduced to deal with religious objections held by groups that are not religious institutions but our nonprofit groups that have religious affiliations. , certain nonprofits that provide services that are related to religious groups. host: review of this decision

has come before the supreme court before. review how this is different from that case. companyhe issue was a could have a religious objection to the contraception coverage requirement and the court said it could. , in 2014, companies could not make use of the same the religiousthat groups can. the administration has said they accept there are grounds for religious objections but they had this accommodation that they think it deals with that concern. host: is this the make or break case for obamacare? guest: no. this case only deals with the religious objection to the

contraception provisions. does not have any bearing on the broader state of the law. host: explain what the objection is to this accommodation. they feel like even participating in the accommodation would be against religious beliefs. explain the argument. guest: under the accommodation can certify that they have a religious objection. either their insurer or to the administration itself. as the government has it they then are so does taken out of the process so they don't have to be party to the whole issue of providing contraception coverage. the groups say the act of having to sign that form is aiding people in getting the coverage is the object to. host: what is this case expected to be heard?

guest: i think the hobby lobby case will be the one that most people will look to in which the won.ctors the case will be argued in march. we will get a ruling sometime before the end of june. host: it puts reproductive rights back on the radar of the supreme court but there is an expectation that there was going to be a larger abortion ruling by the supreme court this term. where are we on a challenge taken up by the supreme court? guest: we could be hearing soon in the next week or so whether the court is going to hear a thatenge to the texas law imposed new restrictions on abortion clinics. if the court takes that case that would be the court's big

case on the issue since 2007. host: for viewers looking to follow these cases, what is the name of the cases that the viewers should be watching a four? -- watching out for? inst: a texas case pending the court and the second his concerns mississippi's similar law that has a similar provision. the court could be acting on those in the next week or so. host: lawrence hurley, always appreciate your time on the washington journal. we are asking viewers to wait in on the supreme court taking in -- taking up the contraceptive issue. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. independents.,

so cheap asking viewers to respond to the supreme court cciision -- lawrence so asking viewers to respond to the decision. to controller for you to get their birth control from other sources or find another job. there's a constitutional right to practice religious beliefs. there is no constitutional right to birth control. members of congress taking to twitter last week issuing press releases as well in light of the supreme court's announcement that they are taking up this challenge to the contraceptive mandate. jan is a member of the energy and commerce committee. she tweeted out on friday, it is 2015, do we really need to supreme court to decide with a woman should be able to access

birth control? republican tim shoretel tweeted -- one of the republican sent out a release on friday after this decision was diane black, a republican from tennessee. author of the health-care conscience right at which would end -- which would exempt employers and nonprofits and those who quit made these challenges from the contraceptive mandate. in her statement she says, we have known obamacare's hhs mandate is a flagrant violation of religious freedom. under this law, countless nonprofits and ministries from the little sisters of the poor to priests for life face an impossible choice to deny their or faceeld beliefs

fines that will undoubtedly force them to close their doors. being an american has always tont enjoying the freedom live by the dictates of one's faith both at home and in the public square. issue coming after the 2014 high-profile hobby lobby case, one of the high-profile cases the court will be taking up this year. we will be covering it here. we are getting your thoughts as we begin this process with the supreme court taking up this case. the washington times story on this decision notes that justice department attorneys have compared the nonprofits to conscientious objectors who duck the draft and want to block the government from naming someone else to fight for them. the washington times noting luis saying, if the court

employers,vor of women will lose eight guaranty benefited by the -- a benefit guaranteed by law. we are taking your thoughts. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 victor is on the line from democrats cartersville, georgia. caller: good morning. i am tired of people trying to say that obamacare is anti-religion. like abortionon't but i think of woman -- i think a woman has a right over her body and nobody has a right to

deny them that right. host: thanks for the call. did you watch the hobby lobby case? did you follow the supreme court decisions? caller: i have not. host: do you plan to follow with this term? caller: yes i do. i hope the supreme court once opposes obamacare and the woman right to have an abortion. if they don't, they're going to open up a pandora's box. host: the abortion issue could come up this term. we will watch for news possibly as early as the next couple of weeks. carol calling in from ohio on the line for democrats. caller: i agree with the last

guy. i think this would be a great disservice to all the women that want to have this. i think some of those nuns, only have to do is fill out a form and city want to opt out and they can opt out -- say they want to opt out and they can opt out. briefthey argue in their that even anticipating in filling out those forms make them complicit in this process of obtaining birth control and things like the morning-after pill. caller: the only time they are doing it is if they are forced to do it and did not have the opt out. with the opt out, it is done. they don't have to worry about it. i don't go with that at all. my religion is my religion and their religion is their religion.

i have as good as them as saying my religions as i can do this or whatever. i get really upset with these right-wingers doing this kind of stuff. host: do you think it makes a difference if the employer is a religiously affiliated college or nonprofit? caller: they can fill up the form and opt out of it. isn't that what they can do? host: that is the option they have right now. caller: all they have to do is to that. i don't see anything wrong with that. that's not making them have the contraceptives after that. they are using their religious freedom to do that. rufus is calling from adrian, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. hope that the supreme court

religiousin favor of freedom. it's not my intention to be in opposition to a woman's right to choose. i understand to some degree the .ature of the laws and so forth what i see is that there is such a divide in the nation over this issue and that either side causes the other side to suffer consequences onto the law and constitution that are problematic, i would hope that eventually the republicans in the democrats would take the issue off of the table so to speak. thatld suggest to congress a law be passed for those people to have certain religious

beliefs that measures would be taken where those religious beliefs can be respected without woman'sy impacting a right to choose. i personally believe that contraception is an option that women should have. i also believe that most forms of abortion are of government -- are repugnant. i would leave that to the woman and her creator to decide what is best for her. laws and is using faithg to force people of to accept a position that is repugnant to their beliefs and

thoughts which is no different and qualitative means people --at people of bul people of beliefs submit to thoughts of people that will believe medical issues in terms of a woman being offered by the state, meaning the nation. in those terms i would hope that eventually congress would lay this issue to rest and there is no good answer that can readily come out of the supreme court except to affirm religious

freedom while suggesting to congress that congress needs to write reasonable laws to protect those of religious faith and those that believe certain types of birth control and means of abortion. host: a few tweets that a come in over the course of this conversation. the first amendment protects the religious rights of all americans. institutions, no birth control mandate. another tweet from edwin who says when the rights of one person trump the rights of another we might as well taught -- toss out the constitution. ruth benjamin smith writes, whatever happened to the separation of church and state. read is up next from union, washington. for republicans. good morning. caller: i wanted to say a caller

earlier made this point. she did not appreciate the white ringers perspective on this -- the right-wingers perspective on this. this is an american opinion of what your rights are. i believe abortion is wrong. anybody from either side of the aisle ultimately believes it is wrong but i believe in not letting the government make these decisions for a human being. result is to get rid of obama roberts care. the employers or anybody else is not put in the position where they have to be forced to do something against what their beliefs are. this is an example if you let the government get involved in this, nothing ever works out. the democrats seem to always knee-jerk to let the government decide the sorts of things. i believe in a woman's right to choose and leave it there.

host: before you go, there was a new york times editorial about this on saturday after the supreme court announced they were taking up this case. the editorial board rights that this lawsuit like several others before it is a well orchestrated assault on the rights of women to control their bodies and thus the course of their lives by deciding if and when they will have a child. d.c. it in that light -- do you see it in that light? caller: i don't see it as being well orchestrated. i think it could be any issue in the abstract that's going to hit the supreme court 10 to 20 years from now. but if it has to do with the government deciding what is constitutional, that's fine but if it has to do with the government making a law like obamacare that says that employers have to provide health

, birth control pills, when the reality is the government should not be making those decisions. we should not be paying for it at the federal level. you hear this that a woman is being denied. a woman has a right to buy those pills. why is it anyone else is paying for it? no one is denying them anything if the employer or government itself is not paying for it. let them pay for it on their own. we are talking about the supreme court should note our new series, landmark cases, continues tonight at 9:00 p.m. in 1944, the -- 70,000urt upheld

of them u.s. citizens to internment camps in world war ii. tonight we'll talk about the case and the decision on landmark cases. that is live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span three and c-span radio. the supreme court taking up the contraceptive mandate -- the contraception mandate. i wanted to agree with the previous caller and put in a different spin on it as an evangelical christian. i have been witnessing outside of abortion clinics at times and i have my opinions and i think the constitution provides for the common good it is not majority rules. in that vein i get in trouble with evangelical brothers and sisters i think are trying to push this down. we believe in free will.

god gave us free will and there is so much sin even rethink a wrong thought -- even if you think a wrong thought that evangelical christians have sinned. so many things that are wrong -- we cannot control people's minds and hearts. we can be out there trying to tell them the truth and see things like china, what is happening when they enforce abortion. they are in dire straits, that country. i feel the cubs to should provides for the common good -- i feel the constitution provides for the common good. i am not saying that i would provide funding or i think the federal government should provide funding for that woman because i think the life of the child is precious and there are many other options for her. it is not difficult to give up nine months of your life even if

you do not think you can provide for that child or do not want that child. so many other options. , do we arent is doing not believe in free will and in the power of the lord to change lives? you will help these women. you will try and tell them the truth but ultimately it is their choice. unfortunately it is another life. they don't believe that. they don't understand that yet. host: the key component of this case is the participation in the workaround that the administration has provided. do you think an employer participating in that workaround, filling of the shifts then this, cost of this to the insurers and not the employers themselves, does that make the employer

complicit in whatever eventual decision the employee makes, whether it is the useful morning after pill or some other form of birth control? caller: i don't think so. i used to work for the catholic diocese here. who used health services to get abortions in the diocese. i don't think that was right. it is their right. that is why health care is here. we have to have that available for everybody. i am not god police of somebody else's life. i'm here to witness the truth to them. our country needs to change. we have a lot of things that are wrong and a lot of issues were people are being marginalized and disrespected on many different levels. if you going to speak about this yesterday look into your life

and see all the other things. this cannot be our major focus. i don't think abortion is to be a major focus and i think the government needs to stay at of it as well. we need to give those women other options. host: heather is waiting in fort washington, maryland. caller: my comment is that as an employee i have been paying into my medical funds for years. why is it that people believe that the employer gets to make the decision but the employees who have been paying into the medical fun for years have no coverage --the in whether the coverage infringes on my beliefs should i not have? a say in whether i get to have my birth-control coverage? or let's say my birth-control medicine that helps me with ovary cysts or other medical

conditions covered? host: did you follow the hobby lobby case or you come to this issue through this case? isler: i feel that everyone talking about the employers making decisions about your medical coverage because they are paying for it and they are saying that if they are paying for it that they are being forced against their religious beliefs to pay for it. i half religious beliefs -- i have religious beliefs and my rights would also be infringed because if i am paying for my medical insurance every week at of my paycheck otherwise i don't get it. why are my rights less important and my decisions and my needs less important than my employer?i'm an individual and they are a conglomerate. host: heather perhaps previewing some of the arguments we may

hear before the supreme court as they take up the mandate. the decision came on friday to take up a series of challenges to the contraceptive -- the contraception mandate. jay is up next. good morning. caller: good morning. what upsets me is having politicians get involved in contraception, abortion, women's medical issues and so on. they want to defund this, they want to take the right of abortion away from women, even if it is rate or insist. incest.or carly fiorina, ben carson, mike

huckabee, saying no matter what the reason women should not have abortions. you have carly fiorina who wants to lower minimum wage. how can women get contraception assistance or pay for anything if they lower the minimum wage? they are rose getting involved in taking away something from somebody? an imposing their thoughts on somebody else. you have these people that don't want to have abortions but are they going to say, you can't have an abortion, you have to have that baby full-term and raise it. they go to take that baby themselves come this person trying to stop the abortion, and raise it financially, fetid every day, change the diaper -- feed it every day, change the diaper? no. they're saying, i'm going to

impose my thought on you and stop you because i don't think it is right. where these people doing this? especially men. you have no right to say a woman -- what a woman can do with or without their body. it is their issue. you want to take contraception away and you want to take abortion away so if you have no contraception give a possibility of having a pregnancy. you don't have any medical health, you can't get any .edical health i find it ridiculous. j bringing up the issue of presidential candidates and where they stand on the issue. some candidates near every week of the sunday shows talking about various issues. several of the sunday shows focusing on gop front runner ben carson's biography and some of

the stories that have come out about that. ben carson was on "meet the press," saying he is receiving more scrutiny than other candidates who have run for president about his background. here's a bit from his appearance. [video clip] did you not expect this? >> i have always said i expected vetted.a what is going on with me -- you said this 20 years ago, you said this 30 years ago -- i have not seen that with anyone else. if you can show me where that is happening with someone else, i will take that statement back. >> i think almost everyone who has been president -- really. i have never seen this before. people with political experience tell me they have not seen this before. >> you do not think with bill

clinton? the president? with his mistress t birth certificat -- >> no. >> why you? >> i'm a threat. i'm a very big threat. they can look at the polling data and see the eye of the candidate who is most likely to be hillary clinton -- beat hillary clinton. facthey see that. host: we will be joined by gabby politicallo, a contributor from "the washington examiner." for the next 15 minutes or so, we will discuss the issue of the supreme court taking up theabortion issue in

affordable care act beer getting your thoughts this morning. clark is up next from new jersey, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm not really clear. there are two issues to talk about. about.m not really clear pills, abortion , to control abortion, they do not form a category of insurance. insurance is when you take a loss, then insurance will compensate and make you whole. that is what insurance is. first of all, i do not know how this got mixed up with insurance. host: the contraception mandate requires employers to cover 20 different kinds of fda drugs and services as part of their health care plan that they provide for

their employees. one of those services and drugs that is included is the morning after pill that some of the groups, especially those objecting in this case, the morning after pill. caller: the morning after pill specifically? host: is one of those 20 different types of fda approved drugs or services. caller: then you have other ones that are out now, birth control pills that do not form a category of insurance. insurance makes you whole. birth control pills are not taking a loss from anything. that is number one. , there is a monetary thing involved. when you take other people's for women to be able to get birth control pills

and abortions. i know this was said before, but two women on the programs that it was unconstitutional for women to not have free access to birth control and abortions. well, it is unconstitutional if we are taking someone's money and giving it to other people. take from one group and give it to another group. that is unconstitutional. it goes beyond that. therewith property tax -- are a lot of things that are not correct here. you do not just steal from one group and give it to another group. that is what is happening. thank you. have a few more tweets come in. stella writes, i still cannot find health care in the constitution as a right.

and, what happens when it is against someone's religion to pay taxes? we will keep taking her calls for the next 10 minutes or so here on the washington journal. i want to point out, as we noted at the top of the program, president obama is meeting with prime minister benjamin netanyahu today at the white house. here to talk more about that, steven mufson joins us by phone. he is an white house reporter with "washington post." first face-to-face meeting after the signing of the iran nuclear deal. that was a major disagreement between the two men. what is on the agenda today? guest: i think one of the things on the agenda will be a military memorandum. the president sees this as an opportunity to get the president to demonstrate his commitment to

israeli security. i think, also, that situation in syria is obviously going to be on the agenda, and this recent bank and the west israel. the president will be asking takeyahu what steps he can unilaterally to demonstrate his commitment to a two state solution, something that much of netanyahu's cabinet has already come out against, but is an important part of u.s. and israeli policy. netanyahu has said in the past that he is in favor of a two state solution. i think obama will be looking f him to suggest some way forward. they clearly don't get along.

they have a different worldviews, i think. president obama sees things in a very sort of rational way, sees things moving generally in the world in a positive direction. i think that's yet netanyahu sees his country besieged by very dangerous neighbors who are not very far away. they had very different outlooks, i think. each has felt that the other has done him wrong. i think it will never be entirely normal, but i think both of them have a common interest at this point in demonstrating that they are committed to their common interests, and they do have common interests. i think everybody will try to get along during this meeting. host: generally, what is israel's role in implementing the iran nuclear deal?

guest: israel's role? , for one thing, there is restraint involved. obviously, israel is not going iranianoking to bomb nuclear facilities. iran has agreed to start dismantling. i think, for israel, the issue is more, what happens if you find iran is continuing to help organizations like hamas and hezbollah, and provide weapons that might be used against israel -- what do you do about that given that you have committed to lifting certain sanctions as part of the iran deal. there are sanctions in place, but it is not entirely clear how, ones you tighten, and

or whether you do some other intervention that is more militarily oriented. host: what is the schedule today? there is not a public news conference at the white house, correct? guest: no. in the past, some of those news conferences have not gone well. they will definitely try to control the message and make sure that nothing negative while theyly happens are talking. there is a foot opportunity at the beginning of the meeting. there's nothing scheduled for after the meeting. there will be separate statements issued from each government later on, and probably some briefings, but they are trying to control the message and avoid any surprises. steven mufson of "the washington post," thank you so much for your time. we have time left in this first

segment to take a few more calls on the supreme court taking of the birth control mandate in the affordable care act. call has been waiting on the line for republicans. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. you know, i think it is very dangerous when the government can mandate to force me to do things that are against my religion. that is absolutely not the way to congress wrote the constitution. this a administration, when they took power, they tore the constitution up and threw it in the trash can. everybody is talking about birth control pills. organization -- parenthood -- you can go down there and get all the birth control pills you want for free. to get yourreligion presidential pills? why are the democrats out to destroy religion in this

country? i firmly believe that in the future, you will see cities like new york, los angeles, boston, some of these cities run by .iberal democrats there's something about religion .hat rubs these democrats wrong i think it is crazy myself. you know, the founders, when they wrote the constitution, they delegated very few powers to the executive branch. we have turned it on its head. , it is the president with his executive orders, he thinks he has all the power. i'm sure he would probably pardon everybody down there in cuba to close that place down. he would just have an executive

leavesf before he office and tell them to shut the place down. i would not put that passed him. i believe he is capable of doing something like that. host: let's go to jail, waiting in north carolina, line for democrats. caller: c-span, america, good morning. how are you on this beautiful day? host: good, go ahead. asler: i hope you give me much time as the republicans, the last five of them. it appears to me that the whole point of the supreme court, the case coming up, is that it requires they identify their objection, and then recognizes it under the first amendment. since the republicans want to know about the constitution, all they have to do is identify their objections. the congress has to comply with some kind of rules. the second thing is if republicans want to apply the

1965 degree of a communist leader, when he forced every female to have at least four children. the last thing, the supreme court is set up for actual violence on the street. they have artie indicated that you can stand your ground if you feel personally threatened. i believe a was about two years ago, you had a massachusetts case coming up where it said that the people who protest abortions can come up and get in the face of the people having the abortions. what if they feel like they are pullatened and carry out -- out there got to shoot them. now, for my quick comments. perhaps all the christians should start adhering to what says.ancis he say they should practice what they preach. the specialre all

forces people go to iraq and iran. godspeed to you and your families for all those who protect and serve. godspeed. you are our heroes. america have a great day. host: on that final point, we should note that -- a programming note coming up later this week. c-span will be showing the veterans day national ceremony held every year on november 11 at arlington national cemetery. it will be at the memorial amphitheater. the family will honor all of those who have served in the armed services. you can watch that live here on veterans day. you can also catch it on c-span.org and c-span radio. let's see if we can get in onerge, one must caller -- last caller, calling from california. go ahead.

caller: first of all, i want to review the man that says we are all -- i'm a combat veteran -- we could not even get a job. having said that, i'm a progressive taxpayer. i own a business. theou want to talk about constitution, this thing has crushed us. not everybody pays into it. to the man that caused the pregnancy? why does he not pay for? why do i pay for? why doesn't a family rally around to help anymore? the one man said he is a right preaching that no one should have an abortion. i'm not saying don't have an

abortion. have an abortion, have your have anything done, but why don't you pay for years, and i pay for mind? you will have to change the name of countless cities and municipalities across the country -- st. louis, saint francisco, named after religious figures. buthis obamacare is nothing a dictate, i don't like it, but get rid of the progressive taxation system. caller inge, unless this -- our last color in this segment. next, we will be joined by gabby morrongiello to talk about the latest in campaign 2016, including her reporting and

south carolina. join usarah ferris will on how the pharmaceutical industry is going on the offensive over skyrocketing drug prices. we will be right back. >> tonight on "the communicators" we will discuss cyber security threats. james lewis is our guest and talks about what the u.s. is doing to avoid attacks by china and russia. also, cyber security legislation passed by the house and senate. on the program, mr. lewis is joined by tim starks, cyber security reporter from "politico." >> dhs has this grand mission to , butech the security

they have no resources. that will change. again, the bill in 2012 would have dealt with political infrastructure. probably not in the right way. you saw the obama administration put out the executive order in 2014 that imposed very light requirements on critical infrastructure. congress needs to go back and ask if that is enough. communicators" on c-span two. c-span has the best access to congress. watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span two. watch is online or on your phone at c-span.org. listen live, anytime, on the c-span radio app. get best access from behind the scenes by following c-span and are capitol hill reporter, craig twitter.n

stay with c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org for your best access to congress. c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016, where you will find the candidates, the speeches, debates, and most importantly, your questions. this year, we are taking the road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our student cap contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow c-span's student cam contest and the road to the white house coverage on tv, on the radio, and online at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. morrongiello is politics reporter with "the washington examiner," joining us campaign 2000 16

after spending several days and south carolina. the primetime debate, the olling, there are so many stories that get caught up in the national cycle. what is happening on the ground in a key primary state like south carolina that the national stories are missing? guest: one of the biggest site i saw is the fight among democratic candidates to earth the black vote in south carolina . over the weekend, all of the democratic candidates -- martin o'malley, hillary clinton, bernie sanders -- they arrived in south carolina for presence of form. much of the message that senator sanders delivered was tailored to african american voters in the state. subsequently, on saturday, he spoke to an all-white audience whenite democratic women hillary clinton was in what they call the corridor of shame,

heavily populated by african-american voters. you are seeing different approaches to reaching that demographic, to earning their trust and support. hillary clinton she really did an amazing job this weekend doing that. whether you agree with her or not, she is doing that, talking to voters, whereas ernie sanders is pandering to the typical crowd that he surrounds himself with. the: is there a winner of form? guest: the form was filled with softball questions. it wasn't really an opportunity were either candidate could stand out. to addresst forced one another directly. it was a one-on-one with rachel maddow. walking away from it, there were certainly strengthen weaknesses

for every candidate, but in the days that follow, hillary clinton demonstrated that she is really serious about her on the ground campaign in south carolina. host: we showed our viewers a on "meet thecarson press" yesterday saying that he has been the subject of unfair levels of scrutiny in the campaign. here is the front page story, "carson, rubio strike back at the media, rivals." talk about the carson campaign and that recent questions about his biography. guest: the strategy has been this is an effort on behalf of the liberal mainstream media to attack my campaign, to go after , and the fact that voters see him as a trustworthy and honest candidate. to break that down, to get through that, there are constant attacks being launched on him regarding the scholarship he was

allegedly offered from west point. some of these claims he has made -- for instance, that he was at a gun pulled on him. the carson campaign is trying to spin this and say, this is an unfair amount of scrutiny that i am subject to, this is nothing like the scrutiny that president obama went through when he was being vetted in 2008, and nothing like some other candidates have gone through. i have to disagree with that. i think if you are running on your autobiography, which ben carson is because he has no political experience, you have to expect people to go and scour through the books he has written and look at every story that is part of that autobiography. really, you are running for the highest office in the country. you should expect to be vetted at this level. host: ben carson getting some

sympathy from perhaps an unexpected source yesterday. here is bernie sanders. [video clip] >> you have seen people leak out stuff you wrote 30-40 years ago. is this fair game? >> no. look, i listened to the interviews with dr. carson, and it is interesting. you know what, the american people want to know why the middle-class of this country is disappearing, why we have 47 million people living in poverty. why we have massive income inequality. when you look at dr. carson, to the best of my knowledge, this man does not believe that climate change is caused by human activity. this man wants to abolish medicare, impacting tens of millions of seniors, and give new tax breaks to the rich. i think it may be a better idea -- maybe we focus on the issues

impacting the american people, rather than spending so much time exploring their lives of 30-40 years ago. i think the reason that so may people are turned off to the political process has a lot to do with the fact that we are not talking about the real issues impacting real people. frustration about a buck a focus on the issues also shown by republican chris .hristie how much focus has there been on the candidates asking the media to focus more on these issues than the day-to-day horserace? amount. tremendous especially after the last republican debate that we saw with cnbc. a number of republican candidates, nearly all republican candidates in fact, said that this debate did not theus on the issues --

plight of middle-class americans. we need to address our middle-class platforms. a number of candidates are requesting that they be given at least 1.5 minutes to two minutes to discuss their tax planned in the next debate. chris christie went after marco bush, carly fiorina for focusing on their achievements rather than their platforms and policy prescriptions. there is a tremendous amount of concerned that the messages are rug on swept under the both the republican and a mechanic side, and going forward, we have the next debate this week, i think all of the candidates hope to have an opportunity to share their vision for the country, as opposed to bickering with each other. host: let's bring in some colors. gabby morrongiello if they guess for the next 40 minutes or so. she is based here in washington,

d.c. phone lines -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 745-8002 we will start on the life or independents with fatty in florida -- patty in florida. caller: ben carson is not opposed to scrutinizing. i believe that he believes, like me, that all presidential candidates, in fact all political candidates, should be scrutinized. is opposed to, as i am opposed to, as much of the public is opposed to, they do not believe the media because the media lies. guest: earlier this week, we saw a presson hold th conference after these claims were made about his admittance to west point. he took a hassle of questions from reporters. he is on top of that and addressing the concerns that the

media is raising. at the same time, he has said that the criticism he is subjected to completely lacks when you look at president obama, hillary clinton, and several candidates that have run for the nomination in past years. certainly ben carson understands that every presidential candidate needs to be vetted, but he claims that the extent to which he is being vetted is more or unfair. how much do you think other republicans will jump on this in the upcoming debate? guest: i do not think this is an issue that another republicans will adjust, frankly because they do not want to bring up a fact that other candidates should be vetted because that opens the door for them to be vetted. we have artie seen a number of candidates, donald trump, particularly, having to answer ofstories of his history supporting higher taxes.

marco rubio, over the weekend faced questions about his spending when he was in the florida house of representatives. really, all of these candidates understand that this is a normal part of the political process that they are going to have to face. ben carson has specifically raised that issue, saying, republicans are perhaps look ked a little more closely the democratic candidates. host: for a at how ben carson has risen in the polls, these are poll numbers from june of last year. the two lines to keep in mind here, the top like, the blue line, donald trump's polling numbers, and the red line, ben carson, recently catching up to donald trump. i should note that donald trump is ahead in the most recent cnn iowa poll, the apple having

trump at 25, carson at 23 -- oll having trump at 25, cars and at 23. i want to talk about jeb bush, and the reboot of his campaign. it. can fix go [video clip] a president has to lead. the president cannot say you are fired, and go to the commercial break. get to workt has to and fix the things that are broken right now. we are the most extraordinary country on the face of the earth . i know how to fix it. reboots, what do b can fix it "jed can fi

o." guest: he is continuing to go and talk to voters about his record. so far, we have not seen that work for him. he has gone after several candidates, that has not worked either. currently facing a crossroads where he has to come over the hurdle of marco rubio rising in the republican field. this is somewhat that he mentored the is now courting donors that previously supported bush. he has to make sure that he is taking those voters and making sure they are aware of him doing what he can to raise his poll numbers. as far as his reboot goes, it has not done much, and i do not think we will see it too much, unless he has a stellar performance in the next debate. bush, marco rubio

florida. let's go to florida where frank is waiting in fort lauderdale. caller: good morning. i was watching hillary clinton's college -- block black college in south carolina. asked the students something about gun control, and innocent people being killed in some cases. she said, yes, these innocent , their lives are precious, they have dignity, potential, and the right to life , which i agree with wholeheartedly. however, she does not apply the same standards to the unborn thate black boys and girls she advocates being killed in

.er mother's womb i do not understand how she can say that about those that are born, and not the little black girls and boys that are unborn, but she advocates their mothers killing them in the womb. guest: that is one of the biggest areas of disconnect that republican candidates have pointed out, in terms of the message on behalf of democrats. carly fiorina has been a leading overc of her record reproductive rights. she compares that, as you mentioned, to her remarks on gun rights, gun control, and gun safety legislation. but not having the same stance when it comes to protecting the unborn. this is an area of criticism where hillary clinton has had to answer to in the past, and i'm sure she will have to continue

to answer to that, especially when she goes up against the republican candidates. the headline of your stakes to hisers normal crowd." good morning, pat. caller: good morning. i want to take exception to the statement that both parties do it. host: do what? , your: your guest stated know, the ridiculous campaign stunts is by both parties. with ben carson being under scrutiny, everything he has written -- they are proving that he has embellished the fact. he has some really crazy ideas. if that does not need to be out there and foot of the voters, i don't know what does. thanks. guest: there certainly issues on

both sides that republicans and democrats have face and had to answer to. i will point out that after these concerns works brought up, regarding ben carson's record, he held a press conference and addressed these concerns, whereas hillary clinton on the democratic side has not held any long press conference where reporters have been able to ask about her e-mails. she actually shut down a press conference. ben carson, some of these claims may prove to be true, but at least he is out there addressing these concerns, which he can honestly say we have not seen from hillary clinton. camp hillary clinton's said that the 11 hour grilli

that happened before the house committee -- do they say that has been enough to address some of these concerns? guest: that is certainly the way they would spin it. you also need to speak to members of the press. hillary clinton has been one of the least willing candidates to .o so she has done a couple interviews over the summer, but most of them have been softball interviews. she is really not taking the hard questions, and i think that is why her favorability numbers are down and the majority of a americans view her as untrustworthy pure she could improve her image if she were more willing to speak to members of the press and open the address the concerns that americans have. host: frank is up next. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: good, go ahead. caller: i would just like to say

-- they have no record. why is it not fair for the media to build them a record? hillary clinton has a record, a real long record, and a real good one, but ben carson has no record. you see him getting mad because they are choking him out. he is saying stuff that makes no sense. i think you are doing it just because he is black. not because he is black, but he is a republican, and has no agenda. he said something to the president about the health care. people have pushed him up to run for president.

i'm african-american. to be that.ant i will listen to your remarks, if you have any. host: do you want to jump in? guest: i would say that i'm a firm believer in every candidate being forced to answer to the tough questions. i think ben carson, hillary clinton, and every other democrat and republican running for the office of the presidency need to face a point where there are concerns being raised and they need to answer the tough questions. has been open to answering them. he may be scrutinizing the media being madeomments about him, but at least he is out there addressing them, and addressing them one-on-one with reporters, speaking to members of the press, going on some of these networks and talking about the issues, which is something -- this is stated matter-of-factly -- something we have not made hillary clinton

do. i'm neither defending or criticizing ben carson, but i do want to point out that he is axing fielding questions and answering to some of these tough concerns that are being raised. host: in terms of the policy issues that candidates ask reporters to return the focus two, when his ben carson expected to release more deep policy papers? guest: his campaign has not mentioned when they plan to do that. we have yet to see a firm tax plan from ben carson, which is something that marco rubio has done, donald trump, jeb bush, nearly every other candidate has released. he has spoken on his tax plan and economic message, but it is very vague. i think it is something that perhaps in the next debate he will have to bring up an address. another issue is foreign policy.

you have a number of candidates with significant foreign policy talks -- carly fiorina and specifically areafortunate, that is an of the ben carson does not have expertise, and he is capable of handling america's foreign affairs if he wants to be president. host: roberta is up next, line for independents. caller: good morning. i enjoy the show. what i wanted to say is i have never seen, and all my years of watching politics, anybody delving into ben carson's childhood friends, and people in 40 years ago. my question is why don't you ever see a reporter on the liberal side delving into what inppened and been causing -- benghazi, questioning all the

people on the ground, questioning people whether or not they thought they could go in and help the ambassador. i feel that it is because he is not a politician, they always want to get these gotcha questions because he is not a politician. i have not made up my mind yet, but i have never seen this happen. i'm 77 years old. i don't ever remember seeing such slanderous questions. i'm really, really upset. i feel that there are candidates , when barack obama was coming up, i never saw them delve into his childhood friends, his mentor, who was a communist. this man is such a reputable, audible man. i cannot believe this is going on. . disagree with the last caller i feel that, given the chance to state his policies, not his

childhood friends, on whether he did or did not do something, i feel that is totally wrong. host: do you want to jump in? guest: i will just briefly say, that is the leading criticism that we have heard from ben carson's campaign. that it is unfair to be asking him about childhood friends from 40-50 years back that he claims to have trouble remembering. i will say that we did hear a , butbout jeremiah wright ben carson has raised these concerns, delivering the same message that you said that none of the other candidates are being forced to answer to some of these claims that date decades. the maininitely one of differences on his behalf. host: we talked a bit about what ben carson's cap is saying and the candidate is saying, let's show our viewers again ben carson on "meet the press."

[video clip] >> did you not expect this? >> i have always said i expected to be vetted, but being vetted, and what is going on with me -- you said the 30 years ago, you said this 20 years ago, this doesn't exist -- i have not seen that with anyone else. if you could show me where that is happening with someone else, i will take that statement back. >> i think almost every person -- this. like i have never seen this before. many other people with political experience tell me they have never seen this before. >> you don't think bill clinton or the president with his birth certificate? >> not even close. about what you think is going on? why you? >> because i'm a threat to the

sacredsives, the progressive movement in this country. i'm a very big threat. they can look at the polling data and see that i've the candidate that is most likely to bea hillary clinton. thost: ben carson's cap has said that if there is an upside to all the scrutiny it is in the fund-raising department. talk us through some of the numbers. guest: he has raised a little over $3 million over the past had, since these claims been made. ben carson has fun raised off of controversial comments that he has made in the past. he has made some comments about having a muslim president. his fundraising number shot up after that. if anything, this is beneficial to ben carson's campaign, in terms of his fund-raising. it could have an impact on

independent voters, perhaps questioning now after some of these claims have been made and the immediate reports have come out on whether or not he is truly an honest individual. host: a few stories, here is a front-page story from "the washington times," saying that only 7% of journalists say they are republican. both of the numbers are down from the 1970's. if you want to read more from that, that is from "the washington times spear go paul is waiting in indianapolis, indiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to point out that i think dr. carson is right. maddow,isten to rachel she was going ballistic. she was caring -- carrying on about it.

nobody ever gets a scholarship to west point. really, what are they picking on? stuff that happened decades ago that is very minor. no one said he was born to wealthy parents in the hamptons, or he wasn't a brain surgery, or didn't save lives. all of this stuff is minor. the press, certain branches of the press, are trying to tear down his credibility by attacking very small points, and pretending to have some meaning. it seems to me that dr. carson is right, they are desperate to stop this man. thank you very much. host: you might be interested in the editorial board of "the wall street journal," they have a piece this morning, "the carson crucible." they ended by saying, mr. carson

says voters want someone who is , and as thecian primaries arrived, voters will as much asfor policy political character, someone who can beat hillary clinton -- passing that test is mr. carson's biggest challenge. you agree with that? .uest: most definitely mr. carson have to back up his message of running off his autobiography with policy. right now he is ahead of hillary clinton and a number of polls, but in order to maintain at least, he will have to deliver some more in-depth policies, and address these areas where he has a lack of expertise. just have seen from not fellow republican candidates, but democratic candidates, there them,me concerns among among voters, that outside candidates leading -- donald trump admin carson -- really do

not have enough experience to become editor in chief. it is something he will have to continue to address, and more thoroughly. host: darlene is waiting in st. paul, minnesota. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a couple things. first of all, you had mentioned about president obama being scrutinized about his relationship with jeremiah wright. it was only fox news that was that asthat -- vetting an issue. you never heard anything from the left-wing media about that. let me ask about obama's college transcripts that have been sealed since back in 2008, when he started running for president. i never heard anything from any left-wing media outlet criticizing that. with regard to ben carson, he is

ok with being scrutinized. people need to understand that. he is ok with being scrutinized. what he doesn't like is being lied about. " actually went back and changed the headline of this story. it is not ok for media outlets to make up lies about a candidate, and then when they it, they did not even say they were sorry. with regards to west point and the scholarship, it has come out now that west point has actually had brochures, several of them, specifically, free scholarships to west point, even though it has always been paid because it is paid by for the federal government, no one

pays tuition. appliedon said he never to west point. he met with his general, they had dinner together, and he talked about him getting a scholarship for going to west point. is justtpicky things absolutely ridiculous. media suspendhe immediate things into lies? i don't agree with that. obviouslyitico has changed the title of that story. they erased the word "fabricated." again, ben carson campaign would agree with you. there are a number of little issues that are being brought up the other candidates have not had to address. we just thought in a clip

recently, he has invited examples of the same level of scrutiny towards president obama, hillary clinton, and other candidates to be brought to attention because he claims that so far that has not been seen. host: market is waiting in connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. abouted to first call in the abortions and women's health . we find that most of the clinics being shut down are in lower income. regardless, i wish that more people would pay attention to the quality of life after that child is born, and see them through hard times and good times, rather than just focus on whether that woman should have a child or not. have participated in a child of mine being

aborted, but that is my decision. you know, i think we should be doing more for each child as they are born. host: on that subject, i want to ask you about the supreme court expected to take up an abortion case at some point this term. how do you think that will impact and be played out, not only in the supreme court, but also on the campaign trail? guest: it will become a huge topic on the campaign trail. it will cycle through the news cycle, and it is something that candidates will either piggyback .ff of, or oppose based on what we have seen with the oral argument and what the case ends up turning out like. recently, with the defund planned parenthood effort, abortion has always been a huge issue, when it comes to presidential election cycles. it is one of the most divisive

social issues. it will certainly play a role if you have a president shall election cycles simultaneously occurring when you have a case like this being brought to the supreme court. host: steve from missouri is up next, by for democrats. all, the ladyof p ben carson has not come out with a tax plan. his tax plan will be the same as everyone else -- we have paid the taxes, always will, always will, never going to change, always the same. america, in my opinion, is the dumbest people that vote. the only vote for one thing, basically guns and religion. i live on a farm, i have guns. the whole thing is just crazy. it's all about special interests, lobbyists, everything

is screwed up right now. it is not -- it's a lot of things going on that i don't agree with. just think ben carson has thin skin. kennedy was attacked for being the first catholic president. every president gets attacked. another thing, when you start talking about pharmaceutical companies, all the art are drug cartels for america. have a really nice day. internet segment, we will be joined by sarah ferris of "the hill" newspaper to talk drugs.harmaceutical we are joined by gabby morrongiello. linda is in new albany, ohio, line for independents. caller: good morning.

i want to talk about the way the media covers campaigns these days. i'm in a swing state. we have been inundated over the last several elections of people pounding on the door everything night, claiming to be bipartisan, and then they had you a picture of the candidate that they support. we have had coverage of the quintessential example of media bias. it is not just bias, it is marketing. they choose a candidate and promote them. i would like to have a record of how may times they say hillary clinton's name or donald trump's all day.ything we are being manipulated. i would just like personally to hear the candidates, what they have to say about taxes, health care, about all those things. we have to hear about whether jeb bush's candidacy is losing

money. i don't care about that. i care about what will make a decision for my life. that's all. host: donald trump, one of the candidates who is taking his viaage right to the voters his own ads that he has purchased. here is a bit from one of his first radio ads. [video clip] [audio clip]-800 >> my opponents have no experience in making jobs or creating deals. money backg jobs and to the united states. i will take care of our veterans, and make our military so strong that no one will mess with us. i will secure our borders, and yes, we will have a wall. you cannot have a country without borders. i will make sure the second amendment and are religious

liberties are protected. obamacare is a total disaster. it will be replaced with something much better. if the people of iowa vote for me, you will not be disappointed. i never disappoint people. together, we will make america great again. i'm donald trump, candidate for president, and i approve this message. host: donald trump taking a kitchen sink strategy. guest: right. if you listen to some of the signature make america great held, thatt he has commercial is everything he says rally ininute-one hour one minute. a really packs and this idea that donald trump is reaching so many voters and drumming up so much support among republicans because he speaks at a fourth grade level. , it that as what you will

seems to be working in his favor. dumbed downown -- .is message, and is resonating speaking in these platitudes, donald trump is somebody who knows what he wants to get across, and he is getting that across. he continues to do that and media appearances. he does not stray from his message. host: the latest iowa republican there. on the caucus the cnn poll has trombetta 25, at 25,at 23 -- trump carson at 23. mark, california, independent. caller: good morning.

carson, didn'ten he write this stuff in the book about himself? the knife with his but belt buckle. why shouldn't we be able to check on them? the other thing is on the republican side, they are all against the right for a woman to choose if they can have an abortion or not would take a pill. .o me, leave it up to the woman she has to deal with that later in life. they don't have to support that kid, she does. leave it up to the woman. thank you. host: talking about ben carson's book. guest: he has written a number

of these things in his book and some publications have reached out to some of his former classmates and other people who are involved in some of the claims he is making in order to corroborate the story. so far, they have not been successful in doing so. that is certainly something that ben carson's campaign is had to answer to. if a number of these people he claims to have these experiences with our and able to come forward and substantiate these claims, that is going to his personaiminish as being trustworthy and honest. reporters, myself included, are working diligently to ensure that some of these stories and concerns are addressed. it would help to cooperate -- to corroborate his stories that that's something we are not seeing so far.

host: clinton township, michigan, line for democrats, good morning. carson said things about himself. he is promoting himself in a way. he should be questioned about that. why shouldn't we be able to question if those things are true? if he makes this stuff up, that goes to his credibility. so many callers have said this is something that's being done by the left to people on the right. boatay that the swift affected john kerry, let me remind you. guest: ben carson is somebody running on his autobiography. politicalt have experience or a voting record in the senate or the house or in a state legislature.

a lot of these concerns being brought up are because that is the only thing that reporters and members of the press can go after him on and make sure he is telling the truth and he is an honest individual and fit to be president of the united states. whereas on some of the other candidates like jeb bush or who has been vocal in candidates, these candidates have to address the more political statements they have made and issues that are tied to their policies. ben carson really has to answer to his life experiences. you can see all of her work and stories online at washington examiner.com. guest: thanks for having me. joinedp next, we will be by a health care reporter with "the by a health care reporter with "the hill" newspaper.

the government accountability office, we will discuss estimates by the census bureau that the 2020 survey will cost as much as $17 billion. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of united states should draw near and give their attention. korematsu oppose the forest internment of japanese during world war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation, he took his case all the way to the supreme court. on landmark cases, we will discuss the historic supreme court case ofkoremat versus the united states. after the attack on pearl

harbor, fdr issued an order people of >>00 japanese-american origin to interment camps. >>this is a re-creation of one of the barracks. the barracks or 20 feet wide and 120 be long and they were divided into six different rooms. they did not have shoebox or ceilings or the masonite on the floor. it would have been freezing even in the daytime. the only eating they would have had would have been a potbelly stove but this would not have been able to heat the entire room in a comfortable way. >> challenging the evacuation defy theed kormatsu order and was arrested and his case wanted supreme court. find out how the court ruled in view of the war powers of congress with our guest peter irons.

and karen koematsu, daughter of the plaintiff. mood duringore the world war ii and follow his life before, during, and after the court decision. that's coming up on the next landmark cases live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span three, and c-span radio. for background on each case, order your copy of "the landmark cases" companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping at www.c-span.org/landmark cases. c-span is the best access to congress. watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span two. watches online or on your phone at www.c-span.org, listen live anytime and are c-span radio app, get best access from behind-the-scenes by following

c-span and our capitol hill reporter craig kaplan on twitter. stay with c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org for your best access to congress. >> "washington journal" continues -- ferris is a health care reporter to talk about prescription drug prices and charges of the pharmaceutical companies profiteering with her drug prices. drugs,t of prescription are they on the rise across the board or do they stem from a few high-profile cases of prices rising? guest: the cost of rent name and generic perception drugs have been rising rapidly than we have seen in the past. they still make up less than about 10% of overall health care spending but this is the fastest-growing segment of the health care overall. we get a lot of attention numbers fiction drugs because that is where people are seeing

their prices rise. . factorsat are the usual for jumps prices for construction drugs? guest: pharmaceutical companies say the cost of research and development is going up as the drugs become more complex. part of it aser more medicines are being approved in the medicines are -- are moreeated complicated, some of them is precision medicine and is more expensive to engineer them. how much transparency are there in drug prices? we have seen reports comparing the same drug in united states versus other countries. guest: that is the sticking point is that customers and on capitol hill we hear democrats and some republicans say that needs to be more transparency into the cost of drugs, how much money are the companies pouring into research and development, what kind of profits are they seeing in the first years. the companies will say it takes tenures to recover the cost of a

drug which can be about $2 billion to produce one drug. customers are not exactly seeing that when the price they ultimately see is filtered down through their insurance company which gets to determine their prices. it's not something you can walk into a pharmacy and know exactly what cost went into that. host: when it comes to members of congress, where did they see these countries have crossed the line and going to profiteering where it's no longer just trying to cover your research costs and regular supply and demand? guest: there are half a dozen companies that are either under . probe or on the radar these representatives are sending letters requesting documents and want to know how the prices are being formed and want to know in cases where the prices go up overnight like some

companies we've heard of, they want to know when the decision was made to do that and what kinds of information they had that would justify a decision like that. across seen this all o the country which is described as profiteering. we still do not know exactly whether they were following the rules. host: remind us of some guest: high-profile examples. guest:we have seen valley and where the prices of the drug that had already been developed. it was about a 50-year-old drug with turing pharmaceutical. it almost went up 5000% overnight. it costs $17 originally and exploded in price. that has been the easiest target. valley in pharmaceuticals has been accused of similar moves where they would bring up that price almost immediately after

buying the company even though it had already been out there. in some cases, these are drugs used to treat patients with hiv. they are getting a lot of controversy on this. there are subpoenas served to these companies. the new york and massachusetts attorneys are requesting documents. we can see this end up in court. saraherris is our guest erris is our guest and the phone numbers are on the screen. we will talk about this for about the next 40 minutes. decatur, illinois, line for democrats. 64, allyou recall at commercials were about cigarettes. programs, all the

commercials are on medical drugs. every commercial is drugs. that's not right and we know it's not right, america. ist: are you saying there too much advertising being allowed by the pharmaceutical industry? do they have too much money to run these ads? caller: you know it. when i was a kid, every ad was about a cigarette. now they are all about drugs. what about the profits for pharmaceutical companies? guest: the advertising budgets for pharmaceutical companies is something that democrats are working to change. there are proposals laid out by hillary clinton and that would restrict the amount of money that companies can spend on average rising. that issomething definitely on the radar of a lot of lawmakers and it's something that's not heavily regulated. it's an area where there is a lot to be done if that's the direction lawmakers want to go.

pharmaceutical companies will argue they have invested audience of dollars into these drugs of the amount of money they spend on marketing is important in any to get those drugs at the consumer and make people aware they exist. hillary clinton is using some of her own funding to run advertisements specifically hitting the pharmaceutical industry for some of these issues. here is a bit from one of her ads running in iowa and new hampshire. [video clip] to deal with skyrocketing out-of-pocket costs. 32-year-old head of a pharmaceutical company raised prices overnight. i want to crack down on these abuses. after may be lowering it hillary clinton blast them out of the water. >> nobody in america should have to choose between buying the medicine they knees and paying the rent. i'm hillary clinton and i approve this message. that is her and come out

much are republicans focusing on this issue? is it a bipartisan issue? guest: it is a tougher issue for republicans. believethe republicans and addressets these problems but senator marco rubio has been very vocal and said he would combat drug profiteering. a plannot yet laid out to reduce the cost of drugs that hillary clinton and her democratic rival bernie sanders have laid out. senator rubio has been the most vocal on the republican side. those who don't address it will be missing out on a very important way to get at the pocketbook issue. this is something that increasingly affects consumers. if they do not address this it used of will be ignoring it and they could

suffer in the polls next fall. host: there is a quotation from marco rubio -- "the washington times" - former republican congressman of minnesota has a column talking about why democrats and republicans should both take up this issue in the 2016 election. michael in phones, california, line for independents. caller: good morning. ssri.stion is about i heard the pharmaceutical industry passes out more money to capitol hill than almost any

other industry. do you believe after seeing all the advertisements we have all seen seeing it may cause suicidal thoughts, do you think it is morally proper? not sure if she is here to talk about the morals of this issue. guest: the pharmaceutical industry is one of the biggest industries in terms of the amount of money they donate to candidates. that's because it is an enormous industry, one of the biggest in the country, in the world. we will see a lot of money going back and forth. republicans tend to benefit from the pharmaceutical companies donations. it's about a 60/40 split so it makes it tougher for republicans arecially when they spending so much time working with these companies to focus on the free market economics they want to see and give pharmaceutical companies room to innovate and room to develop new

medications that are expensive to develop. the pharmaceutical companies spend billions to fight back some of the regulations they think are restraining the innovation and encourage their own research and development. morgantown,go to north carolina, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. let me finish my statement. the amount of money being spent on capitol hill on both sides for the republicans and the democrats in campaign money and so forth, the pharmaceutical companies, it does not matter which party is in there, they are bought and paid for. if you look at the amount of money we give them in tax dollars to subsidize them for research through our universities and so forth, the american people, a lot of the research is paid for by the american people.

there are no controls whatsoever on the profits they make on these drugs. they've got medications that cost them $.30 apiece to make that they sell for $100 for a single pill and this is true. you've got another situation with the trade laws, they are going to these other countries to get ingredients and manufacturing in other places, cheap, uncontrolled medications and materials they use to make them and then bring them in guidelines of a drug that was made here when it's not even made here. they are using the same tests marketinging on the and saying it's ok when the drug was never even made on this soil and was not made with the same restrictions. the pharmaceutical companies are way out of control. they are terribly corrupt all the way around. people to usepay

as guinea pigs on the weekend. it's pretty bad. there needs to be some definite controls put into place and what they can charge for a hell in regards to how much -- for a pill in regards to how much a cause them to produce. host: did you want to pick up on any aspect of that? guest: the caller raises concerns that we hear across capitol hill and the country where people think the pharmaceutical companies are not under enough regulations. what many people don't realize is that the fda is heavily involved in the process of andarch development particularly the final approval of these drugs which can take a decade. than1/4 of drugs that go into clinical trial received final approval from the fda. there is more regulation than people realize.

the process is not very transparent because is complicated and drags out for many years but what we see is that there are democrats and some republicans who want that process to be more open and they want pharmaceutical companies and the fda to be more public about what goes into the drugs and howfinal approval they get to the final cost and why they picked those prices for the market. host: these are some of the pressure points that congress can use to influence the bottom-line prices. guest: right, it's difficult because congress is separate from the fda. a lot of this is through the regulatory process and the white house is already through the health care law and other tighteneds, it has some of the ways the fda works with these companies and approves the final medicine. in 2014, we saw a record number of medicines approved, about 400 received final approval from the

fda. that is more than past years and it shows that even though companies continue to say there and a much regulation slow flow of drugs being approved, we are seeing progress made on that front. host: there is a chart showing the changes in health care -2014-2015.om 2013 this shows the change in hospital care costs. cynthia is up next on kansas city, missouri, the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning, my concern with the pharmaceutical industry is my mother is in her 80's and is on a staten drug.

she becomes diagnosed with prediabetes. this is a fairly active 80-year-old woman. spirit we find out that the staten drug, one of the side effects is diabetes. i'm thinking to myself, high cholesterol is probably less dangerous. but it shouldtor be less dangerous than diabetes. i wonder if we have not created an entire society that relies 100% on what the standard medical profession recommends which we all know that a lot of the pharmaceutical companies support a lot of medical schools. it's a little bit epidemic and out of control on that end. to the gentleman from the carolinas, i might say maybe it's time we took it into our , take our cult back in her own hands, look at the way we eat and we are active and dispel some of these drugs that

are just rampant and rapidly being prescribed. if you take your health into your own hands come you never need these things. we can take the power away from the prescription drug companies simply by regulating our own health. is raising aller concern to some that the number of people using prescription drugs is going up. you can look at the number of people living with cancer and they are living longer than ever. there are some obvious upsides to the increased use of prescription drugs. the raises questions about role of doctors in prescribing these and educating patients and making sure they fully understand side effects. has anextent the drug impact is not clear in that needs to be made clear to the patient.

these are many things that people in health care world talk about all the time, about the role of the patients and the doctor and where pharmaceutical companies factor in at a time when you can flip on the tv and see pharmaceutical ads in any 32nd commercial break. we hear more about these drugs than ever. there is definitely increased pressure from many in the health-care world to make sure people fully understand the role of those drugs. ads, fromhe issue of twitter -- guest: this is a very big issue a capitol hill and that the white house. wasas something that included as part of the 12 nation trade deal made public last week. get 12eutical companies years in the united states of market exclusivity which means they have the right to their data from clinical trials,

making it so other companies cannot develop the same drugs, making it so generics cannot come to market first certain number of years. pharmaceutical companies will argue that they need that 6-8 years to get it to market. it takes a long time for the -- through the regulation process for these medicines to make it to the market. they need thet remaining six years to make a profit, making one drug can cost about $2 billion. this is something president obama and hillary clinton have said vocally that they want to reduced 12 year period so that generic drugs can have a chance to get into the market sooner and it drives down the cost of those drugs. but pharmaceutical companies in the u.s. will argue that you cannot just look at canada and europe because they don't have the same level of research and development.

world'sook at where the largest pharmaceutical companies are, they are largely in the united states. herose the company's facing certain regulatory pressures, they have to deal with the regulations already on paper. that is why they argue that the 12 years is needed and they say you cannot compare it to these other countries. host: columbia, maryland, line for independents. hello to you and your guest and america. chance to make my comment, please. host: go ahead. caller: it would be interesting for you to shed light on how many foreign pharmaceutical companies actually do business with us here. they by our pharmaceutical companies and then they go home.

a seems like we are getting lot of the medication as well as manufactured in other foreign countries. payink the cost of what we and what their people at home for i think we are paying all these foreign pharmaceutical companies who do business at home but we are paying for them. us howyou would tell many of the real american companies, pharmaceutical companies, are still here or have they all left? i have been dealing with rite -aid and that has been bought.

i think they bought walgreens. they are keeping the name walgreen but it has been bought by a foreign country. boughtite-aid as well so i'm wondering if my cost for my drugs are going to go up? i appreciate you shedding light on this and thank you. host: thanks for the question. the impact of foreign pharmaceutical companies? guest: there are foreign companies, this is a necessary market. we have to keep in mind is that any u.s. company that thates drugs and any drug comes from overseas has to be approved by the fda here so there are strict regulations that each company must follow. regardless of where a drug is

developed, it does have to pass a standard here. the issue the caller raises the consolidation of certain pharmacies. that is something that congress will set it will look into. some of these companies have strong negotiation powers so it's not clear the impact that largerome from these companies and having greater negotiation power. out: you can always check the hill.com. you can call in and will ask a question. morning, just echoing what i have heard from previous callers -- i was encouraged by hillary clinton's comments about the profiteering and what she would like to see done if she is elected. i picked on what was said and

how it relates to politics. i think it's a very poor reflection on our country that people are profiting or exploiting for profit life-saving drugs. i think that's awful. democrats in congress seem to be acting on this and they want more transparency and some republicans -- that's the key. -- what abouthe the constraint about a woman's right to choose as opposed to taking care of their living and applying regulations on the profiting rather than listening to the lobbyists who they seem to be dealing with on capitol hill? that's all i have to say. storiese of your recent -- responsebeen the new

from pharma after the campaign ads? we have seen politics take control of the 2016 race. since the summer, the pharmaceutical trade group pharma has come out and they are , they are really trying to make sure people understand the back story for how each drug is developed and want people to understand where the billions of dollars are going on the macro level. they are holding briefings for reporters, they are running ads on the radio, they are running ads in newsletters read by lawmakers and aides. they are trying to make sure their name is out there and not just in the headlines with these negative headlines about drug companies raising prices. pharma has made clear that the that it does not condone the practices that the embattled ceo

pharmacies, he has become a household name. as democratic candidates take advantage of this, they are seizing on the controversial figures in the pharmaceutical world. pharma says we don't condone this and we want to make clear that we have these high standards and they are trying to dispute them and distance themselves from the controversial companies. host: our viewers can look up pharma in manufactures of america. piedmont, south carolina, line from publicans deadline for republicans, good morning. caller: i have determined in the recent past that any time a aboutcian makes claims good, bad, or otherwise, it wanting to get the checkbook out and send over the lobbyists ar.

they are just trying to pay off the deal. i don't know why the way it works in our particular political world. i always thought that was criminal. seems to be fine for everybody in the political world to just grab money however they can. i think it's just a callout out to tell them i'm ready to take your check. that's the way it works. host: can you talk about the lobbying spending, especially in previous election cycles and how this issue has influenced the rise and flow of money coming through the lobbying system? guest: we saw a lot of spending on his issue during the development and creation of the affordable care act. more to do with the

insurance provisions but pharmaceutical drugs and companies were impacted by that. i think we are set to see the spending rise significantly in 2016. this is a major pocketbook issue for people now. if politicians do not address this, they could be seen as not into the middle class and lower middle class voters. senator marco rubio has been the first republican to come out and say i'm going to make sure these companies are not carrying out the so-called profiteering models. i think we will see more republicans forced to confront this and democrats are already seizing on it. pharmasure to see that has been active on capitol hill and they will have to launch a counterattack on the national stage to make sure people understand. it has not come up too much on televised debates yet. hillary clinton said drug companies were one of her enemies when asked about this in one of the final questions of

the last democratic debate. if these companies do not step up their lobbying and don't get their point across, there are further message won't be heard. host: the message they could use is one that dana is advocating on twitter -- if you want to join the conversation, you can call on our numbers. laura is up next from troy, michigan, independent. caller: i am very familiar with this particular topic because my husband, son, daughter-in-law, granddaughter our physicians. that was a drug representative. moment, pharma is

headed by a politician -- i'm sorry, his name escapes me-he left a job in congress to take the $2 million job working for pharma. lly is alsoscu involved with the pharmaceutical area. when my husband and son were practicing, they still are, a drug representative would come out and explain the different drugs and how they work. it was a very clear description of what was going on. the pharmaceutical industry thought we won't pay these people so let's put ads on television and magazines. on television, if anybody has a moment of attention, when they introduce a drug, they have so

many side effects that you wonder why in the world anyone would take them. magazines,tising in the drug representatives from the company, they came out the office and explain the advantages and disadvantages of their particular product. there was some comparisons made with other products in that area. i think the doctors had a better of theanding pharmaceutical component. now, they are left to have to do a lot of the research themselves. it's a sad state of affairs in our country when the can exertical lobby so much pressure to the disadvantage of the populace that needs drugs.

there are many drugs that came out that were just fabulous. don't want to denigrate the pharmaceutical industry but politics has gotten into the act . i, for one, would be very happy we eliminated all lobbyists. all they do is muddy the water and do not help the general population. thank you, c-span, for having this young lady on. c-span is the greatest. thank you very much. what we heard this caller reference is politics and the pharmaceutical industry. that is something that has always been the case. we are always going to see an overlap in the role of lobbyists is important for from a surgical

companies looking to restric some of the regulations looking to make some of these policies more favorable to the development of the drugs. it is always a controversial issue with money and drugs in politics. explain toult to people who are not in the halls of congress. that number is always growing. there are number of lobbyists involved in this issues. .there is a poll in today's " host: washington times. " if found 88% of health care onme the cost of health care pharmaceutical companies. it's time for a few more calls. california, our line republicans, you are up next. caller: thank you, don't the

side effects make you need more drugs? from what i understand, the fda and drug companies are working together. don't doctors get money by putting people on drugs? this is what i understand. in the lot of corruption drug companies plus the gmo foods we your immune system so you need more drugs. everything is leading to more and more drugs. that's what i see anyway. i would like to have a doctor but i don't really have one. because a lot of people tell me that they go in for a small surgery and come out dead. on tv, they say if you're going

to exercise or do anything, check with your doctor. i feel for myself that i cannot trust them. everything is about drugs. it's not about america anymore. it's not about the people. it's all about profit. i would like your insight on that. regards to the doctor-patient relationship and how the role of drugs factor into that is something the obama administration has been working aggressively on behind the scenes. separate from the affordable care act, this is an issue for secretary burwell. what sheses a model of calls value-based payments. that basically means that doctors are highly aware of their patient outcomes and they are encouraged to find solutions

that do not revolve around prescription drugs or costly treatments. this is a way of reducing the cost of overall health care as well as moving away from the focus on immediately prescribing something that could help but maybe there's another form of therapy that the obama administration could help see covered under medicare or other insurance plans. it is a move that has been years in the works and it will be a long transition to doing this kind of system which we have seen in other countries and the obama administration is hoping they can rebel. host: hastings, michigan is up next. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of comments. when it comes to the prescription drug bill, why do republicans insist the government could not negotiate? a just have to take the price that was put up?

my other comment is-why we 't buy drugs overseas? it will push the price down this country and that's of the companies who make drugs don't want. a lot of these studies for the statins are funded by the drug companies with very minute improvements. it's enough to tell your doctor to get on a new one as he gets a kickback. there were two or three former circle reps sitting in a room waiting to see the doctor. i switched doctors and i did not need to be in either medication i was on. allowtor does not salespersons to come to his office now. he treats medicine. he does not treat -- he uses a better understanding. he doesn't just try to put people on pills. that's my comments.

when the prescription drug bill, that to leave the vote open longer than normal. --en senators were climb were crying because they were browbeat her into voting for it and they did not think it was a good bill. the senators and congresspeople that pushed it, most of them eventually became lobbyists for the drug companies. that's my comments and i think they have way too much control in this country. explain the history the caller is referring to. guest: >> i think the caller is referring to the 2003 law that created part b medicare which covered certain prescription drugs. that has been resurfacing as an issue right now on capitol hill. democrats in particular are saying we need to renegotiate that law and we need to create stronger receptor actions. some say that needs to be a cap

on drug spending for the population and not just for people who need medicare. where there are some misnomers. the pharmaceutical companies will argue that while the government is not directly negotiating, there are many negotiations happening behind the scenes between insurers and the companies. that's someone they will argue has been miscommunicated. that is that's -- that'sbecause partially because the process is not that transparent and some politicians want to change that. host: let's see if we can get kyle from san diego, california. what the'm wondering role of packaging plays. brand-name drugs are more expensive than generics. once you get a generic, the

price goes down astronomically. i'm wondering why politicians are not proposing ending these patents which allow the pharmaceutical companies to -- suchthe cost says it as the aids drug that was in the news a few weeks ago where the cost when up to $750. is there any discussion in d.c. about patents. of the biggestne issues we see related to the cost of prescription drugs. it's not necessarily in the halls of capitol hill but it something the white house has aggressively try to change as part of the 12 nation trade deal that was made public last week are. companies have fiercely defended their 12 years of exclusivity but people involved with patience and dr. groups say that

hinders the access to drugs. were intendedics to come to market earlier, the cost could go down. that is very difficult to engage with in existing laws because pharmaceutical companies believe strongly that if the protections went away, we would be -- we would see fewer new medicines. longercess would take because the process would not -- would be longer. this is something that's because of change how the pharmaceutical companies are not protecting that. it's an issue where we will see this on the campaign trail. electionee it in the and it's something that if this deal comes back before congress, probably sometime in the spring, we will hear more about that.

there is more reporting to do on this one. thank you for your time this morning. next, we will have our weekly your money segment and we are coffed i robert golden and the upcoming 2020 census. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> tonight on the communicators, we will discuss cyber security threats facing the u.s. and other countries. james lewis from the center for strategic and international studies is our guest and talks about what the u.s. is doing to avoid attacks by russia and china and cyber security

legislation passed by the house and senate. on the program, he is joined by tim starks, cyber security reporter for politico. >> dhhs has a grand mission to defend the nation cyberspace that they have neither authority or resources. nothing will change. they need to think about critical infrastructure. 2012 would have dealt with critical infrastructure but probably not in the right way. you saw the obama administration put out an executive order in 2013 that imposed very light requirements on critical infrastructure to protect their networks3 congress needs to go back and ask of that is enough. ♪ watch the communicators tonight on c-span two. >> c-span has the best access to congress. watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span two. watch is online or on your phone

you can listenorg. live anytime on our c-span radio app and get best access from behind the scenes by following c-span and are capitol hill reporter craig kaplan on twitter. stay with c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org for your best access to congress. c-span has her coverage of the road to the white house 2016 where you will find the candidates, the speeches, debates, and your questions. this year, we are taking our road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with their student can contest. it will give students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most in the candidates. follow c-span student cam broadcasts.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: each week we take a look at how your money is at work. he studied the 2020 census. what is the projected cost of the upcoming 2020 count and how does that compare to the 2010 census? guest: it is projected to cost $12.2 billion. to make an accurate comparison, it's better to look at it but unit costs. you would expect costs to increase because the population is increasing. about $94ensus cost to count every single housing unit. the senses bureau goal is to

count, in 2020, everybody at the same cost or less. the senses bureau was going to use the same methods at 2010 but the cost would be higher so they are introducing various innovations to hopefully deliver a more cost-effective headcount. host: of that cost per unit, what is the main cost driver? guest: a lot of it is field operations. the senses is conducted on the ground pretty much. it is developing the adra's database and following up with people who don't return their census forms and that's huge. the census bureau projects the nonresponse will be over 50 million housing units. these are people have to

go door to door after the mailing is not returned? guest: that's correct. thatensus bureau realized various innovations were needed because the approach to counting the nation's population was no longer cost-effective. basically, the populations becoming larger and more diverse and people are less willing to participate in the senses. a decade after decade, it was costing the senses bureau -- they would have to put in more money to get the same result. give people a size of the census bureau and how much that expands with the short-term workers when in actual senses processes taking place? guest: to give you some context, i will refer to the old way of doing business. it was the way it was done from 1970-2010. it was referred to as the modern senses. it is approaching middle-age

because it is over 40 years old. they have been conducting the senses the same way for the last 40 years. one of the reasons why it is costly, 13 billion dollars in 2010, and the reason is the population is larger. 300 20 million people. there are 130 million households. to conducted that nonresponse follow-up operation, knocking on doors across the country to people who did not return their census form, the census bureau has to hire around 600,000 people to conduct that operation. to hit that 600 house and because there is a lot of turnover, they had to recruit over 3 million people. that's like the population of enough people get to conduct a follow-up operation. isn't counting people easy? it's really not if you look at

how people live today. the senses bureau count people if you live in a traditional housing unit. it can count people very cost-effectively. a lot of people live in hitting housing units in my be living in a converted his miranda car behind a house23.we have migrant farm workers and people who don't speak english. for all those reasons, it's why the cost adds up and the senses becomes an enormous enterprise. informationthe same that the census bureau has been collecting? over time, the questions changed. asked have in 2010, it was 10 questions that were asked. it not take that long.

-- it did not take that long. your name, your age, race and ethnic information and then asks questions to make sure they were counting people in the right place not missing anybody. it was just 10 questions. there was a long form question that people may remember. the census bureau did away with this just prior to the 2010 census. all those questions that were on the longform questionnaire are asked as part of a different survey. if you have questions about the senses or how it's run come our phone lines are open. you can also catch up with us on social media. we are on twitter and facebook. our first caller is from lakeland, minnesota, good morning. caller: good morning, america

and good morning c-span. us an idea of what the percentage is of what the actual count and the being and how far off it is or isn't? if we are going to spend all this money, when we figure out how many felons are out there from being here illegally and get account of that? guest: a very good question. in terms of the size of the 2020, the, for current population is something like 322 million people. the census is very accurate. 2010, there was a net over which isone 1/100 roughly 30,000 people who were included more than once in the

senses area -- in the senses. census. that number does not tell the whole story and you need to look at the components. some people are easier to count than others. whites, more affluent people and older people tend to be counted more than once in the senses - census. children and african-american males are harder to count. going back to 2010, there was an under count of african-american males of 2%, american indians living on reservations of around 5%. bureauue for the census is to reduce as much as possible that differential under count and make sure there is a fair census.

if the mistakes are evenly distributed but it's not ok if some groups are impacted more than others. the census bureau works very hard to make sure there is no differential under count. in answer to your second question about illegal immigration, actually, illegal immigrants are included in the census count. it's basically everybody who is here residing in this country regardless of their legal status records where they live and sleep most of the time. they will be included in the census and court decisions have upheld that. host: for those who are more visual learners, here is a chart showing the cost of the united states census through the years from 1970-2020. the 2010 census was at 12.3 billion. if the census was done the same

way, it would be estimated to be 7.8 ilion dollars. they think they can cut down the cost. talking about the old way from 1970hings, through 2010, the census bureau mailed out millions of questionnaires. they built an address database to everyout enumerated street in this country to verify addresses. that was done two years prior to the census. a couple of weeks before senses day which is always april 1 of the centennial year, they would mail out millions of questionnaires and hopefully people would fill up those forms and mail them in and for the people who did not respond, the census bureau with send out temporary workers to knock on doors. . they would collect the information with paper and pencil. it was very extensive.

1970, $16 to count every household. the costs have been escalating. was $39. $70 in 2000. $95, and became unsustainable. they are encouraging people to respond to the internet. ae census bureau did that on limited basis and going to encourage people to respond via the internet. they think they can save around

$400 million with the internet response. they are using a different approach for the address list. records, postal service records, to make sure they have a complete address list. they believe they can say $900 million that way. by restructuring field operations, automating what used to be done via pencil and paper. they are going to use handheld application,the and they can collect the information that way. they can reduce the number of census offices and save as much as $2.5 billion.

using information that people have already provided state and local governments. things like social security information, tax information. the census bureau wants to use that to fill in information for people who did not respond. that can save 1.40 yeah dollars. $5.2 billion about in savings. host: we're taking your comments and lots about the 2020 census and any questions you have. robert goldenkoff is with the gao and is testified before congress last week. carrie, good morning. caller: i was wondering about

statistical sampling. this was a big issue for the last census. i wonder if you could explain what that was. guest: the issue goes back to the 2000 census. it almost derail the entire census. usingller is referring to statistical sampling for nonresponse follow-up. it was difficult to count the last segment of the population. enumerators will knock on doors as many as six times. you can see how expensive that can be. the census bureau developed a plan to sample for a part of

nonresponse follow-up. was that a violation of the constitution or title 13, the statutory authority? it went to the supreme court and using the statistical sampling was found to the a violation of title 13. there will be other forms of sampling. not the same kind of sampling the bureau used in 2000. host: what was that decided? guest: in the past it was six follow-ups to make sure that the census bureau included you, because people work, it may not be home when the census enumerator came by.

if you do not get them on the first couple, you're not going to get them. they have changed the business rule. to three it back now attempts. it is to catch people upstream and help people respond via the internet. they will send out an enumerator once. they will try to enumerate that household with administrative records. is,ller: my question to you for many years they have categorized hispanic, asian and other. my thing about the census bureau , the only thing that is black

when are as people -- you going to change the category of african-american instead of black and anglo-saxon instead of white? guest: i do not work with the census bureau. i work for the government accountability office, which oversees the census. we provide the oversight so everything stays on track. which isn some thing another reason why what makes the census complicated but complex, how we identify ourselves. ethnicity,ies, race, it changes over time. the categories can be confusing.

they do not exactly see themselves in those categories. for the 2010 censusn there are two questions. it asks if you are hispanic. a second question asks about your race. that. were confused by that," so theyed would skip it. the race question is the other fees to that -- other piece to that. there was white, african-american, asian. you could fill in the blank with your particular ancestry. it also asks if you are a member of an american indian tribe.

-in for provided a write other races. you could check off all that apply. country.sity in the there was issues and confusion. gave some bureau people an alternate questionnaire experiment. they were looking at different ways of wording the question and different categories. the census bureau is still working with that. theapproach is to combine questions. there was something going on right now, a national content test, which is being tested. the order, the wording. some people might want to see

middle east and north africa represented as a separate category. it is extremely complex. reportse gao puts their online. testified lastff week. you can check it out, gao.gov. nadia is up next on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i think we touched on my question. when we see a category for north africa and the middle east. there is just white -- i mean the migration was in the 1940's. we have been classified with the white, and that affects the quarter system -- quota system.

reality as reflect far as the census itself. if that will appear as an option for the proper box. thank you. guest: it is something the census bureau is working on and subject to continue testing. tension withys enough categories, and also keeping that form essentially to one page. it is trying to get it right and trying to keep the content so it doesn't extend to 40 pages long. host: harold, good morning. caller: good morning. 1970, how -- since

many federal employees are in washington, d.c., and how many are outside d.c.? what is the function of the government accountability office ? guest: ok, sure. the role of the government accountability office. we are an independent arm of the congress. we are non-partisan. performance and accountability of federal agencies on behalf of tax payers. we save billions of dollars every year through our recommendations. this.nsus does not count federal3 of the workforce is outside of washington, d.c. about 1/3 is inside washington,

d.c. host: one report, the high risk that comes out each year, the federal programs that are high risk, not doing their jobs. as the census bureau ever made that list? 2000: yhees, for the census and also the 2010 census. there was a dispute over sampling. that went down to the wire. it was on the high risk list for the 2010 list for a couple of reasons. the cost estimates were unreliable. there were concerns over the technology. they have to pull the plug on the handheld devices. runcensus bureau had simply

out of time and could not test a lot of the devices they had planned to use. 2020.s a theme going into one of the biggest challenges is the taking of the -- ticking of the clock, to keep everything on it critical path. host: the clock never stops ticking. is conductednsus on a tight timeframe. it has legally mandated deadlines that it needs to meet. the census bureau has to deliver the data by december 31, and then data that is used to redistrict congressional

districts is mandated to be reported no later than april 1 following the year of the census . the implication is the clock is always ticking. there are no reset buttons or do overs. people are concerned about the census. this is crunch time for the census bureau. they need to get hundreds and hundreds of operations to take place at the right time, just to be on the flight path. host: go ahead. caller: good morning. you arelike to state, saying a lot of the information comes from the post office.

i am not sure how accurate that is. people are moving all the time. i was wondering how much money the taxpayers save if we stop the amendment to the constitution. the 12th amendment talks about the census and discusses the numeric people, and it is not supposed to be about at the city. the 14th amendment does not guarantee any rights to those who are not citizens. how much money would we say if we gave a numeric number? i will take my answer off the line. guest: sure. bit andack up a little talk about how census data are used. ourus data are critical to

democracy. constitutional requirement to reapportion house seats. they also are used to redistrict. they distribute more than $400 billion of assistance to the states every year. another purpose is to enforce civil rights laws. things like the fair housing act. the census needs to get it right. failure is not an option. with the postal service data, the way the census bureau uses dataostal service -- to help the census bureau

build its address files. they have a deliberate sequence file. if you have a mailbox, it is in the delivery sequence file. building block of the master address file. in answer to your other question, those are all policy considerations and program's iterations. these are things that were looked into by the courts. everybody who is a resident in ught to be states o included in the census. host: lisa is waiting on our line for republicans. caller: yes. good morning, robert. i have a comment and a question.

enumerator in the 2010 census year. people i like, "why do you need to know your age?" many high know how schools to build. or how many nurseries. there are so many thousands of people in our county. we senior citizen homes to be build. people who did not want to answer the questions. are they going to the hiring? i heard you say they are and how devices. when can i apply for a job? it was fun. my husband takes care of me, but

this is fun. host: what is the most fun aspect for you? caller: when you get a hold of the people -- we only had to go back four times oujtt here. the skews were not feeling it fronter kids were in the room. i heard the shower. she didn't want to the counted. "why do you need to know the ages of my kids." i tried to plain so they would get to the idea. not just how many people live in the house. it was all very interesting to me. guest: thank you for your service as a census enumerator.

it just shows the participation in the census is a shared national undertaking. if you have time available to work on the census in an office position. in answer to your question about age, you are so right. theseasons why questions are asked. uestions.y 10 q they are important for federal programs and programs implemented on the state and local level. everything from where day care centers are located, libraries,

services that people need and use every day are often informed from data from the census. host: how long are those short-term jobs? guest: there will be fewer people because of the census footprint. people will respond to the internet. there will still be a lot of people needed. sometime the month leading up to 2020. host: mary is on our line or democrats. caller: good morning. man came to my door. he asked me all these questions. me from myhe asked social security numbers. two weeks later a woman and another woman came.

i said, "somebody was here two weeks ago." she asked for the last four digits of my social security number. thank you. something people need to the en garde for. they are a lot of people who want to -- pretend to the census workers. the descending oh census does not collect social security numbers. i am glad you did not give it out. that is something for folks to be mindful of. .d.'s. to see their i

census workers are sworn to keep the information they collect confidential. it is a lifelong oath. if they quit their job the next day, they cannot reveal that formation. 000can be as much as a $250, fine or up to five years imprisonment. demand identification. go online to see the questions on the floor. host: time for just a few more calls. ron, go ahead. caller: yes. thanks for this program. 2010rticipated also in the 1 census as an enumerator.

ia am glad i got to do it. there is a follow-up question. do they keep records of who worked for the census in 2010? will they send us a renewal form to see if we are interested in participating in the 2020 census ? the 1960's, you go into any post office and you have to fill out a form if you were an alien. if you had a green card, you have to tell people where you are located. what happened to those laws? guest: the question about those cards if you are an alien. i do not ko the answer to thatnow -- i do not know the

answer to that. i am not sure. if you want a census job, reach out to the census bureau as he gets closer to the independen c. host: teresa, go ahead. caller: why are we not easily social security system for that? when you are born, you get a social security number assigned to you. it seems to me, and then it is filed for tax. you have a built-in census. guest: that is one of the innovations that is planned for 2020. they plan to take advantage of information that has already been provided. one of those databases is the social security database. there is information that can fill in missing information.

if they do not receive a form, the census bureau can use the social security information as well as in relation mother records on file to help fill in missing information. at a minimum and might be able to tell if the house is occupied or not. inm there they can fill additional information. host: a new technology platform to help with the process. there is no redo's with the census. what if it isn't launched to its best ability? what happens then? guest: the census bureau has a problem.

of systems.em it stands for census enterprise data collection and processing. it is a platform that incorporates 100 different systems. they put it all together under a single platform, integrate them, and things are much more efficient. if you respond via the internet, it can include your response that way. we are concerned about it havese some key decisions been put off. decisions are going to be made in the 2016 to 2018 time frame.

test is an end-to end coming up. everything get tested to make sure that they work and work in concert with each other. two more these decisions get problematic asbe to what gets tested. host: line for independents. can you make it quick? caller: you talk about the 12th and the 14th amendment's. this information, does the census make any information? guest: no, absolutely not. this is information used from a constitutional purpose to reapportion congress to

redistrict house seats and to enforce civil rights laws and to allocate assistance to state and local governments. people can buy some of the data. it is cleaned up. that is the information that government can use and some marketing companies will use. it really informs decisions. but no personal information is available and the census bureau goes to great length to protect confidentiality of the data. host: robert goldenkoff is with the gao. his report and his statement before congress is on gao's website. 2020 census, progress report on using administrative records.

you can check it out. we appreciate your time. we'll see you back here tomorrow morning, 7:00 eastern. have a great monday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] the ♪ational captioning institute, [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, >> republican senator tom cotton talking about disability benefits. in about two hours he will be speaking. a look at the future of afghanistan with the carnegie endowment for international peace and a