tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 30, 2016 6:00am-7:01am EST
mr. carson: we have time for a few questions. beot of them will answered if you go to our website. we would appreciate your support, obviously. ok. [applause] [indiscernible] >> thank you for attending. i am an atheist voter. i am born and raised in iowa. i have a question about how your faith will play a role. some candidates have said, god's law trumps our country's law. do you agree? can you name a situation where that would be the case question mark secondly, mr. cruz said he is a christian first and american secondary does that hold true for you? mr. carson: first of all, everybody including atheists live according to their faith.
it is what they decide to put their faith in. everybody's actions by their -- are ruled by their faith. in my case, i have strong faith in god and i live by godly principles. loving your fellow man, developing your talents. having values and principles. that is going to dictate how i treat everybody. constitutionthe which is the supreme law of the land, was designed by men of faith. it has a judeo-christian foundation. therefore, there is no conflict. it is not a problem. does that answer your question? [applause]
>> my question was, can you give a situation where god's law trumps the law here from your point of view? mr. carson: if we create laws the are contrary to judeo-christian values that we think we should fight against those kinds of laws. that weally believe still have an obligation to obey the laws, whether we agree with them or not. be ase otherwise, we will lawless nation. that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against anything we see as unjust. we have the mechanisms built into our system to allow those
protests to take place. -- aat are your thoughts christian first and american second? mr. carson: iowa we say mr. cruz can think for himself. [applause] >> you have spoken a lot about common sense and using your brain and i appreciate that. the questions and it debates, you responded you would seek the input of the experts. the experts in the scientific timidity agree climate change is a problem. can you explain that discrepancy and why you are not willing to listen to experts? mr. carson: i believe that anyone who is responsible recognizes they have an obligation to protect the environment. to pass it on to the next generation in as good a shape as
you are founder. therefore, i don't subscribe to the port is asian -- politization of the environment. the epa says if we implement every aspect of the clean power plant, it will lower the temperature of the earth by 0.05 85 years.hrenheit and the cost, billions of dollars. that makes no sense because that is ideologically driven. i am every bit for evidence driven things. that's what we do in medicine. we look at the evidence. that is one of the reasons, at century, wen of the
look at evidence and make decisions based on evidence. there is no reason that should not be done in environmental science as well. [applause] >> i am a christian and i will for that atheist guy. i have a question about how the bipartisan part will go when you are elected. mr. carson: the things i talk , they are not republican or democrat things. they are american things. that is one of the things i think needs to be emphasized. we have allowed ourselves to become too divided. jesus said it and abraham lincoln echoed it. a house divided against itself cannot stand. never can stand and never will stand. and yet, what is going on in our country? a war on women.
ace wars. you name it. there a war going on. we are allowing the purveyors of hatred to hold sway. we must reject them. as americans, republicans or democrats, we have a lot more in common than the things that separate us. the fact of the matter is, iowa we say, if two people agree about everything, one of them is not necessary. we have to get over this. what i was recommend is discussed things. is there anything wrong with sitting down with somebody you disagree with and having a civil discussion? talk about why you believe what you believe? what you will frequently discover is your notice for apart as you think you are.
we live in a pluralistic society which means it is necessary for those to be able to have kinds of discussions. when you do not have those kinds of discussions, you end up with things like obamacare. out and the other side go behind closed the worst in you hammer everything out. you make all these nefarious deals. the way the system was designed. one of the things that i would do as president is i would have regular meetings with both parties, together. all in one room. i would have the proceedings televised. canhe american people actually see who is on their side and who is not. [applause]
almost impossible to find out how your money is actually spent. tot can you do as president provide more transparency? of people, with the 9/11 commission, which that was reopened. had not been thoroughly vetted to read we got into the iraq war based upon what happened at 9/11. would you be willing to reopen some of those past investigations where people feel unsatisfied with the actual process? would be willing to open a lot of things that have been done in recent years.
people shouldy get away with these things. , benghazi bothers the heck out of me. about the navy seals who disobeyed orders. they were on top of the compound firing away, allowing many of the others to escape. i'm sure they were thinking, if we can just hold on, help is on the way. but help was not on the way. when did we reach a point where we do not try to help our people who are in trouble? i don't know when that occurred. that is absurd. make sure that is reversed in the people who are responsible are not hidden away. the are prosecuted to fullest extent of the law, where
ever it reaches. [applause] mr. carson: this will have to be the last question. >> thank you for taking my question. are at theand i university, health care workers. my question is with regard to prescription drug costs. people don't realize how much the u.s. subsidizes cheaper medication costs in canada. and britain. my question is, it is a double whammy because we have to develop the drugs. and then we pay more for them. my question is, what are you going to do to get canada and other developed countries to pay their share?
mr. carson: there are a number of possibilities. one of the things i think would be very wise is to have the drug moreopment process done in the nih and less in the private sector. so there will not tv same profit motive associated with it. the drugs are incredibly expensive. it is very very difficult for people to afford them. turkey and you can buy it for 100 of the cost here. sense, we't make any have to subsidize those costs. i'm very familiar with the drug industry. i am most joined a corporate board at one of the big drugmakers. i'm very glad i did not do that
now. they do everything they do on a profit motive. concept ofwith the whether something that is so important to people's lies should be under the complete control of people who only have a profit motive. when in fact, we have a mechanism to continue the research and development. so that we do not have those same kinds of costs. that is something i am in the process of studying. i am open to lots of different suggestions. in of the things i believe is solomon. the wisest man who ever lived. he said in a multitude of conflicts is safety.
when we have a problem, rather than just assume you are the fountain of all wisdom and knowledge, why not listen to some other suggestions? we have a lot of people were smart and accomplished. in a carson administration. we would be calling on lots of different people and find out what solutions they have. thise just close with little story. god has a sense of humor. the reason i believe that, when i was 14, i tried to stab localdy and the built saved them. it is not a fantasy. the media was over the story. they said it cannot possibly be true and we cannot find anybody to verify it.
then they found the parade magazine article from 1997. they said, let's move on. that is what they did with all those stories. they were debunked. day, i startedat reading from the book of proverbs. day.that every written by solomon. my middle name is solomon. i was going to have this affinity written -- from proverbs written by solomon. when he became the king of israel, do you remember the first thing he did? two women claimed to be the mother of the same baby. he said, divide the baby. that is when i became well known, when i separated babies. thank you very much. [applause]
>> road to the white house continues with longer marco rubio and a campaign rally in ames, iowa. later, bill clinton and daughter chelsea join canada's hillary clinton for a campaign event in iowa. you can watch both events here on c-span. c-span's campaign 2016 is taking on the road to white house. monday, our letter coverage begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern. at 8:00 p.m. eastern we will take you to our republican caucus on c-span and the democratic caucus on c-span two.
be sure to join the conversation on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> republican presidential candidate rick santorum toured a caucus event. he took questions on the criminal justice reform. an hour.ust over >> hi, i am working with dave. thank you so much for stopping by. he is on his way down here. come on in. rick: my pleasure. good to see you. thank you.
>> we have a section down here. this represents all of iowa. yes, sir. except for one democrat, actually. yes, sir. thank you. i'm just so happy you are here. i have shot you 115 times. rick: when you do over 700 appearances -- >> have you got any shot in this race? rick: of course i do. come on in. how are you? this is my good friend dave davidson.
how are you doing? >> i am fine. i don't think they handled you all that well yesterday. rick: we will have a conversation about the news media, and how they have killed this race in a very decided way. i am here to do -- they are here to do one thing, make money. they are not interested in giving a chance to see all the candidates, that is not their job. they don't see it as their job. their job is to do what their board members want them to do, which is make a profit. and that is what they are doing. >> are the questions fair? rick: it is not just the questions, it is the access to programming. the whole concept of having bifurcated debates from the very
beginning, where they use arbitrary figures that have nothing to do with the candidate's ability to win a race. they create an underclass in the primary. that is just wrong. it is just not the way to do it. you know, they made a decision that it was more important to get the eyeballs of the primetime debate, have all of the folks at the debate -- registering at the national polls in one location. not because that was the right thing to do but because that would draw the most attention. fix it?o you rick: we will figure that out afterwards. i tell you how we fix it. because i knew he ask that. the people of iowa say we will not put up with that crap. we will do our job. four years ago, yes, i was on the debate stage. if you look at my time in the debate, the questions i got versus everybody else, the university of minnesota did something after about 19 debates -- we had 22.
i was in last place, of all the candidates. but amazing thing about being in last place -- it was time for debate. they divided all of the people, divided by the number of the debates. i was in last place. the person above me was herman cain. he had not been to the last three debates because he had dropped out. he still had more time, even though it was divided into a larger number of debates. as you see, who they ask questions to? they asked people in the middle because they are the ones, they believe, that would draw more eyeballs and attention to what they're doing. and i just don't think it is a service for the public. but again, that is not their job. but the perception is that is their job. that is the problem. >> you should buy a news network.
rick: we will see what i do a years from now, after i leave the white house -- what i do eight years from now, after i leave the white house. i picked out some of my favorite shots from the current new cycle. >> you are rocking the vest here. so, actually -- come on over here. there is room over here. come on over, guys. who is ever heard of rick's vest? matt is wearing one. little do you know that his vest actually wrote a book. it had its own twitter. these are some of the things that rick's vest said back then.
i wanted to make it a poster to inspire rick again. i see he is going back to the vest, perfect timing. everything is aligning here. we will leave it at that. that is one of my favorites. when you personify a piece of clothing, you have a lot of liberty here. i will say a couple of remarks about senator santorum. and i want him to share with you . i had the privilege of being rick santorum's photographer once he left iowa. my brother was actually running his facebook the month of december, when he was surging. and i want to give dan a lot of credit for the grassroots in covering things. he won the iowa straw poll, and we were so happy for him. i adore rick. when i think of rick santorum, a lot of people think of a
candidate. i think he's family. i think of the day we spent together at winterset. we were about to take a family photo. you know, parenting comes first. since i have met rick, i've actually got five new members of my family. at the caucus, we had a foster baby that came that night. so we have eight children. my wife is not here, she is working as a nurse. back to that story. we had this family photo. one of his boys was out of the frame. but he put his family ahead. his family is great. one of the reasons i have an covering him so long, i hope to shoot his kid's wedding someday. they are great kids. i hope to be there.
i love wedding cake. let us just give the time to senator santorum. he can say whatever he wants. it is his show. i just want to say thank you so much for being here today. [applause] rick: thank you, dave. if you have done over 700 events like this, townhall meetings and gatherings and speeches, you run into what i would call iowa icons. folks who sort of define what it is like. dave is one of those guys. i cannot speak to before because i was not here, but david is the omnipresent person with a camera in your face.
and very different angles, i might add. he does crazy stuff. he is part of the lore of the iowa caucus. when i found out about this, i was delighted he was given the opportunity to show his work here. and i wanted to come and affirm the great work he has done. and the great work he has done with the iowa caucuses, putting a graphic depiction. we just wanted to come by and say thanks to a friend, someone who is done a great job for us in getting our visual message out over the last five years. one of the things i believe in is you say thanks to your friends. you spend time. it is a busy time for us. but you have to take the time to reward people who have done yeoman's work for you here in the iowa caucuses.
thank you so much. i am actually very happy to take your questions. i guess i would say that, this kicking it off before they start, you know, i think we made a case last night. we want to make a case coming down the stretch that it is important to have someone go to washington, d.c. and fight to clean things up. we have a mess in washington. people are angry at washington. i understand that. but, you know, what do you want to do with that anger? you want to create something better? or do you want to just blow it up? i know a lot of people say just blow it up. what do you do the next day? blow it up again? blow it up again? what are you going to do? what are you going to accomplish? how would you change this for a better place? don't you want someone who is a track record who can actually do that? who understand the problems being confronted, ideas on how to solve them? the conservatives in this
country, republicans in this country would like to see done. but what we have, at least if you believe the national polls, which i do not, is that we have the more experience, the lower you do in the polls. i would just ask the people of iowa to take a step back. i know they are. a lot of folks are making decisions this week. there may be re-deciding, looking at the situation. i use the example when i was up in ames yesterday, and i will try it here, you know, iowa state as a great basketball team. but their football team has been terrible for a long time. i know a lot of iowa state fans actually hate that. they are frustrated that somehow or another they cannot produce a great football team. and they're just so angry. what are they going to do? they're going to fire the entire team, staff, coach. get rid of them, and replace them with someone who is a nuclear physicist.
and they are going to put -- because we want someone completely different. because hiring all these coaches you know about football is not gotten us anywhere. we need to -- you know -- he watches football. they read about it in the papers. they have an opinion on football because they sit and watch it all the time. it is not that they do not know anything about football. but they have a conversational understanding of it. but we're going to put this really smart guy, very accomplished in his field, the best possibly, and we're going to put him in charge of the iowa state football team. so, what is he going to do? because he has to run a football team. he does not know an x from an o, he doesn't know what defensive lineman looks like. what is he going to have to do? he has to hire a bunch of people who know about football. he will have to hire the
establishment. he will have to hire the people who have been there who understand it really well. by the way, those are the very people you want to get rid of. because he doesn't have enough knowledge himself, he cannot navigate himself through the process of putting a football team together. you know they will have to hire? all of the people in washington who know how it works. otherwise, you will be clueless of what to do. how about hiring someone who understands the good guys and the bad guys are because maybe they have some experience and understand who have been the problem, and you are part of the solution? that is what i would suggest to you. take a step back and look at someone who has fought as a conservative and won as a conservative. health savings accounts -- the revolutionary concept that conservatives push.
who helped get it through? me. iran -- number 1 problem of national security. who pushed the first bill through the senate, even though we had a president opposing it originally. that was president bush. right here. the biggest reform and entitlements and history of the country, the biggest reduction in spending, the biggest balancing of the budget, reducing all of the growth of entitlements, welfare reform in 1996, who managed and authored it? right here. who stood up for life when no one else wanted to? a lot of people do not like what you do. and you get the media really mad because they absolutely disagree with you on these issues.
who took on every major pro-life, and argued on the floor? right here. [applause] ok. i can go through -- everything from who carry the water and pull together a coalition to put together a family and conservative-friendly policy to combat aids in africa. called the president's emergency response. the president put together, and i was able to get that through right here. i still have bono doing shout outs to me and concerts because i was the conservative who stepped forward to solve this problem. i can go on. the combating autism act to combat autism. bringing those groups together
to find a policy that would help create real answers for parents who are just worn apart by the issue of autism and what it is doing to their family. we got that done. mines thatabandoned are polluting the groundwater of our country. who put them together? right here. i have a laundry list of things that we accomplished by bringing people together. i have a 92% conservative voting rating. did i make people angry? yes. but i always respected people, even though i disagreed with them, and sometimes very vocally. we were always able to bring people together to get things done. if that is what you want, someone who can fight hard and accomplish something you have an , option. if you want someone who will walk into washington, look, everybody hates me.
you have other options in this race. that is not me. tell me what you want. if you want to do something that can make this country be great again, than i would appreciate your help and support. i will be happy to take your questions. >> my question deals with intellectual property. so, given that somebody with a four-year engineering degree, if they choose to practice intellectual property law, they only have to take two years of additional schooling. if it only takes 2 years of additional schooling, why does it take more to get a simple patent issue. we have supercomputers. they are made in wisconsin. i have been there. that is my question. rick: well, there have been lots of attempts to do patent reform.
in fact, i have been against most of those efforts because i think they take away some of the rights that inventors need to have. we need to keep patents something that incentivizes people to go out and invent, and reward people for those inventions. but look, there is a huge, huge problem in all of our bureaucracies -- whether it is the v.a. or the patent office or the defense department -- not having efficiency. look at the fda and the approval process for drugs. they are just not well run organizations. the bureaucracy was never designed to deal with the complexity that we are dealing with in the modern world. this is a -- the way government is set up, based on a theory that was set up hundreds of years ago. we have not changed, modernized it.
a lot of it may have to be to outsourced into private hands, as opposed to having government patent lawyers be up to sit down and not have any incentives to go through the process and to do it in a way that is responsive to the inventor. so, i would be very, very open at looking at ways to reform the patent office, the fda, some of these other agencies that are in the chokepoints in the innovation system that the government has. so i guess i would say i am open to ideas on how we can integrate more private sector principles, and maybe even farm out, part of if not all love, some of this. whether we can do it with a variety of different that for example, look at the fda. why do they have to go through all of these trials? why can't there be a way that we can hire labs?
say, ok, your job, private sector, you do the work on this. instead of running it through the fda process. those are the kinds of things we can do and start utilizing the competitive forces out there to move these processes along. yes, sir? >> keep or get rid of our central bank? rick: i think we have to have the central bank. i mean i don't know what , alternative there would be. you say we don't need it? no, but, i mean, we have to have some monetary system in this country. don't we? i understand we have the treasury. but we have to have some sort of monetary policy in this country. i know some people say go back to the gold standard. well, that is fraught with a lot of problems, particularly given where most of the gold is being found in the world today.
the question is, we have a very political federal reserve right now that is going along with this president and supporting his policies of deficit bending -- deficit spending and big government constraining growth. part of this, you have the fed with a problem that is political. number two, it has a dual charter. it should only say inflation, not be concerned about deployment. i think that dual charter has caused all sorts of problems that have gotten away from sound of money policies. both of those are the things i would try to push forward to try to transform that area of the government. yes? >> my question revolves around health care. so, i know a lot of people with families here, their lives have been touched by cancer. so has my family.
what do we do to promote health care innovation? how do we solve this problem? rick: the best way is to get the government as far away from it as possible. what you have right now is the government increasingly, over half of the expenditure on health care is the government -- medicare and medicaid. by the way, both are going up 11% increases this year. it is the second and third largest programs in the government. you want to talk about increasing the deficit? the way to increase innovationa -- increase innovation is to get washington micromanaging, medicare and medicaid are such big payers. it is what medicare will pay for. if medicare doesn't pay for it, you have the private sector is
saying if medicare doesn't pay for it, why are we pay for it? the government in many cases regular innovation as to the therapies and drugs they will reimburse for. i would have the marketplace not cover something. at least you have the customers without insurance saying, you know, we will go somewhere else. you have no options with medicare and medicaid. the government says we do not care what you think. we will do what we think. and lest you can bring huge political pressure to change it, that doesn't happen. so, let the marketplace decide where customers want to go in the processes they want. the fda is another problem with innovation. i have a very dear friend of mine with ovarian cancer right now. she has stage 4. it is very serious. if you look at the therapy right now -- the highest is 25%. -- the highest survival rate is 25%. there are therapies overseas that have higher survival rates, but they're not offer because they have not been approved by the fda.
she is traveling out of the country to get care for cancer. really, should that be happening in america? takedn't we be able to someone with that degree of illness and have options available to them? we do not. all that is the government saying no. so this is a big, big problem. part of the lack of innovation and improvement. the government needs to get out of the health care business, which means obamacare has to go. medicaid should be in the state so you don't have a centralized agency making these kinds of coverage decisions. each state can make them. at least you have a righty -- you have laboratories to determine what is working and what is not. medicare should go to a private sectors system, so the government should be able to pay for premiums -- a certain amount of premiums. and then pick private insurance
so the consumer can move to insurance companies that provide better coverage or the coverage they want. if you really want to see innovation, you have to get the government out of the health care business. >> i still remember your 2012 iowa caucus night. i was there until 3:00 in the morning. i want to applaud your victory in 2012. and we want you to spend time with the iowa caucus. i want to know your location and why you will be there. rick: it is right here, right? the hilton garden inn. that is where we will be at. yes, ma'am? >> senator, i think both sides of the aisle can agree with the dysfunction of the judicial system. you know, the incarceration of so many black and brown people, what is your answer to that?
how do we fix our judicial system, that the number of people in jails today are just overwhelmingly black and brown? rick: most of the people in jail are in state prisons, state courts. not through the federal system. in fact the federal system is a , relatively small part of the criminal justice system. so, as far as criminal justice reform at the federal level, i think we have done things on the federal level. back in the 1990's, democrats and republicans alike supported tougher sentences on drug crimes and the like. i said, i am open to real re-looking at those whether we need to have as , many people in prison -- federal drug crime offenses. most of the people on drug violations are in state courts,
not in federal prison. look, i come back to the bottom line. i say this all of my speeches. unless we deal with the root problem, you are dealing with the symptom not the problem. the symptom is that we have a lot of kids ending up in our court system. the problem is, why are they in our court system in the third-place -- in the first place? they are not there just because they were walking down the street doing nothing. it is because they are not, most of the time they are not. ok, let us just be honest. we are going to talk about the vast majority of situation. i agree with you. there are some bad actors out there. but that is not the majority. we all know that. the reason why some kids are picked up is because we have a lot of folks doing bad bad things. that is why they get picked on. let's just get real.
the problem in the neighborhoods for crime is the highest what , don't we have? dads. that is what we don't have. unless we start dealing with the problems of marriage and fathers -- >> we don't have police in suburbia arresting kids doing the same things kids are doing in the urban areas. rick: as we all know, ok, let us just have a real conversation about this. let's look at the areas where we have the highest rate of failure in schools, the highest rate of drug abuse, other criminal activity. we have the highest rates of out of wedlock births, lack of employment. we know what those neighborhoods are. those are neighborhoods where there are no dads. i can tell you, i will refer you to a book written by a liberal harvard professor. "our kids." he wrote that book to refute the democratic argument, the
stratification of wealth in america, he lays them all out -- they are all true. by the way, i accept them. all of those things are happening in america. talking about the problems in our schools, economic opportunity. but in the end, the biggest problem -- it is an irrefutable fact. the biggest problem facing people being able to rise in society is the breakdown of the nuclear family. the fact that children do not have any dads in their life. that is the reality. the center for american progress, some organizations you might have heard of, a liberal think tank said gee, we may have , to start using the f word. which is family. the bottom line is in america there is no coincidence that the highest income americans also have the highest marriage rates, the lowest out of wedlock birth
rates, the highest rate of religion. you just go down the list. there are certain things we know. for example, brookings institute said if you do three things in your life are less than 5%. you know what they are? graduate from high school, work a full-time job, and get married before you have children. if you do those three things, you will almost never be in poverty in america. when do we say that? we talk about criminal justice reform instead of the root problem of why kids and up in a bad situation, because the family has disintegrated. patrick moynihan wrote in the late 1960's about the potential tragedy that was going to befall the black community. because of an out of wedlock birthrate of 25%. he got hammered by the left. but now that rate is over 70%. the reality is that that community has suffered tremendously as a result. and i know we can point our
fingers and a lot of other things. but we keep ignoring for politically correct reasons the reality that we have to establish a marriage culture again for poor communities in america to be able to have any chance, any chance of rebounding. and i can tell you as president of the united states, there is not a whole lot of laws we can pass. there are things we can do with welfare laws that actually create barriers to marriage, create barriers to work. they are profound. and we need to do something about that. i guarantee you that i will. but we also have to have the courage to get the microphone and go out and talk to the american public and the community and say we have to start at the school, church, community level. with businesses, government, the media the popular culture. we have to stop this idea that it is ok, it is ok. because kids are dying.
kids are struggling. kids are drug-addicted because we do not have the courage to go out and talk about why it is actually a good thing for mothers and fathers to take responsibility to love and care for their children. unless we have occurred to do -- unless we have the courage to do that, this problem is going to continue. in fact, it will continue to expand. and you have my pledge that i will care and focus more on this problem that any president in history of this country. and i hope that america will join me on that. yes, sir? >> education ties into this. our public education is moving people towards four-year colleges, maybe when they should be pushed, some of them into the , trade schools. to learn welding, bring manufacturing back to the u.s.
rick: i want to ask you a couple of questions. where did i announce for president? >> in a manufacturing location? rick: on the floor of a manufacturing plant. i said i would make them the number one manufacturer in the world. i talked about reinstituting vocational education. how we had to start elevating the worker in this country, who works with their hands, give them the same level of dignity and respect as someone who doesn't. they make things in america. if you do that, you create wealth. everybody else will do a lot better if we do a lot more. you mentioned welding. there are 250,000 welding jobs starting at about $40,000 a year. what does the president do? we're going to give you college and give you $70,000 to borrow. i tell you what, if you go to an 18-year-old and offer them a
$70,000 loan, they go off and buy a bmw. would that be a good thing for them to do? probably not. they can get to their job with a $5,000 car. you do not need a $70,000 education to get a job. but we don't talk like that. after high school coming to go work for a bit. earn some money. go to school part-time. engage in the educational institutions as you would in every aspect of your life. the government has tilted that. saying it is a requirement. it is not. we will give you free money, which puts you way behind the eight ball. and you have bernie sanders going around saying free education, which you will be paying for the rest of your life because we have to borrow money. and you will have to pay it back. what about the 74% of americans age 25-65 who do not have a college degree? they are going to be paying for your free education.
how fair is that? everybody think that's fair, raise your hand? so when bernie says, let me give you something free -- let me tell you. you are paying for it. you are paying for someone who was going to go and get a $70,000 education. you're not just paying for someone to get an education, or the equivalence to use the car example, you are not paying for some of the get to the job, you're paying for all these kids to get bmws. that is a good deal. how much is bernie really helping? someone has to go out and tell the truth to the american people about how we consume not just health care, but how we consume education. it is broken because the government is involved and corrupting it. yes, ma'am? >> where do you stand on the federal funding of planned parenthood.
rick: it is an organization started by a eugenicist racist. it is an organization that continues to hold to the values of that person who they honor, margaret sanger. someone who rotates clinics in -- locates clinics in areas near colleges and universities and other places, that you see a high number of people looking for abortion services. they are primarily an abortion provider. they are not -- the money that is supposed to fund the planned parenthood is not to go to abortions. it is to go to women's health services. as we saw from testimony in congress, 86% of their services are abortion related. they have very little health services. and they do not provide comprehensive women health services, as they testify. they don't do mammograms, for example. they don't do other screenings that women's health clinics do.
why? because they are an abortion clinic that does ancillary services related to abortion that happen to have weapon's health implications, like pap smears. the reality is there is much to spend money on women's health services in iowa. i think there are 217 women's health service centers in iowa. i think there are 11 planned parenthood clinics. so if we took the money that goes to planned parenthood, which is an abortion provider predominantly, and take that money and allocate it to these other services, where women can going get comprehensive and better health services that , would be a good idea. if what you care about is women's health care. if you care about subsidizing abortion clinics, by giving that money for women's health, than you will oppose that.
>> what you say about these crisis pregnancy centers, which give them false information. rick: what false information? >> that they will not be fertile anymore. that their only option is to have the baby or adoption, that they don't have a choice to get an abortion. that is false medical information. rick: do you think women that don't know they can have an abortion? >> there are people that give false information. i'm asking how you feel about that. rick: i am very familiar with pregnancy care centers. i can tell you that most centers actually give women who come in who do not want to abort, and that is a relatively small percentage in some cases, who want some help in being able to keep their child. some come in who are abortion-minded. and in fact, what all of the women's health centers i know of
a what they do is they provide them information. what planned parenthood does is keep them in the dark. they provide information about abortion. they don't give options. that there are other options available. that is what these centers do. they say there are options. we have ways to help and support if you want to keep your child. they actually do something that planned parenthood does not -- they provide free sonograms so people can actually see what is going on. planned parenthood says this is just a blob of tissue. this is a pre-human being. life, whichreally of course, is a lie. it is a lie. i was asked the other day by a news network, they were introducing me, they said this is rick santorum is that all of the stuff. he believes life begins at conception. i think no i don't. the guy was stunned.
it says right here you believe life begins at conception. i don't believe, i know life begins at conception. it is a biological fact. if you look at any biology textbook, all human life -- all animal life -- begins at conception. because, you are genetically an individual from that moment of conception. that genetic code does not change. that entity is metabolizing. you are genetically human, you are alive. at the moment of conception we have a human life. i can tell you planned parenthood does not say that. when someone comes in and they do not have the information, you think they show them the child? they turn the monitor a way they cannot see what the truth is about what is actually inside of their womb. if there's anyone lying to women it is the abortion movement for a long, long time.
they consistently lie. you can get rid of this problem and that will solve your problem. i've talked to a lot of women who have had abortions and that did not solve their problem. it created more problems. whether it is an abortion clinic or a care center, women have the right to the truth. they have a right to know what it is, where they are in the gestation of that child. what their options are. they need to know that there are some people that will help and support them. i don't know of any planned parenthood clinic that supports women if they decide to not have an abortion. do you know of any that actually support the option not to have one? pregnancy care centers have post-abortive counseling. if the woman goes and actually gets an abortion they provide counseling if they need some to help them after the abortion. do you know planned parenthood that provides services to women who choose not to have an
abortion? i don't know of any. who is lying? who is really trying to provide care for the women? if you're really care about the women, you would respect either of their choices and support them in whatever choice they have. that is what pregnancy care centers do. that is not what an abortion center does. who respects women most? >> if i can add to that. >> next, your calls and comments on "washington journal." first, bernie sanders. after that, martin o'malley. >> the weekend prior to the caucuses, there will be a frenzy of activity across iowa. there are three viable candidates on the democratic side. 3, 4,f them will have
five, six of them today. it will give you a sense of what it is like to campaign for the caucuses. key is organization. you need to make sure that those people who support you get to the caucuses. it will be interesting to see how the candidates are trying to close the deal, sell their messages, and convince those who might be on the fence to go for be.ndidate a or candidate we will see wall-to-wall coverage as these candidates make their final pitches. >> live coverage of the presidential candidates in iowa. >> this morning on "washington journal" political science professor stefan schmidt previews the iowa caucuses. then former u.s. senator tim hutchinson supports marco rubio. then former u.s. senator tom
harkin of iowa talks about his support for hillary clinton. we will take your calls. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is saturday, january 30, 2016 . 2 days from the start of the presidential election season. "washingtonhe host journal. we will focus on your phone calls with the ads the campaign has issued. we will hear from guests in iowa. you about somell of our live coverage today on c-span of campaign events in iowa. her democrats, (202) 748-8000