>> 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 up this evening, a

special presentation of our q and a series. experiencesuss her as a sanitation worker in new york city. that will get underway at 7:00 eastern. national security adviser susan rice is in afghanistan today. she is expected to meet with governor in officials, including karzai. the visit is her first overseas trip as president obama's top national security aide. president karzai has cast doubt on the future of troops in afghanistan. she will meet with mr. karzai at the afghan leaders invitation. i do not think anyone would've ever looked into a crystal ball and thought some college campus would be streaming netflix onto an iphone to watch a movie. this is what is happening out there. we have this huge issue out

--re that the technology that is why you do not want to date yourself. ohio, it depended on the day. if the intent on the house was working right, you got to help -- channels. it depended on the wind and the light and everything else. the industry has changed so rapidly. i want to make sure that we have things out there -- regulations and laws on the books to spur of this innovation. if i'm not mistaken, we have created, just on the cell phone time, about 3.8 million jobs. >> technology issues in front of the current conference -- congress. that is on c-span2.

[sounds of parade] [military salute] on november 25, 1963, approximately one million people lined the route of president kennedy's funeral procession. the livemore watched television coverage. starting tonight at 8:30, watch nbc's coverage of his state

funeral. during the president historic trip to china, his wife accompanied him. the nixon was looking at cigarettes. they have pandas on them. i also understand that you admire the pandas at the zoo. she said, are they darling? they said they would make sure that you have pandas to go home with. -- herimportant for poor to uphold her husband. just her being there brought so much goodwill. news reports came out, they would talk about the president this way. it would say what a wonderful job pat nixon did. >> first and lady pat nixon tonight. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. >> national iranian american

council joined us to talk about the weekend deal to remove punitive sanctions on iran. we will show you as much of this as we can until live remarks from william hague at 10:30. host: joining us at the table to discuss the nuclear deal is trita parsi. for those were 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 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. the sanctions relief has been 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. the u.s. has maximum leverage designed going into the second phase. again, this whole thing -- it

may not reach the second phase unless they come to the final conclusion. the way it has begun is 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. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. outside the u.s., (202) 585- 3883. what are you seeing on 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? guest: the pressure on iran

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. secondly, the measures that the iranians will take a re-froze tribble and the design of the interim deal -- reversible and the design of the interim deal is as it is and the second phase of the deal will be irreversible. his statements reduce the impact of israel in future steps of the deal.

host: you talked about some of the back channel talks that have been going on. here is "usa today." 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. the stockpile 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 the final point. i think it is critical. at the end of the day, the iranians know and understand that this team in iran knows and understands they will not get a doable deal with the united

states unless 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 can consolidate our gains, i 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 in iran. i think the thing that is interesting, they view this administration as week. from their standpoint, they see this as their window of opportunity to negotiate. it does not have the fortitude that other administrations have had. host: the weakness of the united states that he says was shown here and spiking the football by iranian officials. guest: the bottom line is, some

of the objectives are identical with objectives of the george bush administration. they were unrealistic. to the extent that the united states has adopted unrealistic objectives, not only has nothing gotten solved, it has enabled the iranians. they have offered to negotiate and the bush administration rejected it. this team offered to cap the 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. i think some republicans in the senate would like to adopt. host: we are taking your tweets and phone calls. we will go to janet, jackson, tennessee. janet, you're on with trita parsi. caller: 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 should be 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. with the manna was on before, he talked about they have no clue about the most simple things. we have people, 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. host: thanks for the call this morning. janet brings up congress.

what role does congress play now that the six-month deal has been struck? guest: they got together in agreement that the iranians are not going to extend of this program. if congress does that, then the 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. that will enable the iranians to cause the regime to fall apart. host: an editorial called on 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? host: rouhani celebrates triumph of his first 100 days. guest: the language in the agreement does not use the word that there is a -- what appears to have happened is a formulation has been found in

which the u.s. and other countries recognizes the program, 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. host: jamie is from indianapolis, indiana for independence. you are on with trita parsi. caller: i have been observing this for a while. one conclusion i have reached is that the 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 has allowed israel to have nukes because of their hawkishness and overzealousness. we are over 10 years in conflict now. if we mess with iran on that level, that strait will be messed up and gas prices will be astronomical. we need to tone down netanyahu and not be overzealous and go to war with another country.

iran is trying to get nuclear things because kadafi did not have them and saddam did not have them. host: were you reading in papers that members of the israeli government are saying? guest: i do not think it is 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. 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. there is 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 american side 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. host: twitter comment -- i agree with netanyahu. it was 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. he says that -- 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. my question about this -- is 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 read on wikipedia and elsewhere, is organization appears to be a lobby for the iranian administration. guest: 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. from the israeli side, there's going to be a need to respond to

that that is effective. is the response of the israeli government effective? is the approach that the israeli government has taken effective or not? one would expect that over the last 20 years, 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 trajectory and make sure that 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 regime -- does this deal

legitimize the regime? what does this deal do with how iran is seen in the international community? guest: the iranian government human rights abuses are 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. it was interesting when the foreign minister returned and 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. host: our last caller was concerned about your organization. maybe you can tell us about your background and how you and your family left iran. guest: my father was imprisoned and he had in opportunity -- an opportunity to continue his research in sweden. as soon as he got out of jail, we went to sweden. my father was put on the list of people that would be executed on the spot, having been accused of having been a collaborator, which was false. he went back to clear his name. the fear was that the regime would take revenge against other family members.

he ended up in jail again, but this time in the jail of the new this discussion to go to the house of commons in london. william hague will discuss the nuclear deal. >> i reported to the house on the negotiations in geneva. i explained then that iran was to produce a first step agreement. we could create the confidence for a comprehensive settlement, addressing all concerns about the nuclear program. we have always been clear that because iran's program is so extensive and crucial aspects have been concealed in the past, any agreement would have to be detailed and give assurance to the whole world that the price would be properly addressed.

we believe that such a deal was on the table. we would do our utmost to bridge the narrow gap between the party and conclude a strong agreement. on wednesday last week, the iranian negotiations resumed their work in geneva. on saturday morning, i joined the talks. at 4:00 yesterday, we concluded the negotiations successfully. we agreed on a first stage agreement, which is a significant step toward enhancing the security of the middle east and preventing nuclear proliferation worldwide. in this statement, i will cover the extensive commitments that iran has made and the sanction relief that has been offered in return. also, the steps that we will build on what has been agreed. we have agreed to a joint plan of action with iran, within and goal of a comprehensive settlement. it will show that the program is

-- the agreement has a duration of six months and is renewable by mutual consent. it sets of actions to be taken by both sides of the first steps. also, the elements to be created final set amount. i have placed a copy in the library. i wish to highlight its most important aspects. iran has made significant commitments. over the next six months, they will see his enrichment of uranium. it becomes much easier to produce weapons grade uranium. it will also eradicate its stockpile. it is enriched above five percent. they will dilute it to less than five percent and convert the remaining half to oxide. install further centrifuges or start operating installed centrifuges that have not yet been switched on. it will only replace existing

centrifuges with centrifuges of the same type. they will only produce centrifuges to replace damaged, existing machines. in other words, they will not install or bring into operation advanced centrifuges that could enable it to produce a dangerous level of enriched uranium more quickly. they will cap your stockpile of up to five percent uranium. any nuclearnvert enriched uranium and to oxide. it will not set up any new locations for enrichment or establish a reprocessing or reconvergence facility. they have agreed to an enhanced monitoring program of their program. includes access to centrifuge assembly workshops and two uranium mines and mills. iran will also provide us with additional information, including its plans for nuclear facilities.

there is a facility that offers a potential route to nuclear weapons, through the production of plutonium. iran will not can -- commission the reactor. they will not send heavy water to the site. they will not produce more fuel for the reactor or install any remaining components to the reactor. this agreement means that the elements of the nuclear program, that present the greatest risk, cannot make progress. in other words, if i ran implements the deal in good faith, it cannot use these routes to move closer to art obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities. moreover, some of the most dangerous elements are not only frozen, but actually rolled back. the agreements involves -- 200 kilograms of enriched uranium have been built up and stockpiled for several years.

second, in return for these commitments, they will receive limited sanctions relief from the united states and the european union. for its part, the united states will pull efforts to reduce crude oil sales. its will repatriate some of relief. they will allow licensing of state repairs for airlines. they will establish a financial challenge -- channel for legitimate trade, including payment to international organizations and a radiant study abroad great --. --will suspend since sanctions on oil. this will allow for services to third states on oil. we will also suspend the prohibition of transfer of petrochemical products and suspend products on imports of gold and precious metals.

the coursing shins on oil and gas will remain in place. also increase the authorization threshold for financial sanctions for humanitarian trade with iran. -- council of ministers administers will amend the sanctions and new provisions will apply to all eu member states. cost $7estimated to billion. there will be no new sanctions adopted. however, the bulk of international sanctions on iran will remain in place. this includes the oil embargo, which were sticks -- restricts oil purchases from iran. ballistic missile related goods and technologies -- including frozen revenue in accounts

outside of iran, including the central bank are in all iranian assets remain frozen. iranian leaders and key individuals have their assets frozen. they will be banned from traveling to the eu and u.s.. they cannot use financial messaging services of banks. these sanctions will not be lifted until a settlement is reached. we will enforce them are robustly. iran still has a powerful incentive to reach a comprehensive solution. that is the third aspect of the agreement. the agreement sets up the elements of a comprehensive solution. it will conclude within one year. these elements include the rights and obligations under the

nonproliferation treaty. the full resolution concerns related to the heavywater research reactor -- monitoring, including additional protocol. in return for full confidence by the international community, the plan of action includes in enrichment program with limits. it is part of a comprehensive agreement where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. this comprehensive solution, if and when a great, will lead to the listing of all un security council sanctions, as well as multilateral sanctions related to iran's nuclear program. reaching this interim agreement was a difficult and painstaking process. there is a huge amount of work to be done to implement it. implementation will begin following technical discussions with iran.

we hope that the sanctions will be concluded by the end of january. a joint commission will be established to monitor the implementation of these measures. we will work to resolve outstanding issues. achieved,hat we have for the first time in nearly a decade, and agreement that rolls back their nuclear program, should give us heart that this work can be done and a comprehensive agreement can be attained. on an issue of such complexity, and given the fact that any agreement would be worthwhile, it has to involve compromises. such an agreement is bound to have critics. we are right to test their readiness to act in good faith. to work with the rest of the international community and to enter into agreements. if they do not abide by that commitment, they will bear a heavy responsibility. if we did not take the

opportunity to attempt such an agreement, then we out -- ourselves would be guilty of a grave error. if we did not have this agreement, the pressure would not be alleviated at all. it is also true that there would be no restraint or -- on advancements. orblock on their centrifuges barrier to prevent them from bringing into operation there heavywater reactor. no limitation on the many actions which could take them closer to a nuclear weapons capability. the bringing together of this agreement was all by permanent of united nations security council's. it sends a powerful signal. it is only a beginning, but there is no doubt that this is an important, necessary, and completely justified step. the restrictions give us the time to negotiation -- negotiate a conference of settlement.

i pay tribute to my foreign minister colleagues and our foreign office staff, who played an indispensable role. we will apply the same rigor and determination that we have shown in these negotiations to the implementation of the agreement and to the search for a conference of settlement. at the same time, we will continue to be open to approved meds. -- improvements. we will visit iran shortly. this agreement has shown that the combination of asher expressed her sanctions, coupled with readiness to negotiate is the right policy. it has been the united approach of this country to pursue negotiations. there is cross party support. we have been steadfast in first doing this 20 track policy. we are seeking a peaceful

solution. this is true to that approach. this will remain our policy over the coming months. as we build on and implement this third step on the long journey to making the middle east and the whole world safer from nuclear proliferation. can i thank the foreign secretary for his statement? the foreign secretary was generous enough to end his remarks by recognizing the reality of the bipartisan approach. to characterize this house and that's countries approach over recent years, including by my right honorable friend. thate echo that and add all of those involved in the geneva negotiations, including the foreign secretary, deserve real credit for their role in securing the steel. in particular, the work of the

european union. cathy ashton has been fundamental. to the agreement that was finally reached. pride in house feel the role the baroness ashton has played. shown -- we offer are 60 or congratulations. united in believing that they were developing nuclear weapons. the deal agreed in geneva was necessary and important. years,s, over recent proceeded with its enrichment program. deal, nort a perfect is it guaranteed to lead to a comprehensive resolution. based on the secretary statement, it appears to address a number of terms.

first, it cap every aspect of their nuclear program. second, and includes strong mechanisms. third, it does not concede that they have a right to enrich. i would like to ask about each of these three points. you will be aware that the agreement does not call for a plan. tot steps are envisaged ensure that this facility is ultimately decommissioned? the secretary made reference to the heavywater research reactor. access for the inspectors. the deal does not set out the frequency with which inspectors will have access. can you give us further details? the foreign secretary did not mention -- nor did the final

text. adaptal requires iran to -- allow access to the base where they are suspected of detonating weapons. there has been much speculation over the last 24 hours about the absence of the phrase right to enrich. could the foreign secretary explained the understanding of whether the absence specifies a difference or whether this is a shared understanding on the issue? the speaker seeks to prevent iran from furthering its enrichment program. they could also ease the aessure on iran and invite comprehensive resolution. given this risk, can the foreign secretary state how you will prevent that outcome and what steps will continue negotiations

on a comprehensive deal within the time frame set out? the sanctions relief is effective immediately. it is a necessary step to secure the concessions. pressure must still be maintained. ken the secretary offer the house what the next effect will be? as of yesterday, around the capabilities being extended, that is welcomed. this interim agreement does not prevent future progress. he would be far better to secure all enrichment and all relative facilities. one key test of this interim agreement is whether it has been agreed in principle and can be put into practice. keeping sanctions tight and verification intrusive and all options on the table.

a second test will be whether this can be translated into the comprehensive agreement. building on the agreement this weekend, to a final resolution. this agreement, however, will give us the time and flexibility to negotiate that much more difficult and complex final agreement to dismantle much of iran's nuclear program. the government can be assured that it will have our support. i am grateful for the support of the right honorable gentleman. there has indeed been a bipartisan approach for a long time. right to save the end of his remarks about the importance of keeping sanctions tight. this is very important. pressure to reach the conference of agreement --

he is right that there is no such agreement that can be perfect. it is the product of negotiations and compromise. nor is it guaranteed to lead to a comprehensive agreement. it is, in my judgment, the only rate to a conference of agreement. while it is the criticism that some have made that we should have concentrated on moving straight to a final and comprehensive agreement, from everything i have seen, it would not have been possible to do that. aile we were negotiating such conference of agreement, the progress of the program that is now brought to a stop would have continued. this is a crucial step on the way to a conference of agreement. it makes it possible to set about negotiating them. he asked for specific questions about how this relates to the plants. there are specific references in the agreement.

iran announces that it will not make any further advances of its activities. the fuel enrichment plants that each -- a footnote on the second page of the agreement. it provides for specific provisions. no further enrichment over five percent. feeding iranian hexa fluoride into the others and so on. there are specific requirements on the plan. that is the case and each of these plans. the longer-term future -- including whether some of them operate in all, it's up to the final conference of agreement. that has to be addressed at that stage. -- this remains a point of difference between iaea and iran. this is another aspect of the

program that must be addressed as part of a conference event final settlement. and he asked about the urgency. it is important to put the $7 billion of relief into perspective. he referred to the $7 billion being effective immediately. actually, the $7 billion of section relief is available over the. of the six month. when that begins, which we hope is the beginning of january -- the end of january, a good deal is the unfreezing of assets. they will be unfrozen in stages. i do not receive $7 million on the first day. that $7portant to have billion in perspective. in january, the oil minister sees a fall in exports. between $4 billion and $8 billion every month.

they haveggested that between $60 billion and $100 billion of assets rose and overseas. the $7 billion of relief is a very small proportion of the total frozen assets and total effect of sanctions applied to iran. that is why i say that the way that we are doing the sanctions relief leave iran with a huge incentive. they won't wider relief from sanctions. maintain thep to urgency. of course, all of our diplomatic activities, which we will now seek to maintain the momentum behind this agreement -- as we do want to negotiate the conference of settlement, we will convey that urgency as well. you can be assured that we will leave no stern -- stone unturned. briefly offer my

tribute to the right honorable gentleman. said that herly be was not met with universal approval. and the light of mr. netanyahu's public response to this agreement, what assessment does my right honorable friend make of the risk of israel taking some unilateral action which might have the effect of undermining the agreement? what representations has he made to the israeli government i danced taking such action -- against taking such action? >> the prime minister has discussed during the negotiations over the last week of this agreement -- i think it is important to understand the concerns about any agreement. but it is also very important to explain to them, to ask them,

what the alternative to this agreement would be. the alternative would involve iran getting nuclear weapons or having a nuclear weapon. so, we have to be very clear that this is a compelling argument for the agreement. of course, we would discourage anybody in the world, including israel, from taking any steps that would undermine this agreement. we will make that very clear. >> mr. jack straw? >> thank you, mr. speaker. and my rightpeaker honorable friend on the bench there. it is my turn to express my appreciation to the secretary for the personal interest which you put into this. recognition of the fact that the iranians are the toughest

negotiators. they extract every last ounce of negotiations in the world. if he accepts, it is crucial that what undermined the agreements which we have made between 2003 and 2006 -- there was a desperate patch that was developed between hard-line and hard-liners in washington. situation where they were replaced by president i meant in a job. can i ask this? it is that prime minister --anyahu's efforts and then the united states congress, invented president obama from

continuing with the negotiations. will he make clear that in these circumstances, the u.k., germany, france, and the eu will have to detach themselves from america and reach their own conclusions? >> i agree with them. i agree with his remarks. it is important to maintain momentum. over the last two weeks, during the 10 day cap the between negotiations that we held -- it brought to a great deal of criticism. both within iran and within the u.s. congress and elsewhere in the world. this could easily have made things complicated. they reached this agreement this weekend. so, when one considers the work that needs to go into this

agreement and the comprehensive and final agreement, it is vitally important to maintain that momentum all the way. that the united states have made can all be implemented by executives. that does not mean that the debates in congress are over. what happens in the u.s. congress is up to the united states. you can be sure that the administration is extremely strongly committed to this. the leadership and persistence of secretary kerry has been crucial. the clarity of president obama -- it is very clear. we do not need at this point to start looking at the other scenarios. we do not need to act separately from the united states. >> i think we have gotten through to questions. that is very low. we need to be speeding up now.

led in this important exercise by a minister upgrade experience, mr. alastair berg. as the detail indicates, there is no agreement. it is a tribute to his persistence and that of cathy ashton -- would you agree with me that israel should be a short -- a short -- assured, we should make progress in the middle east. the iranians should immediately stop their murderous activities in syria and contribute to the end of that conflict as quickly as possible? >> absolutely. a day of tribute, there are many troubles ahead. i paycheck you to my right honorable friend.

in the foreign office over the last three and a half years -- he is right about all of those things. they will also be held fully in the debates going on over the next few days for the wealth of details to be examined by everybody who is conferencing on that. the extent to which this means a change in any of iran's other policies remains to be seen and determined. we encourage them to play a more responsible role in world affairs. >> the government and the united states are to be congratulated on this brave and bold step to reducing tension in the middle east. wouldn't it be for the government to approach israel to have a reciprocal gesture from

them to open their nuclear facilities to international inspection in order to do new cliff -- de nuclear rise the middle east. >> it has turned out that this agreement is possible. the gentleman is trying to lead me into something that would not be possible for us to attain. a would you agree this is most welcome thing for a world seeh is wary of conflict to diplomacy and engagement. e it wouldagre not be possible without a full interim agreement of this type? >> hear, hear. >> i absently agree with my honorable friend. it is vital to build trust and

confidence in order to get to a comprehensive agreement. it is vital to have the time to create that comprehensive agreement. time is running short for that. so for all of these reasons, this is an essential step on the way to a copper hands of agreement. havee who thinks we could jumped to a comprehensive agreement needs to revise their judgment. >> chris bryant. >> could i be more effusive in ashton forfor mr. the simple reason i think it union,here the european can combine a can achieve far more than individual countries working on their own. i am not lacking in you fusion

-- efusion in the role of handling things beautifully, confidence between the negotiators and the team. praised andy i have work with her agree to more than his experience in doing so. have seen an unusual scenario where arabia and israel agree with each other. this is understandable. there are elements that believe they have a fight on their hands, which will only get tougher with a more confident iran. would you agree we have the duty of care and we have a long way to persuade them that this agreement is in their best interests? >> to understand concerns. we should never be surprised

that people are skeptical, given the past history on this matter. we should understand those concerns. to explain how we will keep up this work and from setting the confidence in as many nations as possible. sir general kaufman. kerry and all of the others involved in achieving this important agreement. we hope it will lead to iran reentering the international community, who will ameliorate oppressive aspects to their internal policies. will the gentleman point out to the prime minister of israel who

said nuclear weapons was the most dangerous weapon in the world, and he should know because he is a stockpile of several hundred nuclear warheads and the missiles with which to deliver them and refuses to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. damageempt in any way to or attack this agreement will be opposed or unexceptionable. discourage any country from seeking to undermine the agreement. i have not seen any sign that any country will in any practical way. every country in the world understands how serious that would be. there may be those who disagree of the agreement. it was made by the five permanent members of the u.n.

security member and i believe it will be given its chance. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i agree with mark fitzpatrick, a who isration expert often backed what israel has had to say about iran. the deal would bring benefit to no party except those who prefer war. >> i heard some of his comments yesterday on the media and i thought they were well informed and balanced. it was a good deal and he did so on the basis of the analysis. for anyone to go through the details, examples of which i gave to the house and see the range of activities that are covered and how specific they are covered and the importance

attached to attaining a comprehensive agreement, they will be very assured by that. >> mr. david winick. >> they wish to apologize accordingly. is it not the case -- saudi arabia, possibly elements within the arabian regime would undermine and destroy this agreement. shouldn't we be on guard against that? >> we will be on our guard against any attempt to undermine it. this has the backing of the u.s. government and china and russia. it has very widespread support around the world. we would discourage anyone from undermining it. i believe the world will give

this agreement the chance to succeed. >> my friend is right about this. would it not help to persuade the genuineness of iran's intention -- .> hear, hear >> the repression of -- if it stops the hate speech against something w that seems to escape the attention -- >> i agree about the importance of these issues and about iran's changing their approach. these issues have been solely about the nuclear program. we have to focus exclusively on this to make progress. in our wider discussions with

will want to address the full range of issues, including the sponsorship of terrorism in other countries and the kind of hate speech. these issues are issues we will be going on to discuss with iran . congratulateke to and thank the foreign secretary and all those engaged in the negotiations, not least the iranians. ,ut to reiterate the comments is this the time to urge iran to do everything in her power to bring and end to this desperate civil war in syria, where there are millions of refugees and 11,000 children have been

deliberately killed in syria, some at the hands of torture. >> there is time to do that. is it too early to say whether this agreement foreshadows any other foreign policy? we would like to see such changes. in the last few, hours the date of the geneva 2 peace conference has been announced as the 22nd of january. we urge iran to play a constructive role in that peace process. on verification and they will, perhaps need more resources to ensure that this agreement is fully

fulfilled. devote more need to resources to this within its budget. there is a long list of additional things they will now be expected to do, including agreements on the safeguard approach from the reactor including dealer inspector access including manage access to assembly workshops and things of that kind. iaea havet the applied themselves extremely well and they will be up to these tasks. welcome the agreement. the oversight of the process by

international communities. >> this is a very important point and links to the last question, where i was given examples of the iaea inspection work that will result from this agreement. there will be a commission that works on the implementation and the monitoring of the deal. there will be a constant discussion between the countries theiran that will require iranians to respond to any concerns we have about inspection verification. this is a big step forward including verification. >> thanks very much. thousande been several iranian students studying in the uk, spending large sums.

what consideration has been given to lifting sanctions for the students from transferring aney, and would he consider conduit for students -- the point ask at part of the step-by-step upgrading of our bilateral relations. it is possible in some of these cases they could benefit from the new authorization rules i have spoken about in the european union. we are looking at iran being able to increase the number - while cannot increase the number of locally engaged that could help with issues of this kind.

there may be things that help people in the situation. i will look at the issue in more detail. >> i think the foreign secretary for his statements. the agreement is reached within six months. well he turned his attention to a nuclear free middle east? finland was supposed to -- without an agreement on nuclear weapons for the middle east, some will develop nuclear weapons and israel will go on being an challenged -- being un challenged. to him forhould be keeping his focus and the questions he asks in parliament. we keep our focus and continue our work to bring that together.

we can carry this through to the real success of a copper hands of sentiment. that will be a big advance to what he has been campaigning for and remove the excuses against those. discussions that as a can regard step forward in that regard. asmany people regard iran the soviet union of the middle east because they practice repression. they say they want to wipe israel off the map. is sanctioned by iran -- what steps can you take to ensure the six months they do not just start work on nuclear enrichment and stopped supporting hamas and hezbollah. >> my friend raises a wide range

of legitimate issues. we have many differences with own appallingir human rights record and within their own country. we have many differences with iran. this agreement does not make any of those go away. i do not want to mislead the house in any way. it must be judged on its own merit of dealing with the nuclear issue. we will have to judge it by whether this is operated in good faith and does succeed in dealing with the nuclear issue. we will use the opportunity to raise the sorts of issues he has been describing. .> keith bass previously the appointment of the c

haregges d'affair. there are fish arabians present in this country who wish to see their relatives. what progress to make sure the embassy is open? >> we will take this in a step by step way. he is the new nonresident char ges d'affair. he will visit iran shortly. there are other steps that if visits from both countries go well, we will contemplate other steps. that could lead to the reopening of other embassies. it is best to do this in a step- by-step way and clarity above all that and embassy would be

able to operate with all the embassy.nctions of an we have to be clear about that and we will continue to take a step-by-step approach on this. that syria and iran are joined at the hip, no such agreement would have been reached unless a plan for an attack on syria had gone ahead. we are so busy conserving praise, can we have a pet in the back for this parliament for its role in preventing such an ill considered move? >> i am always one to give a pat on the back to parliament, even when i disagree with it. i do not agree with the analysis

of my honorable friend at all. the agree with others that contemplation by the united states produced a very important breakthrough on the dismantling of syria's chemical weapons. >> thank you, mr. speaker. congratulations to the foreign secretary for his role along with secretary of state kerry. doesn't the agreement show the effectiveness of the coordinated union action just as the agreement on normalization kosovo someia and several months ago was an effective demonstration on that and that we need effective corporation to get results? a i do regard it as

revolutionary thing to say indeed it often helps. the scale effectiveness of eu sanctions has made a big difference on this issue. add that heret to the work with the united states has been indispensable. such an agreement cannot be made without the united states. this is something that includes european unity and goes beyond european unity. that is why it is so powerful. >> he can now speak forcefully on his feet. sir edward lee. >> how can we trust a terrorist

regime which poses great damage to israel and has a long history of lying? this is our own chief negotiator. creating -- we able to complete. they go on in reaching -- enrich ing, they go on pocketing money. what is to stop them from holding more blackmail in six months time? >> how can we trust people with whom we have any differences? agreement is this so specific and so extensive. we will soon be able to see whether they can be trusted or not. we will be able to judge whether

the commitments --if we take the approach that whatever we agree the iranians cannot be trusted, then we can never have an agreement on this issue. that would not allow us to test whether agreements can be implemented. that would be a disastrous course to embark upon. >> there was the election of the moderate president in iran who stood on a platform of improving relations with the west. we had the debate on the proposed attack on serial in august -- the attack on syria in august. >> i think this is a similar question than the one from my

honorable friend earlier. it is a hypothetical question because such action did not take place. the debate produced a change of policy by russia and we are seeing the dismantling of syria's chemical warfare program. it is idle to speculate what could have happened in different scenarios. relations with iran should be seen on their own terms. they are not necessarily related to other policies of iran, to their involvement in syria. we should be careful of making those linkages. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> there has been a terrible shadow cast over the middle east. i welcome this landmark agreement.

here.end was hoping to be it is a commitment to see this through. can he confirm that they will have full and free access to all of iran's facilities? i am grateful for my honorable friend. to give them the flavor of what is in the agreement, there is provision in the agreement that requires the provision of information to the iaea, including information on iran's plan, a description of each building, a description of scale of operation for each location engaged, information on uranium mines and information on source material, all to be produced within three months of the

adoption of these measures. it would involve the provision of a lot more openness and information to the iaea. >> at the risk of sounding like the ugly fairy godmother at christening -- could the foreign secretary outline what discussions for the need for the reintroduction of sanctions if required? >> that is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. these sanctions are either suspended sanctions, not lifted or abolished or together. unfreezing of a specified amount of frozen assets on a one-off basis. the sanctions usually are reversible if the commitment entered into by iran are not

carried out. >> mr. simon hughes. >> we are mindful of the proof of iran for inspection verification for the next six months. toht iran be encouraged participate in the other conversations in the middle east in relation to syria and other issues in relation to israel and palestine? >> i hope so. there have been several questions about this. other aspects of iranian foreign policy will change. accept along with the rest of the world last year's geneva communiqué on syria as the basis for further

discussions, many countries would be much more open to their involvement and future talk. that is up to them and hope they respond positively. >> i warmly welcome this breakthrough. the foreign secretary has referred to the future of discussions about that. what's back is there of some movement on the practice of the r rating government of imprisoning church pastors? >> we would all hope there would be movement on those irrespective of anything on the nuclear issue. that is one example of a truly appalling human rights record. and so we will want to discuss human rights with iran as part of our bilateral discussions. we will impress on them the importance of universal human

rights and of the positive impression it would make on the world if they were to deal with these issues as well. it is much too early to say. add my support to this agreement? it has taken long to this limited point of progress. the track record makes it difficult to have constructive dialogue. it would be worse to turn our backs on this agreement. if iran implements the deal in --d faith, how >> i am grateful for his support and wise words about that. only iran can determine if they implement it in good faith.

in are dealing with foreign inisters, i do believe reaching a deal and about and lamenting the deal. i help he will continue to have .he necessary support in iran to make sure the agreement is fully implemented. >> pat gloss. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the need for iran to operate in good faith but that is not we have seen in recent. decades is there a plan if iran has not complied with this agreement? >> the plan, we would not be able to renew the agreement. as i was pointing out earlier,

all of the sanctions that we have signed up to is reversible. it would not be repeated if iran does not permit this agreement. i think they have a clear understanding, and that is part of the pressure on them to do it. >> mr. bob blackman. >> thank you, mr. speaker the interpretation seems to be coming out of iran and that the if the agreement falls apart. what can my friend say to the house and the world about iran sticking to what we believe has been achieved? >> all of us in this house in the 1990's are used to

functioning without sleep. clear, this is not a recognition of the right to en rich, which we do not believe exist. comprehensive a solution. this would enable iran to enjoy basic rights to nuclear energy, for peaceful purposes with a mutually defined enrichment program limited to practical means. to get to that point, iran thank the mr. speake needs to detailf detailed measures. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have the adjusting privileged to visit iran after a 21 year

gap, can i warmly welcome the progress that has been made for everyone who has been responsible for the advances being made leading to this agreement and at the same time echo the concerns by mr. blackburn about the risks of agreement both in iran and elsewhere who do not want this to the don to more permit agreement. and remembering the frustration doore time, opening the for greater understanding. can i urge all concerned to do everything possible to not let this opportunity to rift out of our reach? >> yes, absolutely. i am conscious of the importance of that. that is one of the recent it has been important to respond

quickly to irans readiness to make such an agreement. it is possible for people in iran to see. there are compromises that can be made and it is in the interest of everybody to do so. i think showing that quickly gives the opportunity to those in iran who want to be able to carry that on for the future. >> mr. ben wallace. >> can i congratulate my friend for all the work and the other nations they have done to get into agreement. inspection and verification will be the best way to put aside those who oppose this deal. when the president was part of the team in the past, he was instrumental in getting iran to

sign up for the protocol of the nuclear proliferation treaty. is that something we should seek in future? the best way is through you when verification. to observe want iran the protocol. this will need to be discussed in a comprehensive agreement. 's will be aware that iran observance of the protocol would be dependent and they would have to have a vote about that in the iranian system. that could introduce an additional duplex the. that is something we would want them to do. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we welcome this agreement as a first step in a long process. president obama and the american

stopping the foreign if it is sufficient issueis is a very serious . [indiscernible] debate we have on whatever side anyone is on with military action related to syria and not iran is very much part of our policy to promote a political solution in syria, including a feast conference on syria. -- including a peace conference syria. i met with people in his temple in a peace conference. that has now been announced for

the 22nd of january. we will do everything we can to find a peaceful solution on syria. >> mr. stephen o'brien. >> i apologize for missing the first few moments of the statement. that is a very significant admission. honesty shouldn, be rewarded. hisst say, not withstanding immense distinction, i am afraid it will not be allowed again. he has been very candid. >> i thought transparency was the better decision. it would depend on the transparency of the verification and how much trust can be placed on trying to in greater

security. that is more widespread than just the nuclear issue. >> if everyone involved is transparent, there will be no problem in the implementation of this agreement. i would strongly encourage that. inis going to require addition to all the monitoring and the joint commission, any agreement is going to require good faith and commitment from the other side. that has to come from political will. we will do everything we can. it will only work if there is a real commitment from iran as well. >> my honorable friend has spoken about a new charges d'affaires to tehran.

they did millions of pounds worth of damage, which they now owe in compensation to the reddish taxpayer. is any progress being done in securing that compensation? >> a very good question. entitledd kingdom is for the damage done and compensation will be one of the issues we need to discuss in this upgrading of diplomatic relations. the most important consideration will be whether an and the city -- an embassy will be allowed to run. but we will address that. signed with the nuclear weapon capacity in north korea.

[indiscernible] ended.know how that has how confident is he that history will not repeat itself and the monitoring will be sufficient to ensure it has transpired with the progress? >> the provision for monitoring is very expensive and very retailed, to a much greate degree. how confident can we be? timet w will tell. i have spoken about the sincerity. implementing is another matter. i would only say that the provisions will be detailed in iran. we will be able to see whether

confidence is justified or not. >> mr. james morris. >> would you not agree that the concession on your radiant uraniumt -- enrichment, that iran should stop all your radiant enrichment at that plant? >> it is true there is a difference from un security council resolutions in the past. it is true it would not a possible to make any agreement with iran without this aspect to such an agreement and it would the preamble to the agreement that talked about the transparency measures and that iran reaffirm that will iran ever see or develop any

nuclear weapons. it is when the world can be satisfied about that last sentence that it is then possible to make an agreement with the enrichment provisions of which i spoke earlier. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the concern of many of my constituents with uranium enrichment. us, assurance can they give no matter what interpretation has been given, iran's right to enrichment has been recognized. >> i gave earlier the interpretation of that so-called right to enrich. in the way io it read earlier. there is nothing vague about the agreement. iran announces they will not

thech uranium over 5% for duration of the six months. i welcome the foreign secretary's personal commitment that was arranged over the weekend. confirm to the house that any release of oil revenue will only happen if iran is up to the commitment they made over the weekend and their ongoing commitment to an ongoing agreement. >> yes, absolutely. this is over a six-month period and the release of frozen assets on a one-off basis that can be stop at any time. it will be important to see they

are fulfilling the agreement in order for confidence to be maintained. so the position is. >> mr. andrew percy. >> past actions predict future actions. deserve thet benefit of the doubt. doubt that many of our closest allies and friends are deeply concerned about this. will the foreign secretary commit to -- their views taken into account also? >> absolutely. a fair point about the need to work with other countries. we should always understand skepticism about such agreements, given the past record of iran.

it is important to understand and to think about what on earth the alternatives would be. is a goodt, this enough agreement. the alternatives are iran developing a nuclear weapon or getting to the threshold of that or a conflict with iran. we will work very closely with other countries, reassuring them along the way. >> what a choice. >> thank you, mr. speaker. is't it the case that iran the biggest and nastiest bully in the playground? they have been given their catapults back.

can the foreign secretary confirm to the house that iran is not in a position to complete a nuclear weapon? right. is all the aspects that i have listed stopped from going forward over this six month period. some of them have rolled back. the copperheads of agreement we are seeking after this step will under nor that circumstances will iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons. this is not so much a case of giving them their catapult back. there'll never have a catapult. >> thank you very much. the election of president rouhani came as a surprise to

some. sayas the only candidate to we have to change the direction of iran because the sanctions were so crippling. can i urge my friend to outline to the house the efforts to tighten their grip on sanctions to its does not stick side of the deal? if iran doesdoubt not stick to its side of the deal, limited sanctions of which i have spoken which comes from the suspension of sanctions would certainly come to an end. the very breakdown of an agreement that we and our partners have entered into in good faith, there would be strong pressure for an increase

of sanctions on iran. >> point of order. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> we are leaving the reddish house of commons. --we are leaving the british house of commons. moments, in just a few the u.s. nuclear policy, the focus on the stockpile of weapons. that will be live at noon span.rn here on c- the president travels to san francisco today for a speech. asing up this evening, special serious with robionn nagle, who will discuss her

experiences as a sanitation worker. here is a preview. >> the story is very new york- focused. the challenge of waste management is a national concern and a deeply local concern. any city, any town, you have to answer the question, who is picking up trash and where does it go? the particulars here are not so different than cities in other parts of the country. trucks, human labor, organizing routes. chicago just went through a radical transformation of how they organize the collection routes for their city. grithere is the garbage d. they had to do it very carefully. it sounds like it is successful. those problems are hardly unique

to new york. mrs. nixon accompanied the president to china. she was looking at a package of cigarettes. the package -- "i understand you admired the pandas at the zoo." "they are darling." "we will make sure you have pandas to go home with." it was important to support her husband. a news report would come out and they would talk about the president and always say what a wonderful job pat nixon did. onfirst lady pat nixon, also c-span radio and www.c-span.org. >> we will go live to the cato

institute and a few minutes. that was started noon eastern. right now a discussion from the pentagon, looking to lost or wasted funds and outdated accounting systems, from today's "washington journal." 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 enterprise correspond or that 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 has not recall -- has not complied. that means since 1996, according to your story, $8.5 trillion in appropriations that by law

should have been audited has not been audited. how did this happen? guest: well, basically congress and the white house let them get away with it. there was a law passed in the 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. it was much more focused on buying weapons systems and threats to national security, and the accounting side and the money side was never focused on by the top brass or the pentagon.

and so all of this money essentially has disappeared into a black hole. there's no single accounting system. there are all these individual little accounting systems that are allowed to develop ad hoc, onesome of them go back -- 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? guest: well, at the pentagon, 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 i, 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 about this agency called dfas. what is that? guest: 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 problems because -- it operates 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.

so there has been an endless stream of errors, and numbers that do not add up. and ultimately the financial statements is 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 -- about bookkeeping practices of the pentagon called "unaccountable, and you can ask him your questions or call him with your comments. independents, 202-585-3882. we want to show some of the numbers, some of the stats from your recent reporting. since 1996, $8.5 trillion given to the department of defense has

unaudited. false numbers are used to match dod budgets with treasuries. talk about false numbers and how they work. guest: 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 not have accurate numbers to 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. host: are we talking thousands of dollars or? guest: we are talking billions of dollars. host: what is an example from your reporting?

guest: an office that handles navy accounting had 2 billion plugs.illion of 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 numbers are fudged with plugs. host: where is the inspector general, or the gao? guest: they have both been extremely active on this issue. there have been endless reports focusing 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 billion to build one system. at the end of eight 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. after spending $1 billion, that, too, was killed. there is very little accountability because 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. and so 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: about this, certainly. systems, accounting the air force the cost over $7 billion, the systems ranging from the $600 million to $700 million range, $1.3 billion, to fix this accounting problem at the defense department and the different services. 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. i would like to ask -- do you believe that the government is purposely having these books done in the sham way they are so

that no one can be held accountable for spending covertly on military operations, etc.? i believe the government has the money and the means to have themselves audited and have this accountable. i find this ridiculous. i believe they are using this as 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. congress outlasts has said a deadline to make the defense department audit ready. 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

-- for illegal uses. that can include outright fraud at best or it can include -- the u.s. house has the very strict 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 quos