he look at the pentagon's bookkeeping. plus, your calls, e-mails, and tweets. "washington journal" is next. >> good morning. it is monday, november 25, 2013. president obama begins the week on the west coast at an event on california -- in the california. -- in california. the nuclear deal that the president announced was the subject of intense debate. we will wrap that up for you this morning. first, we will take up the topic of public service. 50 years ago today, america buried resident john f. kennedy

who is credited with inspiring a generation of americans in ways to serve their country. would you believe public service means in today's america. do believe young people are taking up the call to public service? give us a call. if you are outside the u.s., (202) 585-3883. you can also catch up with us on your favorite social media pages. host: a very good monday morning to you. 50 years ago today, john f. kennedy was buried at arlington national cemetery. his public service was best expressed in his 1961 inaugural

address. [video clip] >> asked not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. [laughter] [applause] world,ow citizens of the ask not what america will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. [applause] arelly, whether you citizens of america or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you, with a good conscience our when history is

the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love asking his blessing and his help, but knowing that here on earth, god's work must truly be our own. ont: president kennedy january 20, 1961. that is the subject of the washingtonian piece. the shift in public service since jfk's famous appeal is that len of the story. that he rallied an army of people to government service. corps sent the nation's youth to work in latin america, africa, and india. the peace corps took off

immediately. the story goes on to note that today just a third of americans have a favorable opinion of the federal government. the lowest rating in 15 years.

that is the lead story in this month's "washingtonian" magazine. what does public service mean to you? commentseady getting on our facebook page. i will read you a few of those. public service means not being corrupted.

we will be taking your facebook comments, twitter as well, and also our phone lines are open if you want to talk about the subject. we want to hear your thoughts on this topic for the next 40 minutes or so. we will start on the phones on our independent line. jan from denver colorado. caller: good morning. i don't think that there is enough educational monday put

into civics classes anymore -- money put into civics classes anymore. it's of annk opportunity to see what public service truly offers. a lot of people think public services on the government work. they don't realize they can go to other countries and other cultures and that there are a lot of opportunities. host: it is more of a pr effort? the government needs to promote these opportunities better? youth is willing to take up those public service efforts? caller: i think they would if they knew that there were some in the interesting things they could do. when john as a child f. kennedy was shot and it was .uch a shock to the country

we went straight into the vietnam war. all of the young men were going there. trying to go into fields where they didn't have to go there. there's a lot to be said for public service that never got cuts,nd with the funding government change from being something that people wanted to support and participate in. host: there has been some thoughts about having mandatory public service for kids after they graduate high school. do you think public service should be mandatory? i think that opportunity should be mandatory. i think that maybe having people do ino classes like they

college and show with the different occupations are. so that they know what kind of fields are open to them, not just college and university fields, but tech fields that are opening up. there were so much more out there than people realize that the government participates in. host: thanks for the call from denver. we are asking you this question of what public service means to you. jan was talking about the pr efforts. that there should be more pr about opportunities in public service. here is a story from the "houston chronicle." this story points out some of the problems of where public service is in today's united states.

that piece in the "houston chronicle" talking about the problems with public service in today's society. is on our line for democrats. tallahassee, florida. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i feel that it is for main entities that public service revolver on.

education, the economy, politics, religion. the four hidden dynasties. what has happened in this country and most people can spot that these dynasties have been infiltrated and are trying to be destroyed. they have never, ever been strong when you let people who came to be christians, born- again christians, they penetrate these hidden dynasties and their main goal is to destroy them. host: ok. ronnie from kentucky. independent line. you are on the washington journal. caller: good morning. it is not like it used to be

with the politicians. say they work for the good of their own selves. it is too much politics in the government. it does not matter if it is a republican. the democrats will vote against it and vice versa. they don't seem to care about the good of the people. even with the health care. they could get this worked out if the government, the members of the states, and the congress would work together. this should be worked out. a question. ask you this idea of mandatory public service. or do you stand on that? caller: i don't really know. i don't think anything should be mandatory. everybody should have their own

will to do whatever. but i do believe that our politicians are way overpaid for the service they do provide for the people. harry reid and john boehner are the worst leaders i have ever seen in my days. and one is ablican democrat. you look at the way that they do do not care about the people. they are a bunch of hypocrites. there is many more things going on now that we don't know about. gilbert so, kentucky. the subject on the 50th anniversary of the burial of john f. kennedy.

that is that the consecration at the arlington cemetery -- cemetery. in his recollection of that event, he says -- whatever you do, be the best that you can be. that was his interview with the "washington post." note, we will be replying

that burial on our c-span networks. we are replying the nbc coverage .f the funeral at 8:30 tonight you can look for information about that on our website. what public service means to our viewers. we will go to robert from california on our line for independents. the thing about this public service -- i have been studying this stuff -- is that in the private sector you can get pensions. in the public sector, you can't. these people are servants. they are not employees. the only employees obama has are his cabinet members, because he hired them. everybody else in the senate and representatives were voted in by the people. they are servants.

we are u.s. citizens. we are not americans. americans are all latins. if you are an american, you speak spanish. if you speak english in the united states, you are a u.s. citizen. that is my comment. the anniversary of president kennedy was 50 years ago he was assassinated on a friday. it was celebrated 50 years later on a friday. that is called the anniversary date. the date is the anniversary. they would have to be the day and the date this time. host: ok. keith from delmar, california. republican line. caller: i have a slightly different take on what kennedy's famous line meant. what yourid ask not country can do for you, but what you can do for your country -- i

view that as an x rotation to be a maker and not a taker. a lot of people who claim to be public servants, especially in where we are famously enron by the sea with our ridiculous pension prague -- problem, they are leeches on the productive members of society. i think what people want to do andecide to be net makers contribute to society, rather than take from society. host: how do you go about changing the situation in america today? paul.: vote for rand host: ok. john wrightson on twitter -- --tes in on twitter sun" had a piece

by a publisher and former baltimore county executive talking about the jfk generation. the torch may have been passed to his generation, but he clearly passed it to the next. the author goes on to note that many of maryland's famous public officials including nancy pelosi and steny hoyer and members of the senate -- the subject we are talking about with our viewers this morning -- kathy is up next from hollywood, florida on our independent line. caller: good morning.

old.4 years psychology major, political science minor. i think the public service means starting at the bottom. getting involved in [indiscernible] that is where it starts. i think jfk [indiscernible] i don't think we should [indiscernible] to really be passionate about it. host: thanks for the call. next on theas up independent line. caller: good morning. that opinion about public service now is limited by financiallehold that

big banks and big corporations have on our government and i don't think people on either the left or the right are happy with our government because of that. you think that? how would you solve the problem? caller: i don't think there is any solution except a coming on all acrossople the political spectrum -- ideaizing around the basic of popular sovereignty. i think jfk was headed in the of working toward

government being of more benefit to the 99% then the 1%. i think like all of our presidents, especially our latest president, have been tossured by advisers maintain a profitable status quo , a status quo that is profitable for a few. in his james w douglas the unspeakable" makes a pretty good case that if jfk was headed in the direction ,f greater popular sovereignty that may be a primary reason why

he was assassinated. this kilgore, texas morning. we have also asked some of our callers about the idea of mandatory public service for young people. some proposals that have been put out there. writes inghtson -- -- -- we will take your comments on facebook and twitter. our phone lines remain open. i want to touch on some of the headlines around the country. most of those headlines deal with that irani and -- iranian nuclear deal. he reset front page of "the new york times." -- here is the front page of the new york times.

shows secretary of state john kerry at a london airport on sunday after he reached an interim accord with iran. it raises many questions for the obama administration. declared thenyahu deal a historic mistake. there is a picture of him alongside secretary of state john kerry in that piece. you can see their. one other headline on the subject -- "iran's nuclear deal faces uphill battle." highlights the deal. some of the highlights of the deal. halts commitment to enrichment of uranium above 5%.

that is the chart in today's "washington times" highlighting some of the aspects of the deal. the debate is played out in the editorial pages today.

"iran breakthrough deserves a chance -- the headline of that piece. diplomacy is a joy -- has enjoyed few breakthroughs. the world must give this one a chance. the financial times there. this opinion piece from "the washington times." "the surrender of iranian sanctions." in the wall street journal, iran's nuclear triumph. it notes that the best that can be said of this deal is that it slows for a few weeks iran's rapid progress to a nuclear breakout, but the price is that it sets a standard that will allow iran to become a nuclear capable regime that starts just

-- stops just short of creating a bomb. it goes on to urge members of congress to act. mr. obama seems determined to press ahead with the deal regardless of legacy -- details or damage. the topic is going to be the subject of our next guest on "the washington journal." we will spend 45 minutes on that subject. we have another 20 minutes to talk about this issue of public service and what it means to you.

callers are waiting on our lines. gary is from sterling, virginia. republican, line. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me tell you what i think public service is. thank i would like to everybody who called the white house and told them to utilize the flare gas that they burn off thate wellheads because was put in the energy bill and the president signed it so now they are utilizing that flare gas. the second thing i would like to say is that i would like everybody to call the white house and tell them to utilize, ouryze, and prioritize transportation infrastructure with satellite computer technology so that they quit using these traffic improvements as political plums. host: is this your idea of public service?

to get in contact with your elected officials and urge them to act a certain way? caller: yes sir. host: this idea of mandatory public service. or two, whether it is the peace corps or military. what is your take? caller: i don't know. i think it would be a good idea. fake it till you make it. that seems to, you know, that is the only way you can do it. there is nothing wrong with that. host: david frum monticello, georgia. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a different take on public service. i was recently elected to a city council post here in november. itan run on this because would look like i was buying votes. is that we have a salary

that comes to the council members. the take him is around $320 per month. freean is to create a ticket raffle or lottery type thing where i can pull a resident out of a hat and a business out of a hat every month. $100, one to the resident, want to the business -- giving back to the community in hopes that will spire more people to come to the meetings when we get more commentary from the citizenry, get more ideas floating around. the more people you have talking, the more progressive ideas you will have and some will take old. -- take hold. and hopefully some other council members will want to join in on this thing to inspire and get more help for the citizens. my ultimate plan is once again

passed the mandatory things that , have to do with the state which would cost me some fuel ,ecause we are in a rural city once a get past that, we have a local food bank and i would like to be able to give another hundred dollars every month to that food bank. about payi ask you for elected officials and your thought for that? graduatingpeople are college and they're looking to join the workforce and they see the amount of money they can make in the air versus the public-sector. do you think that is limiting that types of people who will join public service and public service jobs? caller: it probably is limiting. there has to be some kind of salary because of the age and the era we live in.

you get paid for what you do. fromeetings are anywhere ao hours to five hours, once month, and we might have workshops. --ic salary on an easy month no called meetings or workshops -- you can actually make $200 per hour. that is ridiculous for what we're doing. if you break it down by our, it sane for people to jump into the public-sector. host: using members of congress should be paid by the hour? caller: he would get a lot more done. lot moreuld get a done. there would not be such a lengthy holidays and recesses. they would make sure they're getting the salary they used to and they might actually get something done. you some of the

numbers out there in terms of the amount of people going into public service these days. here is a poll from this past summer from "usa today." that poll found that americans -- samuel from fresno, california. our line for independents. is a familyink it needing to get together and spend more time together and do more things for the community. you have to reach out to your family and help each other and help other people. you have to do more for your fellow man.

that is what the whole bible preaches anyway. that is what we are put on this earth for. host: thank you for the call. linda is in texas on our line for democrats. we're asking our viewers, what does public service me to you? caller: i think you missed an important subheading on the first article you read. the way publicth service is viewed in kennedy's time it was looked up to. now it is taunted. it is looked at negatively. i think the underlying cause is that we have a contract with the government that says that we give our taxes and we give our time and service in the military in exchange for our rights being protected and benefits from our government.

when we don't see those things happening, we take on a lack of credibility from the government. think you should separate out the hirelings in the federal government, from those who are being elected in the federal government. they have different goals. see something coming back from your government, not just something going into the government. it starts on a local scale. on the federal scale, one of the things they might do to offset it is to give a tax offset for community service, forgiving federal service of some sort that is not paid. host: appreciate the ideas this morning. linda was talking about the subhead of a story we read from "the washington tony and -- washingtonian magazine.

that is the subhead of that washingtonian piece. from alliance, ohio. republicans line. caller: good morning. that everye to say adult in america is responsible to get involved in what goes on and if it is contrary to the declaration of independence that affordable care act should be found unconstitutional because given the are not right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and our 14-

year-olds sons and daughters are being given birth control without the consent of their parents, ignoring the nurture and admonition of the lord jesus christ which is the backbone of our nation. that is about all i had to say. a piece from the past weekend. he asks how many politicians will ever again defend their line of work with the enthusiasm that kennedy brought in the 1957 commencement address at syracuse university?

we will go to ken from chambersburg, pennsylvania on our independent line. -- turned on your tv and go-ahead with your comment. caller: [indiscernible] host: you were there. go ahead. caller: i appreciate the call. my name is ken.

to me, public service should be about putting the interest of the public before the interest of the servant. act,air labor standards when it was first enacted, ostensibly forbid the unionization of public workers. i believe that over the years with the growth of public unions it has diminished the word public service to the point that the worker puts themselves first. i believe that one of the things that when the military went to the private military rather than the drafting of people -- when you have a letter that says, greetings, uncle sam wants you -- it was your opportunity and your responsibility to report to the military at little or no pay

. i guess we got paid. it was not very much. serve.to it was not a choice. it was a request from the government that you really had to respond to. i do believe that that genuine service -- it was also a good experience. it was not something that interrupted our lives. host: you would be ok with mandatory service coming back? whether it is military or the peace corps or some other form of public service? ofler: i would be in favor mandatory service coming back as long as it was doing things that really needed to be done. , just simply putting individuals into some sort of public service doing things that meant nothing -- that is a waste

of time. i do believe that many years ago , before my time, when they established the three c's and the wpa programs, that they actually put idle workers to work doing good things for the community, for the country. the building of the hoover dam. the building of roads. those were all good projects that really needed to be done and they were done at great expense will stop host: thanks for the call. if you other headlines to get you in this first segment today. on the foreign-policy front. from "the washington post." between the afghan president and 2500 liters.

the elders endorsed an agreement. the story notes that karzai remained defiant. he said he wants additional assurances. that piece from today's "washington post." also in several newspapers today.

one other piece. front-page page piece -- the latest on the affordable care act. to discuss that story and other issues, one of the authors of that piece will be joining us this morning on one of our later segments. we have a few more minutes in this segment to ask the question, what does public service me to you? maple city, michigan on our democrats line. i'm 69 years old.

i was a sophomore in college when kennedy got killed and public service was a big thing then. service isublic provided by every public president since harry truman. i don't know that it should be mandatory, but i think something should be done in the tax code to help people to do public service for the government. maybe some educational vouchers or something like that. it would also be good for teaching some of these young people how to do things. what they are finding now is that especially young men don't know how to do some simple things. they get in the workforce and find out. the other thing i have noticed -- i work with a lot of young people -- is that young people don't have any idea about government. they don't have any idea about

how the federal government, state government works. they don't have any appreciation of that kind of thing. i think teaching more civics in school would be really helpful. host: are you a teacher? caller: no, i am a landscaper. but i work with a lot of young people and i'm appalled at the lack of education that some of them have. host: in talking to some of the young people you work with, this poll from this past summer noted that only one in five young people expressed a strong interest in working for the government were serving in the military. does that sound about right to you? yes, it does. young people are so jaded that

they think everything to do with the government is bad. the gentleman that talked about the unions and public employees i think that some good points. a lot of public employees unfortunately are just there for the paycheck. i'm sure there is a lot of good ones. i have run into some that really work hard and are there for the public. unfortunately, they have the pay -- they have the pay up for these people on the pension and the benefit thing up so high that a lot of them i think are just milking the system. host: ann arbor michigan on our democrats line. caller: how are you? host: good. go ahead. caller: public service means to me that every public servant that they to federal should be working for the public

. for the greater good of the makingman which is a guy of,000 and $43,000 instead the whole washington -- two thirds of washington is run by millionaires. how could they actually know what the common guy is actually -- she -- he what he goes through from day-to-day? that was my choice, i would like to have all public servants do a four-year term and then afterwards they would need to go sok into the private sector they would create policies up in washington and that the local

government to do the common good because they have to come right back into the workforce. host: one of the biggest problems you see is the career politicians? caller: yes. 30 have people up there for -- my representative has been up there for 50 some years. how could he actually, by just from the himself actual public, to know what is going on? the only thing that man -- he actually knows is what he is told. he doesn't really know what is going on in our day-to-day lives. host: our last color on this segment. , with the recently

announced a deal on iran's nuclear programs, our next guest will discuss what happens as both sides work towards a more comprehensive deal. we will be right back.

♪ >> on november 25, 1960 three, approximately one million people lined the route of president kennedy's funeral procession from the capital to arlington national cemetery. millions watched the live television coverage. starting tonight on c-span 2, watch nbc's coverage of the state funeral. >> during the historic trip to nixon was looking at a package of cigarettes. they have pandas on them. she was admiring the package. i understand that you also

admired the pandas at the zoo. she said, yes. -- he said, we will make sure you have pandas to go home with. just her being there would bring so much goodwill. there was always evidence at the end of the trips were news reports would come out -- they were talking what the president, but they would always say what a wonderful job she did. >> first lady, pat nexen, tonight, live on c-span and c- span 3. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. "washington journal continues. host: joining us at the table to discuss the nuclear deal is tr ita parsi. not familiar with your group, who are you and what do you do? guest: it was founded about 10 years ago right after 9/11.

it is the largest iranian american grassroots organization. we have been working on this organization -- issue for quite some time. we think it needs to be resolved in a peaceful way. we need to also make sure this does not drag into a war. that would be one of the worst obstacles. host: is this deal the way to do that? guest: i think this is a very, very significant breakthrough. now the hard work begins. i think it is important to realize that the vast majority of concessions in this round actually came from the iranian side. the tougher part is going to come in the second phase because that is when it is going to be required all sanctions to be lifted on iran. sanctions on capitol hill the to be lifted. that has not happened and 34 years. that will be a tremendously tricky thing to do. so far most of the concessions

have come from the iranian side. has beenions relief designed so that it does not have to go through congress. host: this was a tougher deal for iran than for the u.s.? guest: absolutely. in the second phase, it will get balanced out. leveragehas maximum designed going into the second phase. thing -- itwhole may not reach the second phase unless they come to the final conclusion. begun ist has come -- better designed than in the past. host: a lot of questions right now about whether the u.s. can trust iran to go ahead with this deal. it was a question that secretary of state john kerry was asked on "face the nation." here is a bit of that.

[video clip] >> we did arms control with the soviet union during we've done arms control agreement and other parts of the world. you don't trust. it is not based on trust. it is based on fair fixation. it is based on your ability to know what is happening. you don't have to trust the people you're dealing with. you have to have a mechanism put in place whereby you know exactly what you are getting and you know exactly what they're doing. and we believe we are at the beginning of putting that in place with iran. host: that was john kerry. why should the u.s. trust iran right now? guest: this is not about trusting iran or about iran trusting the u.s.. it is about making sure the mechanisms are in place to ensure that if the other side cheats that you will find out as quickly as possible and you can

do something about it. that is the critical thing here. there is no trust between the united states and iran. there has been deep enmity for 34 years. to expect that the deal would begin with trust is wholly unrealistic. both sides have good reasons to distrust the other. by having this mechanism in place that makes sure that the other side simply cannot cheat or if they do so you will find out about it at the earliest possible stage, both sides are putting their trust into that mechanism, not into each other am at least not yet. if these negotiations go well and they actually start resolving this issue, at that point we will see the emergence of a little amount of trust between the two sides. at this point, that is not where we are. host: if you have questions or comments, our phone lines are open. the numbers are on the screen. , (202) 585-3880.

republicans, (202) 585-3881. s, (202) 585-3882. , (202) 585-3883 . what are you seeing any ron? -- iran? guest: the public overwhelmingly welcomes it. i think the reason for that is that the iranian public has suffered tremendously from this conflict, primarily because of the sanctions. it is the people, not the government that has suffered the most from the sanctions. they're excited to see that there has been a solution at least at this stage that on the one hand sets the stage for future sanctions release, while at the same time the iranian's

bottom lines are met so they don't feel they are completely a loser in this negotiation. i think washington has not fully embraced it yet -- for any deal to work, both sides must feel that they got something. if either side feels that this is not a good deal for them, they're going to walk away from the deal. you have to find that balance, that equilibrium, in which both sides, in both phases feel that this is good enough for them to continue in. host: we talked about how the deal is being looked at in the wrong. it is also being looked at skeptically in israel. here is the twitter page of israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu who sent out a series of tweets yesterday on this deal. i want to run through them and get your reaction to them.

can you respond to that? iran: the pressure on remains in place because none of the major sanctions have been lifted. the sanctions that have been suspended can easily be put back into place. that the the measures a re-frozell take tribble and the design of the reversible and

the design of the interim deal is as it is and the second phase of the deal will be your reversible. irrour reversible -- eversible. his statements reduce the impact of israel in future steps of the deal. you talked about some of the back channel talks that have been going on. here is "usa today hurc."

guest: i have written a book that said that would be better serving for the israelis if they took on a more collaborative approach. that would have a greater impact on the agenda of the talks. israel missed its chance and is paying dearly for that right now. the bottom line is that this is still a very, very good deal for israel. the sensitive parts of the iranian program have now been frozen. of 20% enriched uranium that the prime minister was so worried about when he gave that speech at the u.n. must year is going to be completely illuminated or

diluted by the end of the six- month. . -- period. there will be additional mechanisms put in place. then there is a final point, which i think is critical. at the end of the day, the iran anza know and understand that this team in iran knows and understands they will not get a doable deal with the united they shifted their position on israel and what it used to be. the posture on iran is dramatically different than what was. that is just when diplomacy had begun. once you have a deal, you will see more of that. that is going to be very beneficial to israel. >> the diplomacy that is happening overseas versus what is going on in the united states. several members went on the sunday shows to talk about this

deal. here is senator bob corker. he is talking on fox news sunday about this deal. we are very concerned that is not going to be the case. they are spiking the football in the end zone saying, look, we , i consolidate our gains want to make sure that we go on to the end zone. i think they're going to be some people that want to impose additional sanctions. that is another effort that we may take part in. i want to see this all the way through. we have seen what is happening in north korea. i do not want to see that happen and i were on. -- in iran. i think the thing that is interesting, they view this administration as week. standpoint, they see this as their window of opportunity to negotiate.

it does not have the fortitude that other administrations have had. the weakness of the united states that he says was shown here and spiking the football by iranian officials. the bottom line is, some of the objectives are identical -- objectivesose of the george bush administration. they were unrealistic. to the extent that the united states has adopted unrealistic objectives, not only has nothing gotten salt, it is able -- enabled -- nothing gotten salt, it has enabled the iranians. they have offered to negotiate and the bush administration

rejected it. to cap theffered nuclear program and the europeans rejected that offer. today, they have 19,000 centrifuge. if anything has enabled them to move forward, it is the refusal to negotiate by the pursuit of completely unrealistic objectives. what the obama administration has managed to do is to freeze it where it is and they are hoping to be able to rollback as much of it as possible. that has never been achieved in the past. that is more than the bush administration pursued. inhink some republicans the senate would like to adopt. husband where taking your tweets and phone calls.

host: we are taking your tweets and phone calls. we will go to janet, jackson, tennessee. janet, you're on with trita parsi. my concern is about the young generation in our community that does not have a clue to know what the nuclear deal is. i think in the congress now, it looking towards our young people, which is our future. it is coming away from that. i am stressing the importance of our younger generation in our church. they need to step up into congress, to recruit more young people. was on before, he talked about they have no clue about the most simple things. , but the younger

generation has no clue what you all are talking about. i think the young people should be more involved with what is going on politically. our young generation is our tomorrow. the call thisor morning. janet brings up congress. what role does congress play now that the six-month deal has been struck? together ingot agreement that the iran needs are not going to -- the iranians are not going to extend of this program. then thess does that, deal falls apart. that is going to have negative repercussions. it is done by the u.s. side, the world will blame the u.s. for the collapse of the deal. iranians toable the

cause the regime to fall apart. called onditorial congress to go ahead with some of those sanctions. what you think president obama does if congress goes ahead and approves new sanctions? does he veto it? guest: he has to make it decision. does he want to see the deal fall apart and see the iranians unravel the entire sanctions regime or is he going to take on congress? this is an example of what exists on the iranians side -- does the iranian president had the authority to negotiate, can he deal with his hawks and hard- line people that do not want to have a deal? they are looking at the u.s. the exact same way. they are asking does the president have the ability to deal with congress and stand

firm in case congress were to come in and try to sabotage the deal? rouhani celebrates triumph was first hundred days. -- celebrates triumph of his first 100 days. the language in the agreement does not use the word what appears a -- to have happened is a formulation has been found in which the u.s. and other co program,ecognizes the rather than the right to enrich. it appears to be moving in a situation in which the iranians will enjoy the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as all other states. jamie is from

indianapolis, indiana for independence. -- are on would trita parsi you are on with trita parsi. caller: i have been observing this for a while. one conclusion i have reached is hawkishness of the israeli leader, netanyahu, it seems he would not be satisfied unless we invade iran and occupy them to make sure that they don't have the things that he is worried about them having. i do not think the united states el to have nukes because of their hawkishness and overzealousness. over 10 years in conflict

now. if we mess with iran on that level, that straigt will be messed up and gas prices will be astronomical. netanyahu tone down and not be overzealous and go to war with another country. n is trying to get nuclear things because could dorothy did not have them, saddam did not have them -- kadafi did not have them and saddam did not have them. in papers you reading that members of the israeli government are saying? think it isnot particularly likely. they have used threats of taking military action in the hope of getting the united states to adopt a tough and hawkish

position on iran. position -- the united states position was to not use pressure to pave the way for war. if there is not a deal, if diplomacy is not permitted to succeed, the only options the administration will have is down the road -- a military confrontation. the american public does not want to have a march to war. frustration with the overzealousness of the israeli occupation. it doesn't mean that the united states and israel's relationship is going to be damaged, but there is a tactical difference on this issue. the determination on the not to have this

lead to a war is strong. on the israeli side, there is a preference to see united states take military action. comment -- i agree with netanyahu. it was a have most -- a historic mistake, that it was iran that made that mistake. mark is up next on the republican line from a. good morning, mark. caller: good morning. dr. parsi uses very strong language. -- iran has

outwardly stated that it is going to destroy israel, not as recently as a few days ago, the leader called israel a rabid dog. i think a country like that is entitled to take strong positions and we should not forget about saudi arabia. niac -- is about the that an objective organization or is it a lobby for iran and if it is, why don't you have on someone with a different point of view who is objective? from what i have wed -- read on wikipedia and elsewhere, is organization appears to be a lobby for the iranian administration. that is false. there is no such thing as the lobby for the iranian government. that would be illegal. we have been operating in the country for more than 10 years.

if there were true than that, it would have been dealt with. there are those who take hawkish positions and spread false rumors because they don't have better arguments and they are to slander the other side. the important thing is that there is a problem with the rhetoric that the iranians are using against israel. side, there'sli going to be a need to respond to that that is effective. israeliesponse of the government effective? is the approach that the israeli government has taken effective or not? one would expect that over the , time passes, and they continue to say that they are two or three years towards a bomb, but there will be progress or a solution.

we have seen a deterioration of the situation. for the first time, we have something that can turn the thatctory and make sure the nuclear program does not advance and that it cannot reach a nuclear weapons stage while reducing iran's hostility towards the united states and other countries in the region. host: does this delegitimize the deale -- does this legitimize the regime? what does this deal do with how iran is seen in the international community? the iranian government abuses ares extensive. it is interesting to see human rights defenders in iran and

outside have favored this deal for a simple reason -- as long as the deal as long as -- as long as the situation is not dealt with and the nuclear issue overshadows all issues with iran and puts the united states and iran at the risk of war, it will be impossible to make progress on human rights in iran. they need to have an opening up of the space in iran by taking away the threat of war that exists as a result of this issue. there is expectation and pressure from iranian civil society that as this issue is getting resolved, they want to see the government start changing its behavior on human rights. interesting when the andign minister returned the crowd was welcoming here.

the slogans were calling for the release of political prisoners, of the leader of the green movement, they were using the same slogans that you could hear four years ago during the uprising in the elections back then. it is a very clear sign. those that want the country to move in that direction, resolving the human rights situation, the significant restrictions on the political freedom, are happy about this deal because they see they have a chance to move forward with their agenda. last caller was concerned about your organization. maybe you can tell us about your background and how you and your family left iran. imprisonedather was and he had in opportunity -- an opportunity to continue his research in sweden. out of jail, got

we went to sweden. my father was put on the list of people that would be executed on accused ofaving been having been a collaborator, which was false. he went back to clear his name. regimer was that the would take revenge against other family members. he ended up in jail again, but this time in the jail of the new government. he cleared his name because the people who were running the jail were 20-year-old former students of his. and knew he was critical some of the lectures he had given. he cleared his name, left the country, and has never been back. host: a few tweets coming in.

i agree with mr. parsi. both sides must accomplish something. the status quo has left us running in place now moving. that they must feel get something. what has iran and the usa received from this agreement and who verifies compliance? guest: the american side has received a lot. far more inspections are going to take place, there will be significant reduction in activity. 20% of uraniumy, is going to be eliminated or diluted. they will not have the material needed to build a bomb. you cannot build a bomb unless you up to 20% and from there on go up to about 93%. operating a nuclear reactor is

five percent. we know the iranians will not be cheating on this issue. they are not going to add new centrifuges. the only thing they can do is replace a broken one. beyond that, the program is frozen. this has not been achieved since 2003. host: had a we know they are not moving these operations to a nottary base that we are aware of? guest: because we will have more inspections. we need to reach the final stage of this. -- ryans are going to ratify the iranians are going to ratify and give us more inspection capabilities. with they gain at this point is minor sanctions relief, but they also gain the recognition that they have a nuclear program, as

well as the fact that they do not have to suspended 20. that has been -- not have to suspend it to zero. part of the reason why we have a success now is because both sides have accepted the other's bottom line. that is how you get it deal. host: kevin, boston, massachusetts, for democrats. you are on with trita parsi. i agree with the caller earlier who was saying why is netanyahu screaming about orion -- iran having nuclear weapons? for them to have that to have energy throughout their country and it creates jobs for their country. think we need to put

israel in check. it seems like they are trying to take focus off of what they are doing in their country. they are taking all of the land andans' dividing that country. -- he feels pity because they are treating me palestinian people the same way at germany treated the israeli people. host: do think that is a fair assessment? guest: i would say that because the iranians are -- of the mpt.

the and national -- the international community is -- i don'tthe fact think they need a nuclear weapons. nuclear and causes a nuclear domino effect in the middle east, then you have other countries starting nuclear weapons programs. that would eliminate a conventional superiority that iran has. it would eight p.m. -- it would -- mistake for them to host: an e-mail that we received

on the subject. in what hetes doesn't see being reported is the difference between weapon grade uranium and what is used for domestic uses for electricity. there are great differences and with inspectors constantly watching, we will know if iran complies. , secretary kerry. good luck with finishing this in the future. , new jersey,ext independent line. good morning. iran is a signator to the nonproliferation pact and recorded in that pact is their perfect right to supply .hemselves with nuclear energy where we get our authority from, muscling in there, is beyond me.

government inheir the past to get our hands around -- their oil products, their energy. now we are doing the biddingly adding of -- of israel. were iranian, sitting in the position that i am sitting in, knowing how the government of israel is so hot to trot criminal facade that they try to paint to the rest tothe world, i would be hot nuclearut gaining

weaponry. guest: i think it is correct to what is to stop the country from building nuclear weapons? making threats and bombing them is probably not the most helpful thing. the more they sense a threat, the greater incentives to produce a deterrence against that threat. this is what this deal has achieved. it has reduced the tensions and as a result reduced any .ncentives for the other side that is exactly how you make sure that you reduce the number of nuclear weapon states in the world. not by adopting overzealous positions and making threats and giving the other side the impression that the only way they can avoid being attacked is by building a nuclear weapons.

deal is a great achievement. i want to emphasize this is the first step of the deal. this whole thing can fall apart unless both sides implement all of the provisions of the first deal and move closer towards implementing the final stage of this. -- israel isweets strong by necessity. rrounded by enemies bent on our destruction. jrf write-in this deal will be another obama administration failure. susan, good morning. you on with trita parsi. caller: thank you for educating us on what is happening. since this was a big issue, my question on the heels of the how did thats,

treaty and any of the safeguards having to do with compliance of nuclear weapons mixed in with the agreement that was just passed this weekend? are we ignoring what was discussed at the united nations or did the united nation's not include anything to do with nuclear weapons used for mass destruction? guest: the treaty is the basis of this agreement. it is specifically mentioned in the text as well is on the last page of the deal. that is something the iranians insisted on. their interpretation is that there is such a right to enrich -- such a thing as the right to

enrich. statest think the united has had any objections to that. the difference has been the difference of interpretation of ,rticle four of the treaty whether there is a right to enrich or not. using that as a legal framework, the two sides made progress last year, whatis happened this past weekend, they managed to make a deal. because both sides are signatories of the mpt, it was a starting point for negotiations. host: i want to show this , on ane -- on iran diplomatic who, carries -- kerry'sic coup bearing hallmark. what do you think? this is clearly a

secretary state that is going to he has a second and he is now saying a chance to seeng a one or two of them fully resolved. he has the full backing of the president. i think that is why the united states has had a strong negotiating posture. host: there's a picture of secretary of state john kerry from over the weekend. forant to thank trita parsi joining us. we appreciate you coming in to talk about the deal. kliff will be the affordable

care act in the latest on improvements to healthcare.gov. .nd later, scot paltrow first, a news update from c-span radio. the united nations says that talks between syria's government and opposition leaders will take place in geneva on january 22. the peaceful establishment of a transitional government is the goal of the talks. previous attempts at talks have failed over disputes of who should represent syria and the government and whether other regional powers should have a place at the table. national security adviser susan rice is in afghanistan to meet with karzai. she will meet with troops for the holidays. the visit was announced today. it is her first visit as president obama's top aide.

president karzai rejected a deal to sign a pact until the new year. the u.s. one of the deal signed end.ar's the head of the nsa submitted his resignation after edward snowden leaked documents, but resignation was declined. he is stepping down in the spring and for the first time, the white house is considering whether to name a civilian to lead the agency. the nsa has always been led by a military officer since it was created in 1952. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. i don't think anybody would have looked into a crystal ball people on college

campuses would be streaming netflix onto an iphone to watch a movie. this is what is happening out there. we have this huge issue that the not that you want to date yourself -- i remember in northwest ohio, depending on the day, if the antenna on the house was working right, you got two channels. maybe that one channel. some days you did not get any channels. the industry has changed so rapidly that i want to make sure that we have things out there that regulate and law on the books that spur innovation. i think we have created around 3.8 million jobs. front oflogy issues in the current congress. tonight on "the communicators."

>> washington journal continues. is the coming saturday date that the obama administration has pledged to have healthcare.gov working for the vast majority of americans. we'll talk about that deadline and other developments with sarah kliff. of websitestion functionality, you wrote that americans should not be expecting a thanksgiving miracle. guest: when you talk to folks at hhs, they say we are making gradual improvements. say it will be better than .t was on the 29th it is a process that is going to go on for weeks. they say the vast majority of users should have a smooth experience.

expect that it is going to be healthcare.gov 2.0 by this weekend. are they doing anything to mark that date that the president talked about? guest: they have not talked about it yet. it will be over a holiday weekend and that takes some of the impetus off of having an event. they see this as something that is going to evolve over the coming weeks and months. it seems they are trying to this novemberuch 30 date matters. host: 80% functionality is what the white house says? we're talking about four out of five users having a pretty easy time signing up for health insurance. informationort of are they giving out at this ,oint in terms of functionality

how quickly things are moving along to fix the problems with healthcare.gov? guest: there are two metrics they use, one is error rate. they say those have dropped from 6% to hovering around 1%. the other metric they use is how long it takes webpages to load, how long you're waiting for the page to load. that has gone from eight seconds down to in a range of milliseconds at this point. those are the metrics they often used to measure how well things are going. want to talk to sarah kliff about healthcare.gov come about some of the recent announcements about the affordable care act, our phone lines are open. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. u.s., (202) 585-3883 . in, --lks are calling

while folks are calling in, your front-page story -- health care law test awaits for the irs. explain this story today. guest: we've all been concerned about health care, but one thing is not gotten into -- attention is the irs. there are 47 different provisions that the irs is responsible for implement. the important one is the individual mandate. they are required to check that people have health insurance have seennd they their budget cut, they do not have extra staff to work on this. aree are concerns if they unable to enforce the individual mandate, will the administration be able to get young people to sign-up if the threat of being fined for not caring insurance does --

carrying insurance is not -- does not seem credible. their functionality is a little bit far out. starting with the 2014 tax , that is when i start checking if people have health insurance. time until big lead they administer the individual mandate. it is one area where people are starting to get concerned about how the law will go. host: talk about some of the announcements from last week in terms of delays of specific provisions of the affordable care act. what was the news from last week? guest: the key to lay was the last day that you can buy health insurance. originally it was said at was set at --

december 15. have move that back to december 23. they will be enrolled in coverage by january 21st. they wanted a full two weeks to process applications. it can be difficult to mail out all of the insurance cards and get everyone on the roles. we will see if that causes any hiccups, but that is the deadline the administration is using. what about the delays that could affect sign-up coverage? theannouncement of moving delay back to october of 2014. moved back by one month. it was supposed to start october back by one moved

month. it was supposed to start over 15 and got moved back to november 15. in april, insurance companies were required to file their rates. it is difficult to figure out premiums if you do not know who was signed up for your plan. in ministrations as giving insurers until may to file their rates and then pushing back open enrollment another month. is the goal to give insurance companies more time or is it to push rates until after the midterm elections? this is what you hear from republicans -- it looks like politics to us. there concerns about lost policies when the employer mandate kicks in? is that the reason for the delay until after the elections? the lost is less about policies and more about the idea of giving insurance companies more time. one complaint i hear from executives is there is a quick

turnaround between finding out who was signed up and figuring out how much premiums should be next year to cover them. it is more to do with that. host: sarah kliff of the washington post is here to answer your questions about the affordable care act. weekend coming out last , this week about healthcare.gov and is functionality. we will start with stephen, shelbyville, indiana, democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. republicans always talk about getting insurance across state lines. how will that work? what about the single-payer? what is that? the idea of selling

insurance across state lines is wanting everyone to have access to all kinds of coverage. some require maternity coverage, while other states do not require maternity coverage. republican proposals for selling across state lines encourage people to buy any sort of policy. if you live in a state that requires maternity coverage, you can purchase an outer state plan a didn't and the premiums would be lower. you could see a race to the bottom. that everyone is trying to price the cheapest and then insurance does not become robust. payer proposal is to have the government provide health insurance for everyone. that is something similar to the canadian or british health care system. is that taking

for-profit companies out of health insurance you can have a more efficient health care system. the concerns they are are that you put the government in charge of what health care gets delivered. some people worry about wait times, if there is enough money to finance it. host: tulsa, oklahoma, republican line. good morning. you're on with sarah kliff. rationing of care that you just mentioned, one of my concerns is the loss of productivity for the nation where you have people waiting on the workingularly people waiting on care. if you're on welfare and you do not work, you can go sit in the doctors office and you can go seek care and wait in line. there is not a loss of

productivity for those on welfare. those don't work. the working class of the nation needs to be cared for. are they going to be another emergency care, loss of productivity, affecting the nation from that standpoint. is there been any analysis of as a result effect of rationing of care that is going to come from the obamacare deal? i would not say i've seen any research on wait time and rationing. one thing that has worried people before is that there is a doctor shortage. do notrojected that we have enough doctors to meet all of our medical needs. there is some concern that the health care law, by moving millions of people into the health-care system could make

that problem more difficult. you might see longer wait times. that is one thing we are waiting to learn about the health care law. are you going to see a much higher demand for care? i was going to the big strain on medical professionals across the country. i want to point out this piece from the washington post -- it documents -- documents reveal health site missteps. talk about what was revealed in some of those documents. guest: what you see in these documents is miscommunication over what was going to work and i said would be ready, but did not end up being

ready. the events they report on is the meeting in august. it was a serious meeting with the contractor and federal officials where they said we need to know what is working and what is not. they felt they were not getting accurate information. many factors were involved in why the healthcare.gov rollout went so terribly. cgi does bear some of the fall for that. host: what's going to carry myrtle creek, oregon. ie, myrtleo to carr creek, oregon. how many people are denied health care because their states did not set up an exchange? to the people that do not want taket health insurance,

personal responsibility for your pam lake, get them health care, -- take personal responsibility for your family, get them health care. it helps our country be stronger. sarah kliff on terry's questions. it is more about the medicaid expansion. ,f states opt out of that people under the poverty line, $12,000 for an individual, they will not have access to insurance coverage. there are about 5.2 million people less doubt of the health care expansion because the states are not expanding medicaid. it is difficult for people on to geteral exchange

health insurance. the idea is that as a technical error and that once the federal exchange works a little bit better, those people will have more access to help insurance coverage. host: you have done a few , but the one i want you to talk about is kentucky was the subject of a front-page story yesterday. the headline, a bright spot for troubled rollout. guest: they have had a successful launch. people of had a lot of trouble on healthcare.gov, residents of kentucky have had a smooth sign up process. one of my colleagues went out to rural kentucky and what she found was that there was less and about the policies lot more people just interested in learning what their benefits

are. a lot of people who have not had access to coverage getting signed up. one of the reasons kentucky is successful is that they have put a lot of political capital behind it. the governor is very supportive, the state is expanding medicaid. southern state that has embraced the health care law and is seeing a successful rollout. vince, indianapolis, indiana, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i went to an alliance for health care meeting on friday. found is that we we are still doing bankruptcy cases for people that cannot pay their medical deductibles. that is going to be a big problem going forward.

people that are injured in auto motoriststo uninsured , we see the bankruptcy of many medical payments still going on. i do not think the affordable care act has adequately addressed that group. especially auto insurance companies that offer comprehensive rejection for medical payments. is an bankruptcy interesting issue to watch here. we did see in massachusetts, our best analog at this point, that medical bankruptcies continued for some people after the health care law. it is not perfect protection.

be hope is that they will able to lower some of the financial burden, but as you raised the point, some of the deductibles are pretty high. we're talking about the $5,000 range for some of the lower tier, bronze plans. we will see how this plays out. with people gravitating towards the lower rhenium plans with higher deductibles whether there lower premium plans with higher deductibles, whether there are some surprises down the line. how is anyone supposed to afford obamacare insurance? that it's aple bargain for must be nearly dying already. you brought up the massachusetts exchange. -- johnohn teams dale on our show yesterday and he talked about the differences between the they

program in massachusetts and the federal program. here's a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] lead up to our landmark legislation in 2006. we outlawed medical underwriting back in 1990's and gradually over the next 10 years moved towards universal coverage, the requirement for individuals to purchase a pay and adjusted community rate. host: that was john kingsdale. you can see his full interview if youhington journal" go to c-span.org. we are with sarah kliff. she is taking your questions and comments on the subject. joe, ask, north carolina, independent line. caller: good morning.

is, why would anybody trust the keeper of the gates, the irs, that has unfettered power to take and attach anything when some of these people have not been working for two or three years, picking cans up out of the ditch, recycling, and then they apply for obamacare and they want the subsidies that the taxpayer has to pay for because it is not free. all of a sudden it throws a flag up and some zealot in the irs wants to make a few more bucks for himself and he turned them in. and then they come after him. how good is that? ofst: you raise the issue people applying for benefits that they do not qualify for and what kind of safeguards will be there. it's is a challenging issue of the affordable care act, where

the different programs and different amounts of tax subsidies depends on how much you earn. lot,ur income fluctuates a if you're are a contractor, self-employed, have different income, it can be difficult to estimate what you're going to earn and you might end up applying for more tax credits then you qualify for. it will be interesting on how the irs handles this issue. it is something we are going to learn coming forward. host: we have about 20 minutes left with sarah kliff. she has a front-page piece in "the washington post." crucial health law test awaits for the irs. she is taking your calls and questions. ,ames is up, greenfield

massachusetts. caller: thank you for taking my call. if insurance -- auto insurance is considered coverage on the affordable care act. buying automobile insurance would not cover the requirement to purchase health insurance under the affordable care act. what you would need to purchase is a health insurance plan that meets certain standards. that includes hospital stays, not-- drug coverage, charging women more than men and not rejecting anyone for a pre- existing condition. there is a specific set of criteria that an insurance plan needs to me to be compliant with

the requirements to carry coverage. host: you have a follow-up? caller: people who are on unemployment, are they covered by the affordable care act? they generally are. there are two requirements for purchasing insurance. you have to be a legal resident and not incarcerated. if you meet those requirements, you are near certainly eligible to use the affordable care act. post" had washington a chart over the weekend. their insurance through medicaid, 13% per medicaid. 13% -- the uninsured count for about 16%.

we want to take your questions and comments with sarah kliff. we go to joseph, pennsylvania on our line for democrats. comment --anted to aople are calling in about shortage of doctors. in our area here, they are building brand-new hospitals, they are expanding them, doctors are building their own hospitals and community centers. anditals are expanding there seems to be no shortage here. be a shortageto in rural areas. that is where the problem is. there is no money there. in our area, where populations are great, doctors are building their own centers. a subject folks on

twitter have been asking about -- the shortage of doctors. is the affordable care act causing a shortage of doctors? to knowt will be hard before the insurance expansion starts. that starts on january 1. millions of people might be going to the doctor for the first time using their new insurance cards. one thing that is important to doctorand is that the shortage predates the affordable care act. we have had a doctor shortage that ranges and the upwards of thousands of doctors. going to have to see how that pans out, whether that is the case. it is too early to tell right now, given that people have not gone their insurance card yet. was on ourkingsdale

show yesterday. i played you a clip earlier. [video clip] >> i think the fundamental mistake was not doing what a number of states has done, which independent or new agency to run the exchange. sets ofe two initiatives required to implement reform. one is regulations and market hhsrms, which i think the has done a reasonably good job of doing. the other element is to create a new marketplace. it is certainly a commercial

enterprise for which the traditional agencies are not particularly well-suited. in a number of the states that have done exchanges, we set up a new independent -- semi- independent agency with its own board of directors. like the fcc, and they were able to develop a new function for government rather than launch it in an existing agency. host: sarah kliff of "the washington post." how much is the government learning from what happened in the massachusetts example? guest: i think a fair amount. they did decide to do things differently and work within an existing agency. ofre has been some criticism whether that was the best decision or not. one issue that has come up a lot is government contracting and

the constraints on who federal agencies can hire and the partners they work with. there has been a lot of criticism of the contracting process. they're saying you're picking from such a limited list and sometimes it can be difficult to get people who are good at who g their specific task you want. of thes to be one disconnects between the states that are doing well, that they went out and found the best and brightest in their states versus the federal government being limited to a small list of contractors. if you want to see the interview with john kings dell, go to our website and check it out there. good morning, daniel. caller: i am a tax guy and i get a lot of tax journals, and the only recourse the irs will have

to collect the tax, the fine, the penalty, and the overpaid subsidies is to take it out of your refund. they will not be doing liens or garnishments or anything like that. so, how can, and if that be sustainable? definitely true for the penalty, that the federal government is limited in being able to recoup that penalty. your penalty or 1% of income, which is -- whichever is greater. a lot of the politics of the affordable care act left the agency hamstrung. there were all these rumors during the health-care debate in 2009 that the irs would be hiring thousands of agents, there were rumors that they would be armed, and the democrats felt they had to tone down the mechanism. -- the collection mechanism. he didn't want people feeling

like they would go to jail or have their wages garnished. whether that will make it more difficult to convince people to sign up. the irs go about doing that if somebody does not get a tax refund? they cannot recoup it if they do not get a tax refund. i interviewed one person who got zeroo get -- he refund and he would have a standing thing with the irs that they would not be able to collect. you could theoretically just keep not getting refunds and never pay the penalty. we go to kimberly from washington, pennsylvania, on our line for republicans. you are on the sarah kliff. with you,disagree sarah, when you talk about the shortage of doctors.

if britain can, come out of a war and have national healthcare in that shape, americans can do a lot better. that would create jobs and the need for doctors and better ones that were not in it to get rich. host: kimberly from washington, pennsylvania. enrollmente have on numbers, october 1 through november 2. 106,185 have selected health plans. 74.8% were state base, the other 25.2% were federally facilitated. 975,407 have gone through a process but have not picked a plan. what are we going to see -- when will we see the next round of

numbers from cms? probably mid-december. they are promising to do monthly updates. we should get the november numbers in a few weeks. we see right now a lot of states put out more recent information, so by the tally we are keeping at "the washington post," we are looking at 175,000 total enrollments through mid- november. the question from roger "does your guests see simple payer on the horizon and would be the solution?" vermont is part of the way through the process, but it is a number of years before the states step up to a single-payer system. if we were to transition to that would likely start at

the state level. ofwill see a lot experimentation, and i think vermont is being watched closely by health policy experts to see how that goes and whether there could be a national future, although i would expect it would be a number of years off. host: i want to ask you about the status of the effort by the white house to allow non- tomacare compliant plans continue through 2014. where is the administration on that? guest: last week the president announced that he would allow allownce companies to compliant plans to continue, and insurance regulators had to say yes, in my state these companies would fold, and the business would decide that it was a good idea to keep selling these plans. a lot of the more liberal regulators who like the health- care law and helped to build

state exchanges are not allowing this change to go forward. they say it delays the affordable care act, it means people have plans that do not have the same benefits, so they are not getting on board. host: these are states that you point out in your piece, massachusetts, minnesota, maryland, rhode island, vermont, and washington. guest: an equal number on the other side are saying they are ok with allowing these plans to be sold. texas, are, florida, a few examples. even there, there is one more decision that needs to be made. insurance companies need to decide if they want to sell those plans. for people who have a plan right now, they will find out within them the next week or so whether their insurance company intends to sell that plan next year. deciding states still to let these conclude --

colorado, d.c., indiana, mississippi, colorado, california? california decided late thursday they would not allow these plants be offered. it was a big decision. host: sarah kliff has been tracking all the implications of the affordable care act and healthcare.gov. we go to marry from winterville, north carolina, on our line for republicans. mary, are you there? yes, my daughter plus plan was grandfathered in, and we accepted the grandfather plan and kept it. and 2015, will4 our insurance companies send us a voucher stating that we have insurance so that we can turn it in with our tax forms? they will, yes.

that is an excellent question, how do you prove to the irs that you have insurance? get a notice from your insurance company that you can include in your taxes. if you get insurance from your employer, it is most likely your employer who provides that health insurance will give you that same notice that you include as an irs filing. this is a subject in a "washington post" story i sarah kliff today. we do not trust the irs. ."ust at your own risk good morning, you're on with sarah kliff. morning.ood i am 19 living in america, and i concerns forortant my future. my biggest question is since

when did america did it become a luxury to be fed and healthy? you say you're 19. what is your insurance situation? caller: i do not have insurance currently. my dad passed away and i have not been able to find anything that is manageable for me at 19, and i feel like you never really get a straight answer from politicians trying to say they want to take care of you. it all seems to be a scheme for them to make money. i think rachel said it would create more doctors wanting to genuinely help people rather than a big company wanting you to pay money. host: sarah kliff, for someone is 19, what are the options for her? guest: there are 47 million

people who currently lack health insurance, and most of them are finding affordable options through the health-care law. some will find they do not feel like they can afford it. one thing i would to just is trying to explore what sort of options you might have under the health-care law will stop it is challenging to suggest because healthcare.gov is not working especially well, but there are other resources that might give of what you would qualify for. family foundation might help you . go to kff.org for a calculator. host: what are you watching for this week besides the functionality issue that we talked about at the top of the segment? another thing we will be

watching our the state enrollment numbers from the states requiring their own data. they will finish out their month, and we have generally seen enrollment in november be higher than it was october, but we will be watching to see whether that trend continues. host: the white house met with insurers last week in d.c. are there plans for those meetings to keep happening, and when is the next one? there are no further meetings. there was a meeting with key regulators. those go of the regulars invited declines to show up as they said they had not consulted with other federal regulatory their fellow regulators so there is still a little bit of tension. insurance regulators were not consulted by the white house and are trying to work this through. ofmight assume some sort research information about some of the issues they are thinking

about and whether or not to about the extension of noncompliant policies next year. host: a couple more calls for sarah kliff of "the washington post," about the affordable care act. bonnie is from idaho on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for sarah regarding verification of identity. processhrough the october 1 and i have been on the phone with those folks forever. they said i had verification of my identity, that i needed copy of my birth certificate, driver's license, social security card. london, kentucky. my application is still in progress. i call back a couple times a week and have not gotten any .ind of answer i wonder if you have any information about that.

worked as a nurse for 40 years. i don't know what this verification of identity is all about. that sounds like a very frustrating situation and --ortunately one that.com that healthcare.gov users are finding right now. the administration would have liked most of this to be moving through the website. i cannot speak specifically to the income verification process and how long it tends to take, but on these daily updates with , it isand human services issues like these they are trying to resolve. how well the administration doesn't think the problems will determine how many -- how well the administration does in fixing these problems will getrmine how many people

through. host: sarah kliff. work onfollow her washington post.com. up next, we will take an in- depth look at the bookkeeping practices of the department of defense. scott paltrow has been writing issueoing series, this from reuters. first an update from c-span radio. >> house majority leader eric cantor speaking earlier on cbs' morning says he thinks the new -- he went on it to say that it is dangerous and brings a ran closer to becoming a nuclear power. the agreement announced yesterday gives tehran six months to increase access to its nuclear sites in exchange for keeping this element -- the essential elements for its uranium program.

france's foreign minister says he expects a european wide decision in several weeks on a partial easing of sanctions against iran. the sanctions eased will be targeted and the decision will be reversible. obama announced the agreement in a rare saturday night on-camera statement from the white house and has since traveled to the west coast where he stops today in san francisco, expected to talk about immigration reform. you can hear his remark slide at 2:35 p.m. eastern time -- his remarks live at 2:35 p.m. eastern time on c-span. those are some of th latest headlines on c-span radio. atputting you in the room congressional hearings, white house events, conferences, offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry.

we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago, funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. >> during the president's , it was trip to china noticed how mrs. nixon was looking at a package of said ites, and he understand you also admire the pandas at the zoo. --said, aren't they darling she said, aren't they darling? that they would donate pandas to the national zoo. it was at the end of the trips where news reports would come out talking about the president this way, but they would always say what a wonderful job pat nixon did. >> first lady pat nixon, tonight at 9:00 eastern.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: each week in this segment we take a look at how your money is at work, and this week we are joined by reuters special thatprise correspond or correspondent scott paltrow, talking about his series "unaccountable." we want to start with this recent story from november 18 which expend ash which attempt to display in why the pentagon since 1996, according to your story, $8.5 trillion in appropriations that by law should have been audited has not been for stop how did this happen? congressll, basically and the white house let them get away with it. in theas a law passed

early 1990's that kicked in for the defense department in 1996 that requires all federal departments to be audited and pass an audit. every other federal department not only is audited every year, very rare exceptions passed an audit. the defense department has not only not passed an audit, it has never been audited. the reason is that it is in total shambles with no functioning accounting system. for decades congress let that slip. was much more focused on weapons systems and threats to national security, and the accounting side and the money side was never focused on by the top pentagon.he all of this money essentially has disappeared into a black hole. there's no single accounting .ystem there are all these individual

accounting systems that are allowed to develop ad hoc, and one of the biggest ones go back to the 1960's and is still in use for major contracts. anywhere between -- host: we will certainly get into some of those systems. but who is responsible at the pentagon for keeping the books? pentagon,l, at the ultimately responsibility is to the pentagon comptroller, who reports directly to the secretary of defense. but under the weird way the defense department was established after world war i -- after worldre war ii, the defense department lobbying congress, were allowed to retain independent authority. so they have their own accounting systems. the secretary of defense has had little power to force them to bring together any united system

in which data can be shared. host: in your story, you talk dfas.this agency called what is that? >> the defense finance accounting service, and it handles a lot of jobs, everything from military pay to paying the bills to basic accounting on behalf of military services. but there are quite a lot of -- it operatese to a large extent on machines. each of the military services has their own completely different sets of machines with different kind of data that has to be forced from pipelines. there has been an endless stream of errors, and numbers that do not add up. is financial statements

fiction because there is no way to come up with reliable audited statements. host: we are talking with scott paltrow from reuters about his recent series about keeping practices of the pentagon called "unaccountable, and you can ask him your questions or call him with your comments. democrats can call in at 20 2- 585-3880. 20 2-585-3881. , 202-585-3882. we want to show some of the numbers, some of the stats from your recent reporting. trillion given5 to the department of defense has gone on audited. false numbers are used to match dod budgets with treasuries. talk about false numbers and how they work.

it is essentially like balancing a checkbook. the defense department every month, and each of the military services, has to give a report to the treasury, which is essentially the bank for the military, and the checkbook is required to balance. only the defense department does numbers tocurate fill-in and make the balance equal to what the treasury says. to make the totals come out straight, they put in false numbers, which are known colloquially as plugs. are we talking thousands of dollars or? guest: we are talking billions of dollars. is an example from your reporting? guest: an office that handles 2y accounting had

billion dollars of plugs. it also goes on not just at that high level but also within the army, where to the army accounting office, levels do not match. even those omers are pledged -- are even those numbers are fudged with plugs. where is the inspector general, or the gao? guest: they have both been extremely active on this issue. there have been endless reports ,ocusing on just these subjects the plugging phenomenon, the inability to balance books, and also on the fantastic sums that are being spent to build new modern equipment to replace all these legacy systems that have been failures. the air force spent over $1 build one system.

at the end of a years, it killed it as a failure. there was a personnel system that was supposed to have worked for the entire defense department, unifying all the separate systems. spending $1 billion, that, too, was killed. at a corporation, no one would let things get so out of hands. a chief financial officer would stop it. and of course sarbanes-oxley, which congress applies to corporations, does not apply to the defense department. no one is on the hook for any of these errors. host: so in a sense congress is more strict about the public sector than they are about the military? guest: host: about this, certainly. about this,t:

certainly. system fromid the the air force the cost over $7 billion, the systems ranging to $700 $600 million billion, toe, $1.3 fix this accounting problem at the defense department and the different surfaces. we are talking with scott paltrow of reuters, taking your calls and comments. we start on the phones with ray from sarasota, florida, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. youuld like to ask -- do believe that the government is purposely having these books done in the sham way they are so that no one can be held spendingle for

covertly on military operations, etc.? i believe the government has the money and the means to have themselves audited and accountable. i find this ridiculous. this ase they are using a ponzi scheme so no one can be held accountable for anything. and if money comes up missing, who do you point the finger at? guest: i think that is an excellent question. we were reporting that it looks like he will not make the deadline. one of the major reasons it needs to be audited is to find out exactly the type of thing you brought up, which is whether everything is on the up and up or whether money is going for it legal uses. that can include outright fraud -- the or it can include

u.s. house has the very strict law that forbids money being used than what it was appropriated for by congress. violation of that can entail civil and criminal penalties. because the accounting is so opaque, it is impossible to tell whether there are anti- deficiency act violations and perhaps whether they are even widespread. that perhaps is a reason over the long haul that there has been resistance tearing up the accounting, because often it is experience -- it is expedient when money is needed to finish revamping a helicopter or installing something on a ship, they just can't immediately take money from the wrong account -- they just immediately take money from the wrong account and spend it on that. host: one of the key quotes in your piece is by then secretary "myefense robert gates --

staff and i learned that it was nearly impossible to get accurate information to manchester questions such as much money did you spend and how many people do you have." in 2011. robert gates a c-span democrat on twitter asks, "is there some a slide on which the dod can begin a comprehensive accounting? how would they audit this behemoth, 40% of the federal budget?" that is an enormous problem. when you have a baseline, you have to have a starting place. the records are so screwed up, they do not have that. most of these systems have existed for years and years and had data put into them manually, people putting in long alphanumeric strings of code, and of course people made typos and that means the data disappears or is erroneous. whereis no way of knowing

the defense department is today. one way they are trying to get around this, they were supposed to do a big audit after 2014, a big chunk of the pentagon's accounts, and they are scaling it back to the current year rather than money that is appropriated for previous years because they have no record of what happened to the money from previous years, or a very incomplete record. some stats from scott , created under former secretary of defense dick cheney in 1991. and a $3.6employees billion budget. it is responsible for paying active-duty soldiers and 17tractors and it made billion -- 67 -- $617 billion in

payments in 2012. that responsibility for paying active-duty and reserve troops was the result of your first report in the "unaccountable" series you have been writing. what you find in the july story? was afound this particular instance of a larger thing we have been talking about. military payroll as well as payroll for civilians is handled fas on amy sheen that runs from -- from a machine that runs from cobol and has not been updated since the 1970's. it makes a lot of errors and it makes it difficult to keep track of things. especially when a soldier is moving from one unit to another or has been injured and transferred home. we have found some harangued us

examples of wounded warriors, people who have been blown up and suffered serious injuries in iraq and afghanistan who are hospitalized more than a year and maimed and came back to the states thinking that all their finances would be taking care of and discovering that by mistake they have been completely cut off by dfas. aiken?ho is sean guest: he was an army medic, a in iraq who enlisted and afghanistan. he was civilian that she was severely injured by a rocket he was severely injured by a rocket propelled grenade. had brain damage in his right hip was pretty much destroyed. he was transferred back to a wounded warrior battalion in el paso, texas, and got there to discover he was not getting --

that his money was cut off. at that time there was no one at the base to argue for him. he and his wife lives entirely severer own, and with mental difficulties to try to fight to get money. while this was going on, they had to go to food pantries. it was christmas time and the only presents they got were donated by a charity for their children. because of these screw ups, this is how the military was treating heroes who had saved lots of lies and given so much of themselves. host: you say in your article affectis does not only guys like sean aiken, but peter shoemaker. who is he? shumaker was a general who retired and during the iraqi war he was brought back in two -- i am forgetting the term -- the army's see you

military official. he came out of retirement and took over and discovered he was not getting paychecks. this is a top general in the army. the chief of staff in the army is not getting a paycheck? guest: that's right. they had correctly taken him off the retirement rolls. they did that right, but they could not get him back on the active-duty roles. to add insult to injury, the dfas computers were programmed to assume that if someone had taken -- been taken off the rolls, they had died. received a computer- generated condolence card from dfas. it's spelled his name three different ways on the card, and of course he had not passed away. he was the chief of staff of the army. it took him as a general weeks to get back onto the payroll and

then to get back pay that was owed to him. if they treated a top general like this, think of how they would treat a private. we will take a few calls. julian is waiting from st. petersburg, florida. you're on with scott paltrow. i am a former attorney with dod, working contracts for a long time. i am wondering what your feelings are, what your findings cas,dfars and cross accounting standards, deal with the springer of money that you see going on. thank you. guest: i did not get the sense

that the biggest problem by any were the regulations or the laws. it was more a case of ignoring or not being able to follow them. for example, the defense logistics agency, the big supply organization within the military, about half of its $14 billion inventory is stuff that is totally unnecessary. the head of the dla himself said. even so, with all of this extra stuff, they still go out and buy more items. they have 14 years were sitting on the shelves. handally because the left does not know what the right hand is doing, they use two different computer systems. the contracting process is a mess. in order for contracts to be closed out, they have to be audited and figured out if there is any money owed back to the united states.

there is now about a half $1 trillion backlog at the defense -- awaiting, owing closing. the defenseing up logistics agency. here is a picture from your story showing the scene in the defense of justice agency. talk about the example you use, the humvee front suspension system. guest: right. the humvee of course is the modern equivalent of the jeep. as an example of the great , in buying, the military had the numbers don't. they had 15,000 of these behavior control arms in stock in 2009, which is the equivalent

of a 14-year supply at a time when the military was getting -- nevertheless, over the next two years they ordered 7500 more at higher prices than the ones sitting on the shelves at the dla warehouses. ,hat is not an exception because at the request of congress, dla has actually been keeping track now of the amounts of stuff it has on order that theoretically it knows it does not need. that amount has been going up over the last couple of years. it is about 733 million dollars per year of supply that it does not need. host: we are talking with scott paltrow of reuters. this series, "unaccountable: the high cost of the pentagon's bookkeeping." rachel, good morning. caller: good morning. -- night before nine/11,

before 9/11, it was said in a report that $2 billion was missed in the budget. and you tell me how much money was spent on oil reserves before we went into iraq, with the military budget? guest: on oil reserves? is that what you said? caller: yes. guest: i have no idea. host: can you talk about the scene that rachel brings up, the day before 9/11? guest: rumsfeld, when he came in, realized the extent and the seriousness of this problem. this is not just something that affected the keeping and numbers. it actually translates into the lives of soldiers and national security issues, making sure soldiers get paid, making sure equipment does not disappear, getting into all of that is very important.

rumsfeld, to his credit, came in, gave his big speech announcing this was going to be an absolutely top priority and that he was going to clean it up. unfortunately, the very next day the jets flew to the world trade center and the pentagon, and that was the last time he had to focus on any of it. though the issue slipped by another decade. few tweets that came in on the subject. "wholly unacceptable, especially given the number of veterans." "every agencyin, should be audited." id from wild and wonderful, presume that part of the budget is committed to top-secret matters. how could those be presented in an open budget report? not bethey could presented in an open budget

report. that is a whole other area because the secret part of the budget, which is significant, also has the audit systems to keep track of things. there are indications that those flaws. have the same it is harder to find out about because the numbers are undisclosed or even the identity of the equipment. but certainly that is a valid question to be asked. george fromto louisiana on our democrats line. caller: yes, i would like to ask mr. paltrow if there is any way to find out how much the department of defense is borrowed from social security, and when will we have to pay it back -- we- they it will have to pay it back. i do know that the

department of defense gets by far the biggest chunk of the annual appropriated budget. than theseman's more next 10 countries combined on their defense budgets, including russia and china. we expect an awful lot. that does have an impact on the deficit. had reverberations that the whole budget and the economy. with scotte talking paltrow, special enterprise correspondent for reuters. this series is "unaccountable: the high cost of the pentagon's bookkeeping." you can see his part one and .art two at reuters.com mr. paltrow before he worked at reuters -- were did you work? have you always done investigative reporting? guest: i pretty much have always done investigative reporting. i don't think i can count how many places i work, all newspapers previously and half

are out of business. worked for 10 years for "the wall street journal," and nine "los before that for the angeles times." from key west, florida, on our line from independents. i was doing some research the other day and in a trillion dollar figure came out the other day, going into what was called the black budget of the pentagon. it was being used to fund the parallel government. dollarslost a trillion -- to have lost $8 trillion seems beyond comprehension. we use that figure today, a kind of struck me.

would you care to comment on that? i will take your answer off the air. thank you, and have a nice day -- have a nice day. guest: it was not -- it was a 2012.sum from 1996 to we started with 1996 because that was the year that we were locked in. we just summed up the amount, spent every year for the whole department. was: it is not that it really lost, but we do know it was not audited, correct? guest: that is absolutely right. with thet has happened auditing practices at dod since her story came out? members of congress have taken up this cause, right?

the government security -- the homeland security and government affairs committee, they are trying to push through -- there will be several hearings held on just this subject. coburn and several other senators introduced the bill not long ago that would for the first time impose actual penalties on the pentagon if he did not meet the deadlines for becoming audit-ready. now, they have passed all the laws they want. the pentagon has gotten away with it. this would create penalties by limiting expenditures on costly weapons systems. the centrale accounting system away from the military and give it to the treasury. but this bill is so far -- it

will not like however it does this. host: we have 15 minutes left. reutersscott paltrow of . he is taking calls and questions. 20 2-585-can call three 880. 3 881.icans, 20 2-585- 20 2-585-3882. roger on our wines from -- on our lines from independents. caller: i wonder if the social security administration has ever been audited. they say they are short of have problemsthey in 20 years or 50 years -- i .on't know

if disability is good and retirement is bad -- guest: as an organization, the social security administration has been audited. the is separate from actuarial predictions about how much money it is going to need and what shortfalls there may be. it is simply audited as an , as any business is, its own books. that is all the audit looks into. it does not go into the functional aspect of that of organizations such as the social security administration. -- : jean from ohio writes guest: well, that is a very interesting issue.

there has been a huge drive over the last several years. the military feared it could not do it itself, so it hired all the big accounting firms as well as other major accounting firms, to consult with them and help them build these new systems. once they are complete, who will they hire to do the audit >> mark -- to do the audit? the are going to bring in same big forecasting firms who help know the system, to help pass. they're trying to figure out which firms worked on so they will not audit the same ones. nevertheless, there is this sort interestconflict of percolating around that. not know those who do the navy scandal the tweet was referring to, can you explain that a little bit?

are you surprised by some of the relations that came out in recent months involving contractors in the navy? we have several examples. in the latest story involving lower-level employees of the navy in rhode island and san diego, who were able to carry an uprising and pick up schemes for years and years, and completely unedited -- when completely undetected in some cases -- not only were they the ones issuing the contracts but they were also -- thes responsible for same individual. when the navy scandal came along, it fit right into the pattern. what it involved was a guy who asia that company in services navy ships, and desperately wants the contract, and then wanted to find ways of jacking up the bill. he enlisted some senior navy

personnel, lower-level navy insonnel, and bribed them all sorts of ways, and they gave him the information he needed to know where ships were headed and also to alter where they were going to so that they would go and use his facilities, and then he would and in inflated invoices. what is most interesting to me was that it only came to light not only -- not because the navy itself became suspicious but because crewmembers on ships started raising questions. finally, at least according to a story in "the new york times," the navy launched an investigation. even though the investigation another offeray, hundreds of millions of dollars to the same company. for republicanne callers, you are on the scott paltrow. caller: how much do we spend on

-- and what are the law firms the pentagon is paying? are they being paid? now, and also in comparison to years past? are we spending more on legal now than we were in the past? i have never seen that report. i had never seen a report on where we send money, so i will take the answer. agencies, all federal legal affairs, whether civil or criminal, are handled by the justice department. i am sure there are instances where the defense department needs to bring in outside counsel for various purposes. i do not know the numbers. i do not get the impression is a significant part of the defense budget at all.

basically the defense department's lawyer is in the department of justice. host: sally sue writes in on twitter -- on the phone is philip from our line for independents. good morning. called ine gentleman and asked what president obama bows to social security. there is a graph there, and it almosthe number that is -- that is owed to social security is in now -- is about -- if the money were to go back to social security, it would be 2/3 of the national debt. host: scott paltrow, on your ,tory about pentagon teaming

and "unaccountable" is the name of the series. who have you been talking to at the pentagon? who has responded to some of these inquiries you have made? while we were working on this, we made quite a lot of contacts within the military and did receive significant amounts of help from top-level officials who at times answered questions and did give technical details and statistics. some interviews. there are other important officials who totally refused to be interviewed. the defense finance and accounting service was a very important element of the story. yet terry mckay, who was the head of it, absolutely refused to be interviewed and refused to allow any of her employees to be interviewed. so we had to work around that. always, what was most helpful

in finding things that actually worked was to find people who retired recently removed to other jobs and were in a position where they could talk more freely and have knowledge what went on and what the significance was. jim on our line for independents, how are you? caller: good morning. it sounds like from what you have been saying about the pentagon, he keeps reordering more of what they already have. it does not sound like the -- it sounds like the pentagon has turned in for a wild care system for the military. i just think it is kind of funny that the day after donald $2.3eld announced there is trillion missing from the

pentagon, that exaction -- that exact section of the pentagon were all that is cap got hit. i will take my comments offline. well, i do not buy into the conspiracy theories, but a is going on about the defense budget and defense spending. secretary hagel and some republican members of congress are arguing that the impact of the sequester is going to be quite severe. but in terms of contractors, the way they are talking about is the troops.is cut the military forces so they can improve expensive military fighters. for some reason that is a higher strongy to maintaining a force of troops.

host: we are talking with scott paltrow about his series "unaccountable," the reuters special enterprise correspondent. doctorory about the and echoed waste. hulu be your last story -- your next story in the series? tost: well, we do not want give away too much, but we will explain why it has happened, why it is so difficult to change what is going on at the pentagon, and why it is likely for all these trillions unaccounted for, trillions more will continue to be unaccounted for, despite all the expenditures that have been made putry to modernize and commercial off-the-shelf systems in use. have a few minutes left

with scott paltrow of reuters. we will put the numbers on the screen for you. one tweet asks -- what are the steps to correct accounting for the military from this point on? are there solutions? is a good question. there are solutions. first of all, if congress is willing to enforce them ultimately, congress has control of the purse strings of the defense department. it has never been in the political interests, at least up until now. get into acongress fight and they will be accused of harming national security and being anti-defense. , both inmately congress and in the defense department have to crack the there isnsistent --

tremendous waste that goes on because each one of the military services has its own, you know, set of accounting systems, personnel systems, its own set of logistics systems. so everything is in triplicate -- or in the marine corps, itnton -- quadruple get -- is tremendously wasteful in terms of maintaining them and operating them and what needs to be done is for these to be merged together and for the defense department to change the way it has done business. obviously it has been very -- they had to have the will to change. host: pete from mississippi on our line for democrats. morning.ood i would have to say that the department of defense is the last sacred cow in american

politics, and they get away from -- they get away with murder when it comes to the way they control their money. but theyessman know it say they will use the department of defense as a cash cow to bring home the bacon. many communities survive on all the money that comes through the area for the defense department. for contracts. put up -- i mean, the american people, until they get they willhat, know never straighten out the books. a big i think there is element of that. one of the main reasons congress has been reluctant to take on this whole process is because it to the districts. the defense contractors know this, so it is a phenomenon that is not as political in

engineering and what it entails -- orther boeing or jeter to make sure that they are in every congressional district or state in the country so that every commerce and will have a stake in a going forward. host: scott paltrow is a special enterprise course pond and for reuters. the author of "unaccountable: the high cost of the pentagon's bookkeeping." we look forward to the next article in this series. that will do it for our show today. we will see you back here tomorrow morning on "washington , 4:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. western time.

>> here is a quick look at some of our programming today. join us in 30 minutes for william hague. he took part in negotiations resulting in the arabian nuclear deal. he will talk about the deal. at 10:30.be later, we will look into u.s. nuclear policy. in nuclear stockpile of weapons. how much it cost us to keep them in working order. i will start at noon. president obama is start -- talking about immigration policy. he will be in san francisco for a speech. you can see his comments at 2:35. coming