Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  March 30, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT

7:00 am
families discusses the health care insurance program for kids in low income families. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the cover at facebook and twitter. host: good morning. it is monday, march 30, 2015. members of congress are away from capitol hill for the next two weeks. in switzerland, negotiators are racing against a deadline over iran's nuclear program. we will discuss those talks this morning on "washington journal." as we do, we asked viewers to weigh in on a nuclear deal with iran. how closely are you following the final days of the negotiations in switzerland? our phone lines are open.
7:01 am
host:host: very good monday morning to you. here are the latest headlines in the major newspapers around the country on the iranian nuclear negotiations. first on "the washington post," negotiators race against deadline in iran talks. "wall street journal," today "deadline looms" is the headline there. "the new york times" this morning, "iran backs away from key deal detail in nuclear deal."
7:02 am
we ask our viewers to weigh in on how big a threat the iranian nuclear program is to the united states. our phone lines are open if you want to start piling in -- dialing in. we want to turn to justin white house correspondent for bloomberg news. good morning to you. guest: thanks so much for having host: with the data go before that deadline, how close are we to a breakthrough and what needs to be negotiated in the final hours? guest: i think there were actually some troubling signs overnight for those who want a deal. as you just mentioned, "the new york times" reporting that iran is backing away from an agreement a few weeks ago. a deal with russia rather than
7:03 am
trying to dilute it, i nice symbolic step if nothing else, for allies to say that this deal is going outside and ran, it will increase the breakout time iran has to build a nuclear weapon. diplomats are not describing that as a dealbreaker itself. the big issue is sanctions, the big sticking point throughout the negotiations. iran obviously wants these sanctions off as quickly and as comprehensive as possible, while the united states and other countries are interested in facing them in as iran takes concrete steps to dismantle part of the program. iran is under a lot of pressure to start delivering sanctions relief to its people as quickly as possible. they want those things pulled back. the u.s. wants to see concrete steps. we know that no matter what we
7:04 am
won't see anything until june, when the technical details of the framework are put out. how quickly they come off after that is the major sticking point right now. host: as you mentioned, some concerns in the final days of these negotiations. how hard of a deadline is that march 31 deadline? this is being described as a preliminary deadline for a later june deadline, if you can explain that. guest: sure. the white house has made very clear that this -- they see this deadline this week as a hard one to have a firm political agreement that hits a couple major goals. in terms of needing to lock in at least a year-long breakout time for a nuclear weapon and a needing to lock in at least 10 years of an agreement.
7:05 am
this would be some sort of political deal that spans a decade. what the white house and of the negotiating partners have been said is that this agreement that is reach this week needs to have all the technical details of what exactly iran will do, how is the trade-off of certain steps iran will take, the no uncertain -- a certain amount of fuel out, diluting a certain amount of material in exchange for sanctions -- those sorts of details are what negotiators hope to iron out going into the summer. in terms of the actual framework of the deal, a needs to happen the next couple days. justinhost: justin sink is a reporter for bloomberg news. what is the white house doing to prepare for a financial announcement -- potential announcement? who would be announcing it at the white house? guest: most likely the first
7:06 am
word of an agreement would come out of europe. we expect to hear words from them first, and then possibly secretary kerry, who has been involved in the negotiations. but pretty quickly after that we will start to see president obama and top cabinet officials really try to sell this deal. there are many skeptical lawmakers in congress, including some democrats and a big concern for the white house is that congress will pass legislation and even pass it with the vetoproof majority saying that they should be able to review and possibly close down any deal. that is a big concern for the white house. something we are seeing administration officials and the president himself lobby aggressively against in the final days as we get close to a deal. host: we will keep watching in the final two days of the negotiations. justin sink is with a bloomberg news. we appreciate your time on
7:07 am
"washington journal"
7:08 am
understand? i believe if they get up on the first thing they will do is launch it on israel. they have already stated they want to wipe israel off the face of the earth. it is totally unstable and i just can't believe that you have
7:09 am
this administration appeasing an enemy like this. host: robert, if no agreement is reached by the tuesday midnight deadline, what would be your recommendation for the united states? do you think military action should be on the table? caller: definitely. they are an enemy. they have been killing soldiers in iraq. covertly -- but that is what has been happening. can't believe we are even negotiating with this enemy. what is their slogan? death to america. what part of that doesn't anybody understand? host: imax, jamestown, maryland also on our line for independents. caller: good morning. brief comment.
7:10 am
if iran wants nuclear weapons so bad, why don't they simply take them from their neighboring country pakistan instead of going through this show of negotiating? that's it, thank you. host: gary, before you go, still with us? caller: yes. host: the concern being expressed over a nuclear iran -- do you think it was a symbol level of -- similar level of concern over pakistan or north korea? do you think people are as concerned about those other countries as iran right now? caller: it doesn't seem to become a nice i said we don't understand why the concern is in there for that. -- i simply don't understand why they the concern isn't there for that. like i said, if they want atomic bombs is about, don't waste time trying to build it yourself. host: why don't you think the
7:11 am
concern is there for other countries, gary? caller: you know, i don't know. i would say it would have something to do with what happened back in 1979, when the iran took the hostages. host: gary in jamestown maryland. david in brooklyn, new york, our line for democrats. thanks for getting up this morning on "washington journal." caller: unlike the last gentlemen, i don't see the concert -- i am like the last gentlemen, i don't see the concern. it wouldn't exist anymore. i don't know what is going on. israel has lots of nuclear bombs, too. they fire one at israel, the same thing would happen. iran would be obliterated. that's my thought. we should be more, you know
7:12 am
negotiations, if they do on the ground whatever, they decide to use it, we have got to do what we have to do. host: david, on that to terrence issue -- deterrence issue you brought up, the issue recently in "foreign policy" magazine. "on the one incomes and some national security experts argue that a nuclear iran would be contained by nuclear forces -- the united states and israel -- poised to deliver death blows within minutes of our first strike. in other words, any nuclear action by iran would be suicidal. on the other hand, many observers worry that a nuclear iran could take a role to a proliferation tipping point. iran getting the ball might trigger an arms race in the region. and with each new player in the nuclear game, risks announced that weapons will fall into the
7:13 am
wrong hands." if you want to read that piece the headline is "nuclear iran -- a threat or a distraction" in "foreign policy." lydia, upper marlboro, maryland, line for democrats. caller: good morning. the question is ridiculous. iran is no nuclear threat to the united states. iran is the most stable country in the middle east, have the most highly educated population in the middle east. iran is not suicidal. they would never -- this braggadocio about the destruction of israel is just talk. i don't know why we would take this seriously. if people keep harping on 1979, when they took our hostages, go back to 1953. google on the history channel, when the cia overthrew mossa
7:14 am
degh, the duly directed -- duly elected leader of iran, and install the shah, and torture and thousands of iranians disappeared until they overthrew him. people want to act like our relationship with iran started in 1979. they have reason to hate us. they would never use nuclear weapons. the whole question is ridiculous. thank you. host: lydia in upper marlboro maryland. several members of the administration and congress were on sunday shows yesterday talking about the potential deal that could be in the works with iran over limits to their nuclear program. one of those white house officials was white house spokesman josh earnest and he was what he had to say expressing his optimism that a deal could be reached. josh[video clip] josh earnest: it is time for the
7:15 am
iranians to send a clear signal to the international community whether they are willing and living up to their rhetoric to not acquire a nuclear weapon. they should be able to do that by the end of march. host: that was white house spokesman josh earnest yesterday. also appearing on "state of the union" was house speaker john boehner expressing his doubts about the possibility that an agreement could be reached. here is a bit of his comments. [video clip] representative boehner: well, let's see if there is an agreement. i had serious doubts over the last year that there could be an agreement i still have doubts. we have a regime that has never quite kept their word about anything. i don't understand why we would think an agreement with a group of people who in my opinion have no intention of keeping their word. dana bash: if there is no agreement, how quickly would you
7:16 am
move to further sanctions against iran in the house? representative boehner: very. very quickly. listen, the sections were working. they would have never come to the table -- frankly, we should have kept of the sanctions in place so we could of got into a real agreement. the sections are going to come and they are going to come quick. host: house speaker john boehner yesterday. we want to hear from our viewers on "washington journal," how big a threat is nuclear iran to the united states? a few comments have been made already, one from randian on facebook. "considering that iran just blew up a mock u.s. navy carrier, i would say that threat is pretty big." below that margie writes, "i think there is concern but it is england out of proportion. --
7:17 am
being blown out of proportion." "it is huge. anyone who says none has never stepped on foreign soil." you can send us a tweet as well. brendan is in petersburg, virginia, line for democrats. brenda, how big a threat is nuclear iran? caller: not at all. host: why is that? caller: israel has nuclear bombs, saudi arabia has nuclear bombs, united states has nuclear bombs. nobody has ever done it. the atomic bomb -- the united states is the only nation in the world whoever set off an atomic bomb on the rest of the world. now, if israel got nuclear bombs and atomic bombs saudi arabia got all of them -- remember, all
7:18 am
the terrorists are coming from saudi arabia, not from iran, iraq, and everything. they are all coming from saudi arabia. saudi arabia is our ally. all the bombers of 9/11, they were from saudi arabia. i'm trying to think of his name -- saddam hussein is from saudi arabia. let's focus our attention on where it needs to be, and that is the united states interfering in the whole world. host: minnesota, line for independents. good morning. caller: yes hi.i would like to comment. i sort of agree with the previous callers that we are making a mistake in trying to tell americans that iran is a big problem, atomic problem for us. no as we can see from the
7:19 am
past 37 years, iran is a very well-educated country. even the sanctions that are on the a not quite working because all we have to do is look around. please let's not make the same mistake as we just did 12 years ago in iraq, as we just did three years ago with libya and p arab spring. it is just continuously costing us money money, and there are no results. we never change anything. we need to look very, very hard on our diplomacy. thank you. host: john is in akron, ohio, line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is that i believe iran is no nuclear threat to the
7:20 am
united states, nor ever will be. i am also convinced that they have convinced the american people that they are just as the republicans bush, cheney, and rumsfeld convinced the american people that iran and nuclear -- not nuclear, but weapons of mass destruction. i believe probably it is about oil. if the sanctions were lifted, the only commodity that iran provides is oil. it would drive the price of oil further down and we can get well company's profits. host: that is john in akron ohio. just to be clear about which countries in the world have confirmed nuclear stockpiles, the place to go for that is cnn has a world map, nuclear weapons -- who"who has what?" is the
7:21 am
name of that. the most recent tests that have been confirmed, total tests and estimated warheads -- the united states russia, united kingdom, france, china, india pakistan, north korea, israel, and iran all listed on that. if you want to click through the different countries to learn about the nuclear weapons stockpiles and the latest information on that. frank is in the beaker kansas line for independent -- topeka, kansas, line for independents. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i agree with that lady that the iranians are pretty savvy. they are not dumb. if they were to launch any kind of nuclear weapon toward israel or anybody else, they would be suicidal. i agree with that. there must be some kind of negotiation. it is ridiculous.
7:22 am
otherwise, if they start the suicidal thing, if they choose that, it may be the end of the world. who knows? and then the isis are claiming that the end of the world is coming soon and if we want to do that, we will destroy each other. i think they are smarter than to do something like launch a weapon toward his israel or anybody else. thank you. host: a few tweets on this topic as we have been talking this morning on "washington journal." "why should i rent trust the marking government?" "iran is no threat to us. they're just being used as the ussr was during the cold war and excuse to waste money on military spending." "our legislative branches the biggest threat to the u.s. they want to torpedo negotiations without a backup plan, just like the affordable care act." in terms of what members of congress are pursuing, that explored in "the wall street
7:23 am
journal" piece on this topic. "senate lawmakers have presented to bills that mr. obama has vowed to veto. senator bob corker, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, has proposed legislation that gives congress the ability to improve, and end, or reject an agreement with iran. a second go wood -- a second bill would impose escalating new sanctions on iran starting in july if no grecian is reached. the white house and suggested that it could support of the bill proposed by senator proper boxer of california, which would require the administration to certify iran was abiding by any agreement." some of the latest from members of congress. another member of congress on the sunday shows yesterday was senator richard burr, republican of north carolina. he is also the chairman of the senate intelligence committee and he was on "face the nation"
7:24 am
and talked about his believe that the u.s. may be making the wrong deal with iran. [video clip] senator burr: it doesn't seem to be headed in the right direction, and with a deadline of tuesday, i'm concerned about what we might give away. the iranians don't seem to want to conclude this. more importantly, when we see isil in 12 different countries around the world, iran in about nine countries financially or physically, i think now is the time to push back and ask ourselves, is it really time to trust the people we are negotiating with, the iranians? i would encourage the administration, let's take more time. let's not hasten to a deal. i fear that secretary kerry believes he has got to get a deal by tuesday. bob schieffer: what you are saying is that you would be one of the ones favoring postponing a deadline and keep working? senator burr: well, listen, i
7:25 am
think that is better than a bad deal, and i have a really bad feeling about what they might come with. host: here is a few newspapers from around the world talking about these iranian negotiations. here is "the daily star" from lebanon. "iran holds firm on key demand as nuclear deadline approaches." one of the larger newspapers in israel. "israel reduced to heckling iran pact from afar." how big a threat is the deal with iran to the united states? then, good morning. caller: thank you. thank you for c-span should you do a great job, by the way. host: appreciate it. caller: i think iran with a nuclear weapon would be a big threat. maybe we are looking at it as iran without nuclear weapons don't present a threat, but get
7:26 am
to the other side, if they acquired it, i think at that point things would change, and they would be. don't forget that iran backs this terrorist groups hamas and hezbollah. until iran doesn't think to the effect of pulling back those -- that support of those two groups -- until they show that they are worthy of an agreement to go into an agreement where they will not pursue nuclear weapons, showing that they are going to try to settle things down in the middle east to be a partner with us or with the other middle eastern countries to settle things down because the middle east is in chaos now, and they are contributing to it.
7:27 am
why would we trust a country that is contributing -- what they are doing now, for example, in yemen. they are can shooting to the -- country bidding to the destabilization of the united states. until they take major steps to stabilize the region, we should not be entering into an agreement -- i am a democrat and i agree that i don't think they should be trusted at this point to enter into such an agreement. host: ben you bring up the efforts in yemen and what is happening in that country. "arab nations to form military force to counter iran and extremists" is the headline from "the new york times," talking about efforts by the arab states to combine this military force specifically for actions in yemen. the headline from "usa today" this morning notes that some 40,000 troops could make up this
7:28 am
strikeforce that the arab league is trying to assemble, the story noting that "arab leaders agreed in principle to a combined military force capable of paddling islamic militants and groups aligned with iran, such as the houthi rebels in yemen now under attack from arab-led forces. even as saudi arabia completed a fourth day of airstrikes against rebels in yemen, the arab leaders wanted to take four months to pull together this 40,000-troop strikeforce." if you want to read more on that, it is in multiple papers today could that i just read from "usa today." bishop in philadelphia pennsylvania. caller: yes, i have a couple comments in reference to this situation involving iran. i think the sanctions should be kept in place and increased if necessary. secondly, i think that our
7:29 am
representatives negotiating this peace process or whatever should be replaced by the prime minister of israel. he would do a better job and we would stand down. host: speaking of benjamin netanyahu, the prime minister of israel, the story in "the washington post" this morning notes that as the negotiations press on "netanyahu exposed alarm about what he characterized as the budding 'iran-yemen axis.' later, netanyahu continued his criticism of a possible deal during a meeting with a delegation of u.s. senators led by mitch mcconnell. 'as israel and the arab countries see iran progressing with his aggression to conquer yemen, talks continue as usual
7:30 am
and go on come on a deal that from everything that we hear paves iran's way to the bottom,' -- bomb,'" according to mitch mcconnell. caller: i am all for a nuclear deal with iran. i think we are better off if we have inspectors in there knowing what they are doing. i don't understand what this is all about. why americans can never use diplomacy. netanyahu has lied to us in the past over the rack -- iraq. some of our information about weapons of mass destruction came from israel. israel just keeps confiscating land from the palestinians. we do nothing but backs them and the u.n. security council.
7:31 am
it is utterly ridiculous. if you go back in history, and start looking at the map of what they consider their homeland, they will take parts of saudi arabia and all the other countries around them. host: that was christened a lucky. the headline from "the new york times" -- hillary clinton wants to improve ties with israel. the secretary -- former secretary of state told a group of prominent leaders that she wants to put the relationship between united states and israel back on constructive footing. mrs. clinton made a phone call to major american jewish organizations, contrasted in tone from recent remarks by members of the obama administration who have publicly criticized netanyahu amid tensions over nuclear deal with iran.
7:32 am
selma is waiting in georgia. line for democrats. selma, how big of a threat is nuclear iran to the united states? caller: i don't feel like iran is a threat to the u.s.. you know, you have a title, knowing they are a title to us. we are always doing israel's bidding. we started that war in iraq. when we take out saddam hussein we started the whole thing. every time your listing on your show, you can tell -- you don't even have to ask to a republican is because the hate that they spill out of their mouths. it's almost like they want us to go to war with iran. why? we just went to war with iraq when they wanted us to go. it's our congress. it's a congress that is killing us.
7:33 am
we shouldn't be saying anywhere to by anyone else. it's our congress. host: we will go on to robert in virginia, on a line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't think we should get a deal with iran. i don't trust them. just like i don't trust obama. he has messed up this country. iran has messed up this country too. thank you. host: on the issue of trust, a viewer on twitter says, trust but verify -- if we never negotiate, we get nowhere. we have about 15 minutes left in the segment of "washington journal," if you want to call in this morning. we will also be talking with the latest in the negotiations in our next segment of the "washington
7:34 am
journal." i want to show you some to headlines -- some headlines from around the country. indiana governor mike pence on sunday defended a controversial law that he signed last week. the law has prompted concern among business and association leaders, including ncaa, apple saying that a lot may allow discrimination against gays. the governor was on tv yesterday talk about governor pence: the way i was raised in a small town in indiana is that you are kind and respectful to anyone. anyone who has been in indiana for five minutes knows that hoosier hospitality is not a slogan. people tell me, i went to stay and people are so nice.
7:35 am
this is not about discrimination. this is about protecting the religious liberty of every hoosier of every faith. we will continue to work our hearts out to clarify that the people of indiana. host: "washington times" this morning has a map of states with religious freedom laws similar to the one that the governor and acted in indiana. you can see, the states and red have enacted religious freedom legislation. the state and gray have proposed legislation in 2015. one other opinion piece i want to note for you this morning. congressman from south carolina, and also member of the financial services committee, here is a piece that he wille wrote for the "wall street journal" this morning. he writes, enough you defense
7:36 am
hawks say that freedom isn't free. they are right, so let's pay for it with spending cuts, not by barring peering if you want to -- not by borrowing. stan is waiting in odessa, texas. line for democrats. caller: it is a big threat. i do agree on this deal beer try to make. i think a lot of folks on the other side -- either way they're not going to agree with the president. i think we ought to go ahead and do this. it's a complex situation in the middle east. i hear some of the callers. i really believe that we need to do this. and move on with it. host: stand, how closely are you
7:37 am
following these final days of the negotiations that are happening in switzerland? caller: i'm very close. i watch all those guys, all the politicians on the morning shows yesterday. i mean, i realize that not a whole lot of people agree on the thing. it goes back to politics 101. i think it's for the good of u.s. to do this. we need to do this. just do it. i go with it. nothing is perfect. everybody is going to have their disagreements with his. it is what it is. host: secretary of state john kerry is helping to lead negotiations on behalf of the united states. you can follow his twitter page. he has been tweeting out pictures and tweets about ongoing negotiations.
7:38 am
there he is with some of sheet is sitting around a table in -- some of the negotiators sitting around a table in switzerland. on twitter, carol wrightson, if they have nothing to hide, why not agreed to unannounced nuclear checks. we will get into more details in our next segment. for now, just asking the question, how big of a threat is nuclear iran to the united states? elizabeth is in ohio. line for democrats. caller: hi. host: go ahead. you are on the "washington journal." caller: i don't think the threat is as big as it is made out to be. we have to remember that president obama isn't the only one making a deal. so that they will comply with the terms of it. we just have to hold them to the fire, and just make sure they do
7:39 am
what they are supposed to do. i think mr. netanyahu is acting really badly for a prime minister. a few years ago, i think people forgot that sheldon allison has one of the biggest newspapers in israel. his money is like in the politics over there just like it is over here. when netanyahu came over here, he probably stayed at sheldon's house. i mean, they are so close in friendship. i think that netanyahu is acting like a bad american republican congress. host: elizabeth in ohio. this morning, negotiations being led by the p5 plus one countries . to refresh your memory on who that includes it's the united states, china, france, russia,
7:40 am
the united kingdom, and germany making of those p5 plus one negotiations with iran. cleveland, ohio. caller: thank you for the opportunity. i agree, and i'm pro-negotiations with iran. as we know, over the past 10-12 years, we know exactly what they're doing. recently, the chief of the iaa said that there is no deviation there. speak and mr. and israel, they have more than 200 atomic ons. no one has inspected them. nobody knows what they're doing. iran supporting terrorist groups, hamas and hezbollah -- i have to correct that caller.
7:41 am
they are not terrorist groups. they are related to the lebanon and palestine governments. it's a different story with iphoto. you can't compare isil with hamas or hezbollah. host: you bring up israel's nuclear program. some news with that last week coming out of the pentagon. the pentagon declassifying documents that were once labeled top secret that goes into detail about israel's nuclear program. that was released just prior to benjamin netanyahu speech on march 3 to a joint congress. iran has never confirmed or denied a nuclear program. the pentagon declassified documents on the program, but kept other sections classified with those sections blocked out in the document, according to
7:42 am
the "israel national news." time for a few more calls. jack is in california. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a couple comments about your headline of whether or not -- actually, it should be should iran trust the united states with a nuclear weapon? we have all this talk of iran supporting come honest -- supporting hamas. it is pretty much a terrorist grouthere is no way that iran would fire a nuclear weapon anywhere near the united states. they do that would -- they know that would be the end of their world. the other thing is -- all of this stuff that the united states does for israel. everybody knows. israel is running an apartheid
7:43 am
state against the palestinians. host: a tweet came in during your phone call. mike writes on twitter, we need to protect ourselves against the country that has promised to kill us. we are talking iran with a potential nuclear weapon. using deterrence is enough for do you think mike makes a point? caller: mike -- the point mike is making is that iran is doing a lot of rhetoric. i don't think those people are insane. iran does he have the capability of sending a bomb from iran to the united states. i'm a vegan. -- a vegan. from the vietnam war.
7:44 am
the play went to make is this. we hear all this talk about israel is our biggest colleague or whatever you call it, in the middle east. ok, that may be true. i need somebody to name for me exactly what does israel do for the united states. that is jack -- host: that is jack. we will try to get in david. line for independents. caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: thank you. thank you for c-span. my first,. my second comment would be i apologize for the other caller, about 30 miles from me. that doesn't represent the opinion of most of georgia. about your question of iran being the nuclear threat the united states, their policy and
7:45 am
the worldview is driven by a ideology. they are up to whatever they have to do to attack the country that they think are demons, and they have stated many times, even during these talks, that they are going to destroy. the only country they are going to come after more than us is israel. i mean, their whole worldview is driven by ideology. it has no intelligence base. it is altered by ideology. for someone to think that they wouldn't do that because it would be their own annihilation, part of their ideology is that they would be in paradise if they did that. whether they died or not. you know, they don't have intelligence over ideology over there. they will be a threat to us.
7:46 am
host: that was david in monticello, georgia. our last caller in this segment. you can keep calling and because we will keep discussing the iranian nuclear negotiations in our next segment of "washington journal" with lara jakes of "foreign policy," she is the deputy editor there. first, last week, the center for the national interest held a discussion on how iran and other middle east issues have influenced politics. here's a clip from the event. [video clip] >> the iran nuclear deal looks very likely to not anything like the deal we thought to get. you know, the primary purpose of the deal, from a strategic perspective, has to be are we going to reduce the risk of proliferation in the region?
7:47 am
secondary, also important purpose is if we will reduce the threat of iran. the reason i put it in the order is because if only iran had nuclear weapons, given the american and israeli firepower just off shore, the deterrent effect would work. big concern is that iran gets nuclear weapons and other countries in the region try to counter that. that increases the risk that weapons fall in the wrong hands. iran could go from the day they agreed to an agreement to havin g a weapon within a year or a few months. every state in fear would seek power.
7:48 am
we go from zero situation to a one-year buffer. we went from not wanting centrifuges to now accepting thousands of centrifuges apparently including centrifuges placed in hardened bunkers. we went from what i think was a much more gradual expectation regarding sanctions to i think you end up with us giving in to some uranium pressure for greater sanctions. we will do this via the united nations to improve uranium standing with a lot of countries. even if the united states congress blocks this in terms of the power it has to do so in set sanctions include congressional involvement. host: to watch the entire event, go to our website, c-span.org. we are joined now i lara jakes,
7:49 am
editor of "foreign policy," who has been tracking the iranian nuclear negotiations. she joins us now just 48 hours before the march 31 deadline that has been sent to agree on a framework plan. can you discuss that deadline. has it been set in stone? guest: it depends on how you define sandstone. the marseille first of my was self-imposed by on negotiators. it is not for a final deal. the final deal is mostly made by june 30. this was for a deadline basically to set a framework, a blueprint if you will, for how the negotiations will proceed from this point. it has been noted that the idea behind the framework deadline is that this is the vehement -- agreement in principle, and they details will be worked out afterwards.
7:50 am
so many of the details are technical. it may not be as important although here domestically, in the united states, the reason why this deadline is important is because congress is itching to be imposed sanctions on iran. if this deadline is not met, many in congress will say, these are bad faith negotiations, this is a bad faith partner and we should go ahead with the sections. host: in your view, what are the biggest hurdles? i noticed though a fluid situation leading up to tomorrow at midnight, but what you see will be the toughest potential dealbreaker? guest: most of this has come down to -- again, this gives very technical -- the amounts of rich uranium that iran is allowed to have. many of the talks have been about reducing the number of a piece of technology called centrifuges. these are things that produced enriched uranium. mmany of the negotiations
7:51 am
have been focused on reducing the amount of the divisions. in the last hours, even in the last day, there have been talks as to what to do with the enriched uranium that iran already has, and has been producing for years. they are now saying that they will not ship that uranium out. the world powers one iran to ship that out, ship it to russia, and turn it into some kind of liquid or chemical substance that will no longer be used for weapons grade material. iran says, no, we want to keep it here, we can diluted. the world powers are saying maybe but maybe not. again, sorry to be really technical, but that is one of the main issues. the other main issue comes down to inspections. iran, for years, has been accused of hiding a lot of its enrichment program in
7:52 am
underground facilities and facilities that international inspectors haven't been allowed into. the deal, if struck, would require very open inspections for the world to get into these plants and see what iran is doing. host: consequences of failure if a deal is in reached by tomorrow . who has more to lose, and the united states or iran? guest: it is an adjusting point. i was talking to a very senior european diplomat a few weeks ago and he said that this march 31 deadline wasn't needed -- and principle, it would be nice if it were met, and let's not get hung up on march 31. overall, the deadline is june 30. it is more important here in the united states for the deadline to be met. it does a couple of things. one, as i mentioned, it would maybe put a hold on congress to reinstate some of the
7:53 am
sanctions. congress wants to ramp up or at least reinstate sections that had been frozen at this point. it also would send a very strong signal to some of the other allies in the mideast, israel, saudi arabia, who are worried and say that iran is not a good faith negotiating partner. if this deadline falls through i give the argument more hour. also, to drive us home, the reason why this is important is because it could be a very historic process for the united states, for the entire west, and iran, which has had very limited diplomacy going back generations. what the obama and administration wants to do is say, we can reach this agreement -- if we cann reaches agreement, we can open up diplomacy with other parts of iran, whether it be business or
7:54 am
education, normalized relations. host: if you have questions or comments for lara jakes of "foreign policy," the line for democrats is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 745-8002 you can -- start calling in now. yemen and the situation there. how is that changing the equation around negotiations? guest: negotiators say, and they have said this on many topics -- we heard is with syria and iraq as well -- saying, yes, we may be having discussions about these issues on the sidelines, but we are not focusing on yemen right now. we really want to focus on nuclear negotiations. we don't want anything else to derail that. i think it would be naive to believe that since this is such a big deal in the mideast that this doesn't come up as a topic. what the state department has
7:55 am
said is that this is a very brief sideline discussion, and to not take away from the main event. host: lara jakes is with "foreign policy," and spent 12 years with "associated press," has extensive experience in the region. here to take your questions. john is a first from st. paul, minnesota. line for republicans. caller: good morning. i like to ask the guest what she thinks is real will do in the event that a so-called agreement is reached, and if israel strikes, will it be effective? what would be the reaction in the united states, particularly with this administration if israel strikes? thank you. guest: thanks.
7:56 am
obviously, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu has made a very clear that he does not want to see a deal. he told his cabinet yesterday that what is being talked about is even worse than what he expected. he, as i think any of americans know, was in washington talking to congress just a couple of weeks ago saying, do not let the obama administration strike a deal with iran. any deal would be a bad deal. regarding your question about whether israel will strike, that is very hard to predict. i know that the administration had been concerned about this several years ago. when i was sitting in baghdad, was almost a perennial rumor that israel was at some point. of course, people in baghdad were concerned about that because those would be arms flying straight over baghdad to get to iran. i don't want to predict on whether or not israel would want
7:57 am
to strike. i think i can say with full third seed that the world community would engage with israel and do everything it could to prevent a nuclear war. it is hard for me to say here predict what the prime minister might do. host: refresh is on the united states has set on potential strikes if any sort of -- or any sort of military action if a deal falls through. guest: imax we not really sure how that would go. the united states is awfully engaged in the middle east right now. the obama admits to should says they doesn't want to have boots on the ground. if the deal falls through, i think more what we would see is very ramped up sanctions. we have to remember, when the stations went in place, the u.n. first imposed, i think in 2006, the united states followed later. the toughest sanctions came in 2012 when the united states and
7:58 am
the eu imposed tough sanctions. a really cratered the economy and iran. it's pretty much what health president rouhani gain -- helped president rouhani gain his election. he understood that the economy was hurting very badly and he would do everything he could to reach an agreement with the west to ease some of these sanctions. i think more of what we would see is very very harsh sanctions, again on tehran. host: what are the sanctions? what sectors does the united states and the world community target to put pressure on iran? guest: most of it is oil and has traditionally been oil. iran sells its oil to india, russia, i believe china as well. oil prices have been dropping. maybe that is not as hard as it has been in the past for iran. also, the gold market has been hit. the financial sector has been
7:59 am
hit. the banking market has been hit. more so, -- obviously, the weapons sector has been hit. i'm not sure that would ever be lifted. i'm not sure that exporting weapons is something that the west is ready to lead iran do. -- let iran do. like i said, it has been very harsh on the economy. host: bob is up next calling in from minnesota. line for independents. caller: i've a statement question. my statement is this. let's say that a deal falls through and israel or united states decides to bomb iran. i heard that that would said the nuclear program back five years. my problem with the idea is unless you kill everybody in
8:00 am
iran that has an idea of how to build a nuclear weapon, they will build a bomb. they want to build it. it will get built. bombing is just going to set them back. if we do bomb them, we are going to cause fukushimas. that would be my question. host: saying that it is inevitable that iran would get a bomb anyway, regardless of any sort of military action. would you agree? guest: i again, very hard for me to predict what is in the supreme leader's head and iran. i think it is important to know in the sake of fairness that iran has said repeatedly that it does not want to build a nuclear weapon. they say that all they want is the exact same treatment under the nonproliferation treaty the other signatories have. they say thou their partners in the middle east have nuclear weapons -- action, not partners but players have weapons and
8:01 am
they need is for their own self protection. whether they will go ahead and build a bomb, i think you are right in saying that iran has moved ahead with its nuclear program. despite saying that it has not there is an underground enrichment lon broker that has blocked inspectors in the past and was those without the west knowing about it. the west is racist this is about iran's motive here. very hard to predict whether or not iran would move forward with the bomb. i would also know that many nuclear experts say that it has been 20 years since iran has been suspected of producing uranium, and it still has not been able to produce a nuclear warhead, so what are not they would be able to soon is hard to predict. host: there has been secular
8:02 am
shasta when congress would sign off on the deal. what is the relationship between president rouhani, the supreme leader, and who gets the last deal their? guest: the supreme leader gets a final decision. rouhani, the president of iran, came in on -- seen as the west as a much more moderate player and farme far more willing to move. this is going to come down to the supreme leader and what the supreme leader once in says. the supreme leader has been very vocal on twitter. the last few days, he basically said -- i have is written down somewhere, i want to remind myself -- all stations must be
8:03 am
lifted immediately after a deal is struck. host: and gone just to a gradual lifting. guest: the p5 plus one has said this will be phased out over five to 10 years. as a practical know, it is very hard to list some of these sanctions. to wave a magic wand and have them all different disappear is probably not realistic. host: we are talking with lara jakes of "foreign policy." we showed you a "for policy" piece earlier this morning. she is here for the next half hour or so. rob is in new jersey. line for democrats. caller: hello? host: you are on the "washington journal," bob. , we will put you on hold i go to kelly and georgia. line for republicans. caller: yes sir, thank you for
8:04 am
taking my call. i just want to make a few quick comments. if i'm not mistaken, the gentleman that you just mentioned, the supreme leader, and didn't he also say this weekend, death to america. it is in france wanting to pull out of the deal? i also find it very funny that president obama took his message to the iran people instead of bringing it to congress, and also delivering a message to us, the american people. he delivered one to iran. i also find it very odd that everyone keeps saying that iran cannot deliver a missile to us however, iran is doing business in venezuela. has anyone ever heard of intercontinental ballistic missiles? yes, iran can deliver a missile
8:05 am
to us. host: a lot to go through. if you want to take as many of those as you like. guest: sure. on the comment of death to america, i didn't catch that. i can't be honest that he didn't. this is a refrain that you hear often across the middle east. it wouldn't surprise me. he has been very critical of israel and netanyahu often points out that he says death to israel, it wouldn't surprise me if he said death to america. on france wanting to pull out i don't think france wants to pull out. i think they have some concerns as to the rate of inspections that would happen if the deal goes through. those are also concerns that netanyahu, an ally of france, has also raised. i think that's what the issue
8:06 am
really is, not necessarily that france wants to pull out. i think of any of the p5 partners pull out, the deal is over. host: on the p5 plus one, who is considered a hardliner on this deal? are some considered more willing to go easier on iran than others, or is the p5 plus one of one mind? guest: i believe -- i've attended the negotiations. i won't say i sat in on the meetings. i attended them in baghdad, in geneva. i believe it is fair to say that the p5 is united. it is well-known that russia and china may be a little more sympathetic to iran particularly china on the issue of oil china needs a lot of middle east oil and if they can get a cheap from iran, they would like to do that. i believe that the p5 is pretty united. it seems to me that the united
8:07 am
states is really leading the negotiations, and has been for some time. i don't think anyone is more thoughts than not. there may be some partners that have other interests and are hoping to broker something with iran, but i think everyone wants a deal at this point. host: i didn't want to cut off your point, kelly talking about president obama taking the message to the iranian people. guest: i think we need to put this in context as well. i'm thinking of the message she is referring to is president obama wishing the people of iran a happy new year. it's a version holiday -- a persian holiday, basically new
8:08 am
year. i don't think there's any secret in washington as to how present obama feels about these negotiations. i know that you had on a little while ago eight comment by josh earnest, the white house press secretary, who was on a sunday show, and he delivered the president's message pretty loud and clear as well. host: let's go to rubin from pennsylvania. line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is a medically want to direct every american. the iranians do not need icbm to get to the united states. that's something people have said. there are cargo inspectors, but they can detonate in the new york harbor and incinerate most
8:09 am
of manhattan. the other point want to make is one of your previous callers touched on an ideology issue here. when we negotiate treaties with other countries, we do so with a light frame of mind. the iranian strike is close to being what the nazis were in the 1920's and 30's. we made agreements in the treaty of versailles. the germans simply violated it. they ignored it. they ended up coming into the 1930's with europe's most powerful military when they were supposedly banned from having military equipment. host: this issue of trust coming up once again. guest: you've heard the term, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." i think what unites these is trying do is engage with as many
8:10 am
people as possible to not provoke any more outrage. one person told me recently, you know, it would be terrible if the negotiations continued because if we are talking that we are not bombing. a frame of mind. that may be why some of these negotiations have been extended on for years. host: how makes engines have there been at this point to get to where we are today? guest: the original extension into thousand 13 -- in 2013, nook iran basically agreed to freeze their program for slight easing alsatian. it has been extended for two or three times since 2013. again, the negotiations have been going on for years. they have been more intensified during the obama administration, i believe. the talks and concerns have been going on for about a decade. host: eight suites as we're
8:11 am
talking, the u.s. is replaying the carter administration, hopefully we will get a reagan type leader in 2016. let's go to maryland. you are on withh lara jakes. caller: good morning. i'm iranian. i'm watching this as i watch the iraq war. those who were behind the iraq war definitely sinus in congress and supporting congress and also the senate. lieberman and others, the group that push the president to occupy iraq. host: what's your question? caller: my question is this -- how long is the united states
8:12 am
going to go into the same trap? why are you saying -- as you know, the supreme leader of iran cannot say anything wrong. the fact that the supreme leader said we will not do this. he said the same thing. it is not the islamic thing to do. host: do you want to pick up some of that? guest: sure. as far as iran being a threat, i understand what you are saying. i suppose i would turn the question back on you on why is it that iran has not been fully
8:13 am
honest in the past about its nuclear activities in terms of its production in some of the secret hiding places, in terms of how much enriched uranium it is producing. experts have pointed out the don't need to have 20,000 centrifuges if all you want to use the image uranium for it is medical isotopes and other purposes such as that. again, i think that the united states and the west wants to build up diplomacy with iran. this is something that much of the west, if not all the west, wants to do. these are small s steps and they required shows of faith and trust. i think that both sides are very suspicious, and that's why it is taking so long and it has been such a hard walk to get to where we are today. host: robert is in dina,
8:14 am
missouri. line for republicans. you are on with lara jakes. caller: good morning, sir, and thank you for taking my call. i met retired navy man. if it wasn't for mr. netanyahu getting back in the election to protect the 18 million jewish people, if it weren't for him -- and i don't understand. that is question one. russian to is i don't understand why our president, the people in the united states voted him and not once but twice. he has done nothing. zip, zero for the jewish people. now, the jewish people, if they get a hold of this bomb -- a
8:15 am
prime minister netanyahu had not gotten in and maybe got a hold of this bomb, they would have wiped israel off the face of the earth and then came after us. host: lara jakes, you want to pick that up and as you do, discuss where the obama administration is in its relationship now pose president -- post-president and yahoos reelection. guest: it's true that the relationship has been tough. it's true that netanyahu and obama do not have the warm and fuzzy relationship that both of their predecessors have had between the united states and israel. it is also true that the united states continues to support israel in many ways and terms of aid, and specifically military aid. that is something that is really
8:16 am
officials talk about constantly when they come to the united states. there's a lot of genuine support for the united states, and grateful this to washington for providing some of the support. host: we have about 10 minutes left with lara jakes of "foreign policy." for those unfamiliar with "foreign policy," do want to talk about a? guest: it is a great magazine. we are as the name implies, we cover foreign policy. we do it in a sober way, but also in a way that breaks on the issues to what people need to know, what people want to know. it is a little more fun than you might get from other places where foreign policy can be very dry. it is fun, interesting. our latest magazine issue came out about three weeks ago, or so, and it was on nuclear
8:17 am
issues, not physically on these talks but on nuclear issues in general. i incurred everybody to dig it up. i run a team of about 10 reporters and we try to cover the world from washington. host: if you want to follow along on twitter it is @fourpolicy. zachary is up next from virginia. caller: hello, my question is the following. i have a couple of points. if washington and tehran, and other world powers reach a deal to occur things about iran, what is the chance that the gop controlling congress and senate would be able to undo this deal? recently the gop's overwhelming support for israel has not just been taking the position of
8:18 am
having netanyahu is be before congress to basically say obama's plan is bad, don't do it, it has taken the form of vitriol towards iran. saying, they will come after us and talking about wiping israel off the map -- there are multiple translations for the quote that has become very confusing. religious conservatives immediately look at it and say they want to wipe israel off the map. the gop support for israel, i really think it's bullish and overdone -- is foolish and overdone, and pleases religious sinus more than it helps world peace. guest: zachary clearly i think
8:19 am
you are right into the issues and congress. i will speak to that. if this agreement does not go through, i believe you asked what will republicans in congress do. as speaker boehner and house majority leader mitch mcconnell has said, there will probably be new sanctions. speaker boehner said yesterday that if it deals not reach, there will be sanctions they quickly. some of the sanctions have been used during the interim agreement to keep the negotiations ongoing. i suspect those would come back in full force. congress is considering new sanctions that the obama administration says would completely tank all hope of negotiations going forward. also, many in congress republicans and democrats, are looking for congress to have some authority over a final
8:20 am
agreement. i.e. if a deal is struck, congress would be able to weigh in and say yes or no, we will accept this before the p5 does. that's what we will be seeing over the next few months if we get through this hump in the road of march 31. host: an individual on twitter following says, if we are negotiating in the middle east between nations, we really need to understand their perspective. who is perspective in the milley used you think americans understand the lease right now.co you have been there a while and reported there. guest: it is an interesting question. i would probably say i ran, just because it is hard for americans to get into iran. iran is a place i would absolutely love to go. it is one of the places i have not been able to go. journals are really welcomed without --
8:21 am
i would like to go in and do my own reporting. it is something i'm currently not able to do. i would suspect that iran is maybe a place that we don't have know-how on. frankly, from people i know, iranian friends, other people who had been say that there are beautiful parts of tehran and beautiful parts of iran abound as well. it would be interesting to go in and see it and see if that is true. again, we go back to this issue of trust. we need to be able to see what iran is doing, not just on their nuclear site, but kind of on the culture and society. i personally think -- lara jakes as a person -- that it would be a big service to everyone if we all had more visibility on what we are doing in this world.
8:22 am
if more iranians would want to have the united states and seawell regular day here in washington or missouri looks like, i can see how that would be a bad thing. host: lara jakes, deputy managing editor of "foreign policy." 12 years with "associated press," including in baghdad. charles, line for republicans. caller: good morning. lara, remember the agreement that leading nations made with ukraine. that worked out fine. they are sitting on their own still. you wonder why israel once the agreement with iran. can you name me one agreement that iran has kept. thank you. guest: well, charles, you have me up against the wall. one agreement that they have kept. one may say the 2013 j poa --
8:23 am
i'm sorry, the joint plan of action. that is what has been the cause for iran freezing its nuclear program while these negotiations are ongoing for a temporary easy easing of some sanctions. host: as that is happening, does that mean the inspectors are currently in iran, doing the job to see if that is taking place? or is this another area of trust? guest: the iea a -- the un's inspection arm -- has for years been going into iran and doing full inspections. one of the problems with the processes that iran has let iaea
8:24 am
inspectors and and they say that they have not seen everything they were supposed to see, and that has foster distrust. like, they have continued inspections, yes. host: lida is in her banner illinois. caller: i really if you see what i'm hearing today. i understand now that it is a lie what america is doing and saying. i hope that people wake up and pay attention, and try to learn as much as we can. i really think it's just trying to control and manage and take everything from everyone. you know, it's sad. it's really sad because we are tots and told a lie. host: are you saying that you don't think the united states is negotiating in good faith? caller: i think that obama is doing the right thing trying to negotiate, instead of always
8:25 am
trying to fight and have war all the time. that's all we do. try to conquer. in my personal opinion, that's what we do. host: so, who are you concerned about on the american side when you say that the negotiations are billed on a lie? caller: i'm saying for the simple fact that we are always trying to do what we need to do and say that everybody should stop having bonds, where as america, the i live in has all these things. it's sad. why are we always tried to direct what other countries need to do on their own soil. it's sad. we are still dealing with the same thing over and over. just conquering and tried to take over people's way of life. host: lara jakes, this might lead to a larger question on
8:26 am
nonproliferation here. why so much focus on iran? why not the same level of concern and attention on a country like three a? guest: -- north korea? guest: i don't think the leader is willing to negotiate right now. we talk about reclusive nations and countries. north korea is even more reclusive than iran is at this point. we don't know what's going on there. yes, that remains a big concern. i wouldn't be terribly surprised if that something that world powers might try to turn to after they deal with iran. this may be conjecture on my part, by suspect that if talks with iran fail, that may spell doom as well with north korea. if you can't get somebody does iran after years and years of negotiations, trying to open up
8:27 am
talks with north korea may not work. host: what about the tension between pakistan and india? why not attention thereto lower the tension between two countries? guest: there have been talks with blue countries for a long time. both countries have strings of allies with the united states. the united states deals very regularly with both pakistan and india, world leaders travel back and forth between those countries. the short answer is the united states government feels like they have a handle on what is happening in both pakistan and india and they can reach out to those capitals if they need to. that is really not the case here with iran. host: we have time for water to more calls. mary is in south carolina. my for republicans. -- line for republicans. guest: i have been to your beautiful town. i hope you are well. caller: what i want to say is
8:28 am
that if president obama bypasses congress and goes to the u.n. to get this deal signed -- which i think is a very bad deal -- i hope that congress will impeach him. then i hope that at the same time congress will vote and kick the u.n. out of this country. i don't know one darn thing that they are doing for us and our country. take the money that we pay these people every year -- what, one fourth of the money they have to spend? take that and rebuild our military which mr. obama has really downgraded to like world war ii levels when world war ii started. rebuild that. host: mary with some concerns about the united nations here. guest: i think it is important
8:29 am
to note that the u.n. is already part of the process here. it's not like the united states can kick the u.n. out of it at this point. many of the sections that are in place currently are in fact u.n. sanctions and have been in place in 2006 -- nine years. it's not that the obama administration will ipass congress so much and go to the u.n. it's that the u.n. is already a party in the talks. there's really not anything that the united states or any of the other allies can do. germany, for example, is part of the talks and they are not part of the p5 -- the five permanent members in the security council. the horse may be out of the barn. host: one more call from david. line for independents. caller: good morning. my problem here is that we have two bad actors. our administration has repeatedly lied to us over
8:30 am
multiple issues over the past six or seven years. the other is the iranians to they are a bad actor, they are untrustworthy. if they get a nuclear weapon that is going to spark a nuclear arms race in the middle east. saudi arabia is not going to let iran sit on their border with a nuclear weapon. israel will strike. they have nuclear weapons. obama and the p5 plus one guys need to realize they are going to spark a nuclear war spark world war iii. you cannot deal with and even person -- evil person via that is bent on taking over that area. they are in a proxy war in yemen, they are in iraq, they are in afghanistan. since we went to war with iraq, which was a mistake, iran is racing to fill the vacuum.
8:31 am
they are fighting isis but they are doing it so they get power and not isis has power. host: david in marion kentucky. i will let you respond to him and some of his concerns about the potential for a nuclear arms race being sparked here. guest: sure. i personally think, and people i talk to believe, that the answer here is to try to have as few nuclear weapons as possible in this world than more nuclear weapons. that is what the negotiations are trying to do. they are trying to stop iran from getting any kind of nuclear bomb could it is worth noting, as john did a minute ago, that there are players in the world that have nuclear weapons, the united states being one of them, israel being another one of them. india and pakistan, too. these negotiations are really geared towards preventing others. i believe saudi arabia has
8:32 am
discussed trying to develop their own nuclear weapons if iran has its nuclear weapons. that's right, we don't want to have more nuclear weapons in this world. i is and that is what everybody's -- i assume that is what everybody's mind is at the forefront as we go into the last 36 hours. host: good place to end on could look at foreignpolicy.com for your updates. thank you very much, lara jakes. guest: thanks, everyone. host: we will talk about military efforts in the middle east, specifically about yemen as well. later, our guest from the georgetown center for family program there. we will be talking with the children's health insurance program. we will be right back.
8:33 am
>> >> tonight on "the communicators," more from the consumer electronic show as we look at new technology products. >> if there's something you want to capture coming you take it on your wrist. it will be simple to take on your wrist and it will expand and it will be that he will literally just -- it will -- you literally will just pop it. the direction you pop it -- if it is gentle, it will stay
8:34 am
pretty close. if you throw harder it will go far away. it will compose a photo and take a photo. >> "the communicators," tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: leo shane is back at our guest. he is a reporter at "military times." he joins us to help us sort through a rapidly changing military picture in the middle east. i want to start in yemen. there was a statement last we guess the saudi arabia-led bombing campaign began in that country. the statement from the nsa spokesperson of the white house noting that president obama has authorized a provision of logistical and intelligence support for this gulf cooperation council bombing effort in yemen. what does that mean echo -- what does that mean?
8:35 am
are u.s. troops in harms way in yemen right now? guest: most important is what it doesn't mean and it doesn't mean we have a presence in iraq. we are not taking my u.s. airstrikes, anything near that level of involvement. what the u.s. has done is set up a planning cell and share information about movements of the hourhithi fighters in yemen the religious people issues of having folks in certain areas but nothing on the lines of what we are seeing in iraq. that has some on capitol hill concern. there are folks you want to see more u.s. involvement, more possibly u.s. airstrikes. i don't know if anyone has talked about troops on the ground yet, but that concern that this is going on with very limited u.s. involvement right now. host: remind us what the u.s. was doing in yemen and had to pull out of yemen amid this houthi effort and the rebel effort in yemen.
8:36 am
here is a headline from reuters. "millions in u.s. military agreement lost." guest: we have several u.s. bases there. drone operations, some logistical oversight and intelligence oversight efforts that were going on throughout the middle east that were based in yemen there. as the writers advanced, u.s. forces had to withdraw, pull a lot of equipment out and since the material out of there. some of those reports, the ones you just cited, a lot of equipment has been long unaccounted for. it has been going on for months. it is not a brand-new five something that has happened in the last few weeks. we've seen estimates of $5 million of u.s. equipment unaccounted for. we have a situation like in iraq where there are certain pieces of u.s. equipment that could end up on the battlefield staring us back again. host: let's move around the map in yemen. the houthi rebels being backed
8:37 am
by iran. in iraq, iran helping to take the lead, last week at least, on the effort in major cities like tikrit. tell us how the u.s. is coordinating with iranian officials in iraq. guest: a nice complicated mix of issues. they were specifically court -- not coordinating with iran. they wanted the shiite militias there to back up before getting involved in the airstrikes. we saw some of those militias backed off and not help with fighting. it has created a tense situation in on the iraqi site, where you have allies who are global powers fighting against each other, but at least on the ground and in the airstrikes, trying to coordinate together. it has created chaos back in yemen. republicans on the hill have
8:38 am
accused the obama administration of being too friendly with iran, too much coordination. that is part of the reason, they believe, that the airstrikes in yemen did not involve more u.s. presence. they believe that the saudi's and some other allies in the region are too close to iran . it is a complicated mixture of allies here, allies not here, who is fighting with who. the result is an operation in tikrit which is lurching back-and-forth. now that the airstrikes have taken place, they are seeing some progress, but a lot of the fighters and militias there say they will need the boots on the ground to white out isis in that area. host: is there talk on capitol hill or has it ramped up at all for u.s. boots on the ground? the on the bombing campaign that we've seen for six months?
8:39 am
guest: there are some folks who believe it is inevitably going to go that way. most of the folks on capitol hill want to keep this fighter arm's-length. -- fight at arms length. you have seen senator mccain and other conservatives in the senate talking about being more involved. most of the criticism of the obama administration is that they were not involved early enough. what mistakes do we make in the past and how did we need to this situation in iraq? host: east to afghanistan, can you talk about the announcement on slowing the drawdown of u.s. troops in afghanistan? how does the president justify the added risk to u.s. troops, the added expense to change the original plan? guest: what he said is he believes it is not that much risk. he believes that giving 5000 extra u.s. troops through the end of the are prevent some sacrifice, some risk.
8:40 am
the common mission ended last year and i think you for the afghan president also bring this up, that the u.s. troops are no longer serving on the front line. it is a background support role, providing coordination and some most logistics. part of what he said is that this is needed, sorely needed to help the afghan security forces established the else, make sure -- establish themselves, make sure they don't fall into a situation where the gains slip away. but it is a limited risk to u.s. troops, one he is cognizant of but feels comfortable with, and he emphasizes that he is looking at the 2016 full withdrawal of troops. it is a bit of a shell game for the next year of exactly how many, but i believe the president said nothing compared to the 100,000 we had their years ago. host: the u.s. effort in iraq afghanistan, the new effort in yemen being led by saudi arabia. we're talking about it with leo
8:41 am
shane of "military times," sorting out what is going on over there and the reaction in washington, d.c. phone lines are open. host: we will start with john in illinois, line for democrats. caller: good morning, how are you? host: good, john. caller: i have kind of a transition question from last segment to this one, and it has to do with the military's fear in trying to avoid nuclear proliferation in the area. since -- one of the things i've been reading about a lot is the fear that if iran gets a nuclear weapon that saudi arabia won't stand for that and jordan and other powers inin that region to get nuclear weapons.
8:42 am
my question has to do with the fact -- for the listeners here, i don't know how much you know about this, but pay attention to the answer because i have my own opinions on it -- everyone has known for the most part that israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. not many people -- i very rarely read over the last decade or even a short period of time that this is sparking a nuclear arms race. saudi arabia is frantically trying to get a nuclear weapon because they know that israel has one, even though everyone there considers israel their mortal and and i could why does everyone believe that the powers there are petrified of iran getting a nuclear weapon? what is the difference between their mortal enemy israel having a nuclear weapon and iran? i want people to think about why that is. host: leo shane, big picture question for you.
8:43 am
do you want to take that up as i show this headline we should earlier from breitbart, "administration declassified top-secret document that shows israel nuclear secrets." was once labeled top-secret, goes into sophisticated detail about the israel nuclear weapons program. gain headlines couple weeks ago. leo shane. guest: yeah, to the caller's point, i don't think it is one of the other there. i don't think the countries like the fact that israel has nuclear capabilities, but that does not mean iran should have them as well. there is concern about the destabilizing nature of everything iran is trying to do in the area. if they get nuclear weapons, that leads to concerns about what their goals are and how they will use them. more is always a problem, less is always better in this situation.
8:44 am
there are plenty of folks on capitol hill who have this concern, who feel that iran is a special case. iran, looking at the actions looking at the statements, certainly the inflammatory rhetoric of a lot of their leaders, that it would be a different situation than some of the nuclear powers we have seen. host: speaking about iraq a few minutes ago. the iraqi military laying down arms that had been provided by the united states, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment lost, and now we are hearing about it again in yemen potential loss of u.s. agreement. gary writes in on our twitter page, "we need to stop sinning military equipment to the middle east. get out now." "christian science monitor" in their magazine this week -- " $500 million is the estimated
8:45 am
value of military aid provided to yemen since 2007, all of which is presumably lost now that the iran-backed rebels controlled capital there." what is being done on capitol hill to keep something like this from happening? guest: there is a lot of pressure for the military to find a better way to account for this weaponry, account for all the stuff. it is worth noting that with the reports coming out, the u.s. has plans for another $125 million worth of equipment -- to yemen, yes, saying that the country is to a stable now and can't account for it. host: where would it have gone if it had gotten there? the capital -- guest: exactly. without a clear location without a clear destination for the equipping, let's back off. the administration pointed out that yemen asked for fighter jets and collocated equipment that they held off on -- complicated agreement that they have held off on.
8:46 am
a lot of this is small lots hungmvees, smaller aircraft. but there is concern, not just with yemen, but with the amount of money that was put in afghanistan the last decade and the reports we have seen from the investigator general. where does this money go? is the military adequately accounted for the equipment they send to places around the world? there are those who point out that these -- we are stepping in and trying to help them stabilize things. it will always be difficult to make sure these stay in the right hands. host: should of the units its military quitman be destroyed instead of letting it fall into the hands of your enemy? guest: and it is. when those situations occur, we saw that olivia when they had to evacuate the embassy there. -- we saw that in libya when
8:47 am
they had to evacuate the embassy there. these are things that are sent to the human security forces the afghanistan security forces. and unfortunately date and up in the wrong hands over time. host: mike is in a dickinson, texas, line for independents. caller: yes, how are you doing, sir? host: good. caller: i have a couple threats about iran -- comments about iran could iran instantly used threat in the middle east. now the obama administration gave iran the green light to occupy syria and yemen and they threaten to take bahrain and kuwait. that is why saudi arabia are very upset. my question, i don't know why
8:48 am
the united states allows iran to take over the middle east, cindy which in the end is going to backfire on the united states. host: playing into what is happening in yemen right now. guest: and the concerns of the caller are the concerns we are very from senator mccain senator graham senator ayotte, senator burr, a lot of conservatives in the senate here who have said you have done too much, making it look like the u.s. wants to be an ally of iran and that of someone -- instead of someone who will keep iran from spreading and taking over the middle east. certainly the obama administration has a different view of that, thinking that if by reaching out on a couple of issues they can stabilize the region and prevent iran from becoming a nuclear power and let the region write its own future. host: lewis from missouri, line for democrats.
8:49 am
caller: my comment is on so many people in america in the united states believe that israel is such an ally to us, but that in 1967 didn't israel attack a ship of ours? that is -- if that is the kind of friend israel is, we don't need of them. host: concerns about the u.s. relationship with israel. guest: i don't remember all the details of the 1960 incident is talking about but there have been some issues there. she's from the 1960's are a little -- issues from the 1960's are a little past where we are with the current negotiations and issues. look at the netanyahu speech, look at the response that government was a of congress and members of the public, frankly. still a very valued ally in a very volatile area that the u.s. has a lot of interest in. from the larger picture here --
8:50 am
some of the callers in the last segment were talking about the level of involvement -- there was a lot of strategic interest and a lot of u.s. troops in that region. it is someplace where the u.s. does not want to throw their hand up in the air and walked away. the goal is a stable middle east that they can thrive in and half lots of partnerships in. host: one of the places where there will continue to be a lot of troops for a while now, afghanistan. on twitter "how many military contractors to be currently have in afghanistan?" i don't know if you can give a specific number. guest: i don't know what that is. that is ramped down very significantly from the height of the wars. it is an ongoing issue for the military when we deploy a number of troops, but there is the long tail of war with that. there are the contractors and the other things. the footprint for contractors is significant me smaller than
8:51 am
what it was a few years ago. there is the u.s. contractors supporting u.s. forces and the contractors who come in and provide their own services for the afghan government. there is a number of private security contractors, number of different logistics contractors who bring their own skills to bear. they operate outside of what the u.s. mission is. host: u.s. businesses -- is there any oversight of what they are doing if those businesses have a contract specifically with the afghanistan government? guest: there is not necessarily coordination, and certainly if there was something illegal going on there would be something. but it depends on how to connect to the u.s. mission and what is going on there. in terms of where the troops might be, what bases they might have access to, what public officials they may be working with, that would range on what the coronation level is. -- coordination level is. host: we are talking what u.s.
8:52 am
military efforts in the middle east. yemen, iran, afghanistan, and the issues you want to talk about with leo shane of "military times." yes covered capitol hill and the white house since 2004. his coverage chronicling the troops' transition back to civilian life. you can see his work at militarytimes.com. line for independents. tyrone come good morning. caller: good morning. sir, i disagree with you. i'm a united states air force veteran, ok? i know about the military. the united states has so much power. we scared of no isis we ain't scared of nobody. this is a ploy to get more money into the military. we need that money here at home. our streets are falling apart, our infrastructure is falling
8:53 am
apart. we don't need to be giving $60 billion. not a lot of money, that is what the republicans say. if it is not a lot of money let's put it in the inner-city. thank you very much. host: caller bringing up the cost of the operations. can you talk about the is rebuffed budget -- the military budget right now? guest: the budget proposal that the white house sent to capitol hill a couple of months ago as a certain amount of money for afghanistan, as you noted the mission has been expanded for this year. we have the ongoing isis fight whatever yemen will become now, and we are in the middle of a complicated budget fight too. the president mentioned that there has not been more progress and they are still looking at sequestration and the mandatory spending caps. but republicans in the house and senate have proposed right now is plugging up the overseas
8:54 am
contingency fund. as late as last year, they were talking about when this would be phased down completely, when we would be getting rid of the one -- war funding with the wars winding down. now it is to get around these spending caps, keeping it in place for defense and nondefense spending. assigning some of it to base spending. we will see what the dust of the actual contingency funds over there. we have a long fight on capitol hill with the appropriation of whether or not these big numbers that the republicans want for the temporary war funding will be enough to offset base budget spending losses they are seeing and cover all of these actual contingencies out there. host: on the money side on capitol hill, what are the military planners themselves saying about readiness? you have a story last week in "military times," "vice chief paint a worsening readiness picture." caller: they are
8:55 am
guest: they are not crying about it but they are warming to it. this will mean real risk come possibly troops injured and killed if we are in another emergency situation where we have to deploy folks. folks won't be trained as well. we have had plenty of folks on the other side try to pull it back a little bit, saying that we are not looking at a completely stripped-down military here. this is a $523 billion budget we're talking about, plenty to go around. the military needs to make tough choices and the pentagon thinks we have made tough choices and we have no long-term budget stability. we don't know how to plan three years, four years out when we seem to be emerging from one budget crisis to the next. host: arlington heights illinois, line for independents. good morning. caller: my comment is this. the republicans and democrats
8:56 am
their main objective is to provide contracts to military contractors. and also to provide free security to the oil companies and general electric. now, general electric has billions and billions of dollars invested, and money operations in afghanistan. you connect the dots and think about this equation, but the big oil, general electric, and what have you. why is the united states providing free security to the oil companies and general electric when they have billions and billions of dollars of their own to provider on security? -- provide their own security? you say it is terrorists shoes, and i agree, there are terrorists in that region of the world. but fear is a means for which people to obtain wealth, and just common sense, basic economics 101. we have been doing this for 100
8:57 am
years now, providing's free security to the oil committees and general electric. they have contracts with us countries all over the world general electric, and the oil companies. host: answering for you, but do you want to answer for yourself? guest: you will have to get summary from general electric to get into the specifics. the president said that we have lost a lot of lives over there and spent a lot of money over there and we want to have a country that is not going to return to what it was, not be a safe haven for terrorists. it is the goal here, to create an area where we don't have to worry about. in the u.s. comedies can work without -- thrive and help them help the local economy, the international economy. general electric can answer the rest of that question. host: jean is up next in
8:58 am
detroit, michigan. caller: ok, thank you. i have a question and a few statements. it seems that we do not remember the history of how we got to this point in time. first of all iran had a duly elected prime minister. through our cia, we overthrew and install the shah, who was brutal to his people. why wouldn't the iranians be angry at us? it got to a point where they took our people hostage and held them for a year, which we got angry at them for having done. and then going to israel. was in palestine and establish country when in 1948 we gave the country away to israel? we have the largest muslim population -- not muslim, but arab population outside the middle east. i asked muslim -- them in the
8:59 am
jews are cousins, why are you fighting? he got so angry, and this is what he said to me to make me rethink -- how would you like it if you give to your house and someone else was living there and said it was their house? further, this war in iraq to me is the fuse that lit all that is going on in the middle east. host: jean in detroit, michigan, with her thoughts. let's go to mount vernon, new york, line for republicans. caller: good morning. yes, i would like to follow the question the earlier gentleman asked in regards to israel nuclear weapons and iran's intent. i really appreciate c-span, because c-span is the only program that allows people to ask these kinds of questions. with regards to israel's 400
9:00 am
nuclear weapons, i know the question asked about that -- we always try to put a spin on it to back out of the question. the latest is that, well, iran is irrational and we can't trust them with a couple of bombs. but it is all right for israel to have 400 nuclear bombs because they are rational people. now, let's look at it. within the last 100 years, if iran is so irrational, then tell many how many of its neighbors has it attacked in the last 100 years? host: lots of history discussions this money, but if you want to talk about nuclear proliferation in the middle east -- guest: to bring it back to l ara in your last session, she had mentioned -- a caller asked something to the effective who is the most misunderstood government here, she said iran.
9:01 am
i think that is right answer. we don't understand a lot of their perspective because of the close of nature -- close off nature of some of the relationship and the communication there. so certainly this area is not newly a problem. this is not new fighting. this goes back decades and decades, and if there were a solution, someone would have taken care of it by now -- if there were an easy solution, someone would of taking care of it by now. to go back to an earlier point i don't know if any countries in the region say they're fine with israel having nuclear weapons they are not sign with iran. they would prefer to see israel dearmed in a lot of ways, too and there are folks on capitol hill who would fight against anything of that sort. but you almost have to hold at separate from iran. whatever the situation is, no one sees iran getting to nuclear weapon as causing tensions over there. host: we have about 10 minutes
9:02 am
left with leo shane of "military times." if you want to join the conversation host: want to ask you about another story that is in the papers an issue that has been talked about ever since the islamic state issued to kill list -- issued a kill list, they called it, for u.s. troops serving overseas. here is "the washington times" -- "army issues safety steps" in relation to that kill list. can you tell me what military officials are doing in relation to this to keep troops safe? guest: sure. for some time back and warning folks, especially about social media -- this is a dangerous world. make sure you're not sharing too much about your military service or your location or anything that could be sensitive.
9:03 am
when that kill list came out, a lot of information on their came from elegiac press releases and military -- military press releases and military information being shared back home pr kinds of things. i know a lot of military families are not afraid but concerned about their information being data-mined in this way, for lack of a better term. the military is stepping up at this point as saying, look secure your information, find ways, we don't want to make it easier for folks to identify you. host: some of the recommendations from the defense department in those precautions that are been issued, according to the story -- think before you post, always assume everyone in the world will be able to see what you are posting or tweeting, even if the website limits the posts to your friends and family. what are the numbers of u.s. troops serving in iraq? what has that never gotten to at this point? guest: just shy of 3000 over
9:04 am
there, and they are tightly controlled about some of the information who is running in -- who is getting in. host: are they mostly on vessels at sea? there is obviously some in baghdad itself. guest: they are spread out. they are not on any front line locations. we are not talking about folks being out there trying to attack. we're talking about bases ships in the area, areas that are more secure, but in that region nothing is 100% secure. definitely a concern. for the most part, with this kill list threat, what we heard from troops and families was a little bit of bravado and a little bit of laughing that yeah, isis is going to come to my front door? tell them to bring it and i will come waiting for them. but this is serious -- you don't want individuals targeted and troops and families to feel like someone is gunning for them on behalf of u.s. foreign policy.
9:05 am
host: time for a few more calls. michael in ohio, line for independents. caller: good morning. hello? guest: good morning. caller: i will tell you a single question. i am an american arab. let me tell you, i am not worried about israel. i'm originally from syria. the jewish people are rational and pragmatic. they will not commit suicide and able live among the arabs. i have more problem with iran because iran are like fanatics. they are like medieval christians, they are creating trouble, they are cults. iran is very dangerous. iran very dangerous, and i think u.s. government allowed the mullah in iran strong like this. why? as a way to intimidate the arabs. arab oil, $200 billion a year,
9:06 am
and then they twisted their arm and they sell them arms. junk. it is making money from more, it is the military-industrial complex. it is immoral on obama and u.s. administrations. it is military industrial contacts it is a double standard, my friend. how will mcmillan -- harold mcmillan said on william buckley, "firing line," 1982, he was former prime minister, he said iran-iraq war is good for western economy. they destroyed the economy and we rebuild it. host: michael in ohio. lots of discussion carrying over on the iran nuclear deal. as we noted, that deal timeline set for tomorrow at midnight for the deal to be reached in those negotiations that are going on. let's go to reverend jackson waiting in philadelphia, pennsylvania. client for republicans. caller: good morning.
9:07 am
how's everybody doing? host: wonderful. caller: i just want to ask you a couple of questions. what is the government actually doing, the united states doing every day to try to deal with the problem in the middle east? i know as an ordained minister that a lot of these problems are circulating because of religion. what was america doing every day to try and solve these problems? guest: in terms of specific religious conflicts? host: are you talking military action? on what level, reverend jackson? caller: both, military and religious. host: big question. guest: we have the intervention in iraq right now. nearly 3000 troops in the airstrikes that are going on fighting isis. part of the concern with the situation in yemen, is yemen going to turn into another syria, and does it become a breeding ground for al qaeda and other terrorist groups? and the iran negotiations.
9:08 am
this is an area that iran is entwined in an we have a couple callers saying can we just get out? this will be in u.s. foreign policy forefront for decades to come. host: what is the united states must concern about i know from a military perspective -- right from a military perspective? guest: it depends on who you are asking here. iran seems to be the number one point of focus. we have seen the authorization for use of military force, which the white house has asked about. we have not seen a lot of progress on that in any of the committee's or with lawmakers. host: where did it stand when they left for the two-week recess? guest: the republicans say they don't see a lot of support from democrats and they will not carry water for the white house on this. the plan is to come up with some force authorization but we may be talking about middle of the summer or early summer before we get to that.
9:09 am
whereas the iran nuclear deal, congress wants to weigh in and put their stamp on that. host: we have got a few minutes left with leo shane. taylor is waiting in west virginia, line for democrats. caller: good morning. yes. hello? host: go ahead, just talk through your phone. we can hear you. caller: this is taylor from dunmore. the first iraq war that bush started, i wanted to know -- they were talking about people -- host: taylor, we can hear you. go ahead. you have got to turn your tv down and talk to us. caller: ok. i was wanting to know how much money that was spent for these contractors to go in, when the war is going on, and how much --
9:10 am
well, especially halliburton. i understand that they were paid billions of dollars plus what they cooked the books on. host: more on contractor spending. guest: i haven't seen good estimates. we are dealing with the long aftermath of the iraq war now on what other costs going to be for veterans affairs and other issues. estimates of anywhere from $4 trillion to $6 trillion for the cost of the iraq war alone. you have a number of folks on capitol hill saying that look, if that is what it costs and we see an unstable iraq, why don't use the money in other areas? money always becomes an issue with this. everyone wants security but everyone wants security on the cheap. host: especially at budget time, as we've seen the past two weeks, and it appropriations time later this year. carl, line for republicans. you are on with leo shane of
9:11 am
"military times." caller: yes. first of all, good morning. i would just like to make a comment about the middle east. a lot of people don't necessarily like to hear about president obama and the middle east and that sort of thing, but i personally, as a veteran think he is absolutely correct. no boots on the ground. none. that situation has been going on for like 4000 years. we are not going to solve it don't matter how much money how much military -- or how much military we throw at it. as far as israel goes, that country belongs to that. they have had -- that country belongs to them. they have had it since the time of david and it always will be theirs. i think it is wrong that we should diss israel the way we have been doing.
9:12 am
we need to come back and be more friendly to that country. and take a lot of the money we have earmarked for the middle east and spend it here at home. host: carl in cap, florida. he talked about boots on the ground. who are the most effective boots on the ground in iraq and syria? is it the iraqi military? guest: that is the question right now, who is the best ally, the best set of fighters there. especially with the situation in tikrit, the iran and iraqi forces saying that the iranian-backed militias were very effective and were making progress but have to. because of u.s. airstrikes in the area. the u.s. has been searching for a reliable, trainable ally in syria to fight against isis. a lot of criticism from folks on the hill that that sort of force doesn't exist. we are talking about a ragtag
9:13 am
group of different rebel groups and some of them could become the next isis. a lot of concern. to the caller's point, there is a lot of more fatigue out there where we are not a done national quite done with more than a decade-plus of war and there is so searching within the military . representative hundred this week came out with it -- representative hundredter came out with his new doctrine. host: duncan hunter of california. a veteran himself. guest: of both the iraq and afghanistan wars. sees this is something the military should be involved in an part of the reason for the escalating costs and complications. we will see more of that as we finally wind down afghanistan. you have seen the obama administration reluctant to commit boots on the ground anywhere.
9:14 am
host: time for one or two more calls. eddie is in south holland, illinois, line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. earlier, caller called in asking a question which was addressed to the electrical power in the middle east, etc., etc., etc. it would have been very nice if your host could have addressed that. but this is my question concerning that. because the question was not addressed, and he alluded to general electric, my question is to the host. will you make someone from general electric, on your progress so they can answer the question? host: eddie, we can certainly reach out to them. i don't know much about the topic. leo shane, is there more that you know about the topic the caller -- guest: there is not too much.
9:15 am
i know that u.s. business involvement has ramped up in a lot of these countries after the wars and frankly, that is part of the goal here. not just to go in and clean up but you have -- part of having partners is having economic partners. part of having a stable relationship is having business people go back and forth. we have that with plenty of other countries. i don't know any of the specifics with general electric and the issues the callers have brought up but the u.s. company to looking at these countries and certainly afghanistan in the last 10 to 12 years, companies have said this is an untapped region, a region that has people who are looking for work, region that has resources and we want to be able to work with them on that. host: one question before we let you go -- i want to ask you about the bowe bergdahl prosecution going on, the u.s. soldier who was a prisoner in afghanistan. can you talk about the reaction that you saw in your coverage last week as some of those
9:16 am
stories about the charges that are being considered about him came out? guest: we could fill a whole program just on this, with the reaction. it is divided as everything with bowe bergdahl has been. the military community wants to see this trial play out and see whether or not he is guilty of desertion. a lot of folks who were involved, who believe that he committed crimes against the u.s., that he should be held accountable, that he cost us lives. a lot of folks are happy to see the military moving strong on this. but politics gets involved. the president invited his parents to the white house. the issue becomes larger than him. but also who he was traded for and if he is guilty of the crimes committed, was it worth the trade? we are seeing a lot of provided responses. the military -- divided responses. the military official line
9:17 am
has been clear -- we bring p.o.w.'s back and we hold people accountable for their actions. host: what about the veterans groups that you often cover for "military times"? guest: there is a lot of anger towards him, a lot of rumors about what he did, a lot of questions. certainly depending on where you fall on the political spectrum we have conservative veterans who want the book thrown at him right away. we have some liberal veterans were saying we need to hear -- there are legitimate questions. certainly his mental state something was going on at the time. host: this trial, is it going to be open for reporters like yourself to go through or does that work differently in the military? guest: i haven't seen the specifics of how this is going to work but in a military trial there are generally some research and of who can get in but more of a public process. the military justice system is different.
9:18 am
there are different rules for how things can be interpreted. i think this is one that is going to have a lot of interest, and we will all get public education on how the military justice system works. host: we can look for your reporting and militarytimes.com. leo shane, congressional reporter with "military times." we always appreciate you coming by "washington journal." guest: host: thank you, anytime. host: up next, elisabeth burak with the georgetown university center for children and families. we will be right back.
9:19 am
>> tonight on "the communicators," more from the international consumer electronics show as we look at new technology products. >> if there is some thing you want to capture, you take it off your wrist and it will be very simple to take off your wrist, and it looks and, and it will be as easy -- you will literally just toss it, and it is completely autonomous but you don't need to be wearing something. the direction you toss and the pressure of your toss. if it is a gentle toss, it will stay close and if you throw it harder it will go far away. >> "the communicators," at 8:00
9:20 am
eastern on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: each week in this segment of "washington journal" we talk about your money and work in a different federal program. this morning we are talking about the children's health insurance program chip, also known as schip in years past. we are joined by elisabeth burak of georgetown university's center for children and families. this was not set to run out of funding until september but got an influx of money for two years in the negotiations that happened last week. can you talk through how that happened, sort of unusual for a program to get funding six months before ashley was set to run out of money. guest: we should turn back to how it was created. it has a widespread bipartisan history. it was created in 1997 for children whose families are too much to qualify for -- earn too
9:21 am
much to qualify for medicaid but did not qualify for private insurance. congress and president clinton came together to create this program, which has been mild measures wildly successful. thanks to chip in medicaid we are at the lowest levels on record. since it was created, the rate of uninsurance for kids has been cut in half. every few years congress has to come back and re-fund it. unlike things like medicare, chip is a state-federal partnership it the federal government kicks and 65-80% of the cost to states, and the reason there were efforts to get it extended in this bill is the funding was set to run out at the end of september, but states are finishing their budgets right now, their sessions of --
9:22 am
decisions are starting to and and a need to make sure that families have the stability they need for coverage to plan ahead. six months -- the governors association and many governors have called on congress to get this done early this year so they have that stability as they are planning their budgets. host: it was worked out in this deal, this doc fix a deal that came together before congress left town at the end of last week. it extends funding for a two-year period for c.h.i.p. what happens after that? guest: they would need to come back to congress and be re -funded. the longer c.h.i.p. could be extended so we don't have to keep creating this uncertainty for families, the better. the way the negotiations played out, except a lot of the improvements made in the last three years, most recently in the affordable care act. a two-year extension is really important. host: we are talking about the c.h.i.p. program in this segment
9:23 am
of "washington journal." we are doing the lines a little bit differently this segment. host: can you talk to some of the numbers? how many children are actually receiving benefits through c.h.i.p.? guest: about 8 million kids during the course of the year have c.h.i.p. coverage. a lot of states designed the c.h.i.p. programs with medicaid. we talk about c.h.i.p. and medicaid to get it because medicaid covers the lowest income kids covered by medicaid. -- about 40 million kids covered by medicaid.
9:24 am
people don't realize that with the affordable care act we are doing a great job covering kids in this country. host: question on twitter -- "why do we need a federal children's health program? don't states take care of their own children?" guest: before c.h.i.p. was passed, the erosion of private health insurance and unavailability for dependents, kid there was a real need. s, they weren't supposed income kids but the families did not have the access available or it was prohibitively expensive. when i worked in arkansas before coming to georgetown, i talked to families who were looking at having to pay $200, $300 a month to ensure their kids, and they were full-time waitresses and dudes and couldn't afford the extra -- waitresses and students and couldn't afford the extra amount of money and it was a godsend to know that they have the peace of mind that their children can get the health care they needed. host: you mentioned your work in
9:25 am
arkansas. former director of health policy and legislative affairs at arkansas advocacy for families. she now works at georgetown university center for children and families, senior program director. she is talking us through the children's health insurance program on the "your money" segment. how does one become eligible to get on c.h.i.p.? you said the program is different in all the different states. guest: each state is a little different. the states have quite a bit of leeway in how they set the program. the states can decide about the federal minimums what it will look like. most states are in and around 250% of the federal property line, and that is about 50,000 all for a family of three in those states. some states are lower than that some states are about that. there are other kinds of requirements and they can go and call their local number. arkansas is our kids first. wisconsin, it is badger care.
9:26 am
they can go and sign up for that program as long as they are eligible. most states have online applications. in the federal government you can go to ensureki -- ki insurekidsnow.gov. host: stats from the georgetown university center for families and children. these numbers as of 2013. the children get them through employer-sponsored plans 46.5% in the united states. the children who get it through medicaid or the c.h.i.p. program, which we are talking my today, 34.2% of children 18 or younger in the united states.percentage of uninsured children in the united states, 7.1%. that is a percentage that has dropped in recent years. guest: it has been cut in half. for it was -- before it was created, c.h.i.p. nearly 15%.
9:27 am
as you mention, about a third of kids are covered by medicaid or c.h.i.p. if you look at low income children, 200% of the federal property line. it just to about two thirds of kit -- it jumps to about two thirds of kids cover nationally. host: the states with the highest and lowest rates of uninsured children. on the low side, massachusetts at the top, 1.5% of its children uninsured. district of columbia, 2.4%. hawaii, 3%. from on a little bit higher, 3.1. new hampshire. on the states with the highest rates of one of uninsured children, nevada 14.9%, texas, 12.6%. arizona, 11.9%. we're talking about the children's health insurance program in the "your money"
9:28 am
segment of "washington journal." host: brian is a first calling in connecticut. good money. caller: -- good morning. caller: good morning. i apologize for not being a person who benefits from this program but i want to ask a question on the financial guidelines. but i had another question, if you don't mind. again, i'm calling from ignorance, but how does this coverage go as far as pre-existing conditions go? how does that work? guest: c.h.i.p. is available to children regardless of their pre-existing conditions. the affordable care act prohibited any insurance plan for discriminating or denying
9:29 am
coverage because of a pre-existing condition. but c.h.i.p. and medicaid for kids has always done that, and that is why before the aca, a lot of kids with special health care needs or chronic health care conditions were able to get much-needed health care because c.h.i.p. was available to them. host: question from stella -- "if everyone is required to have insurance coverage under the of what will care act, what is the need for c.h.i.p.?" guest: this is definitely part of the conversation as they needed to extend c.h.i.p. funding has come up. in the affordable care act there was questions about what was the role of the children's health insurance programs if we are going to increase the marketplaces for the dominantly uninsured adults? many said we need to keep what is working working. the aca said medicaid and c.h.i.p. are doing a great job covering kids and we want to get coverage is stable for kids as we bring these new
9:30 am
coverage sources available for the rest of their families. it had a requirement that they maintain coverage levels for kids through 2019. then the question becomes in the the question becomes a long-term , is c.h.i.p. necessary, wouldn't it take se makes sense to h kids on medicaid if their parents qualify for medicaid. what you see is the marketplace gets still. c.h.i.p. has a long history and is a very successful program. it was designed expressly for children. they look at pediatric benefits. the marketplace is in contrast where designed predominately for a dog. what we see, if you look at marketplace coverage and c.h.i.p. coverage, the marketplace is not quite there with the level of benefits that kids need to grow up healthy. not to mention, a number of studies have been done looking at chit versus marketplaces in
9:31 am
states, and families would pay much much more for marketplaces then c.h.i.p. kids would end up uninsured for a variety of reasons if c.h.i.p. were to go away. it really needs to remain strong so we don't go backwards. host: we o especially want to hear from families. a special line for you, (202) 748-0003. we will headfirst to barbara who is calling from albuquerque new mexico. host: go ahead. you are on the washington journal caller: it is a good morning here in our turkey. i happened to be flipping through the channels here about the children's health insurance program. i don't know -- c.h.i.p. benefits come from the
9:32 am
government. i'm wondering is such a thing as adoption for children that you could put forward for the future and save for that occurrence. host: arbor is saying for families who are planning to adopt in the future, to start getting benefits now to say about. is that what you're talking about? caller: yes. host: elisabeth burak. guest: that's good question. the nice thing about c.h.i.p., as soon as aa child is living in your family, you are eligible for c.h.i.p. i think the thing to do is once you adopt successfully, and that child is in your custody, and go straight to the agency and see if you're eligible to apply. host: how much of the cost of c.h.i.p. for one year? guest: and federal 2013 i think
9:33 am
it was about a $13 billion program serving about 8 million children. host:'s two-year extension we are talking about that congress agreed to last week, was that about $26 billion? guest: the cost is much lower -- about $5.7 billion. that is partially because of -- i'm not a congressional budget office expert -- there'd he factor in part of the money available. in part because states can carryover funds that have not spent in earlier years. host: another question from twitter. states can refuse to refuse money from c.h.i.p. like they did under the photo care act. guest: they can. there was one state that in effect didn't have to do that, that was arizona.
9:34 am
arizona had dismantled their c.h.i.p. program, in effect, in 2014. between 2010 and two dozen 14, they made a number of changes to restrict eligibility. i believe other states didn't take up tip immediately. it has always been a choice for states. you see in as arizona, at least 14,000 kids have lost coverage. it's not clear where they ended up. a lot of families are struggling to get health care for the children. host: is this part of the family glitch that you have highlighted in some of your reports? guest: that is another unfortunate piece of the affordable care act that was overlooked. there was basically -- the way that affordability is determined -- families can get tax credits to pay for marketplace coverage
9:35 am
if they do not have an offer of affordable care aable coverage from their employer. if the coverages under a certain amount of income, they do not qualify for subsidies to her just market place insurance. that does not take account into account the full cost of coverage. you can conceivably have family coverage or coverage of a worker , dependent, there is much higher, and you'd then will not qualify for the child to get subsidies to purchase marketplace. that is what the glitches. depending on estimates about 2 million kids would not get coverage if c.h.i.p. were to go away. host: is congress doing anything about the family glitch issue? guest: they haven't so far. it is very difficult, the
9:36 am
affordable care act is a bipartisan issue. it is a difficult thing to try and do. i think the happen efforts to try and look at it. what we have found, among other aspects, is that if c.h.i.p. is not extended, it makes the family glitch problem much worse. host: we are trying with elizabeth react of the georgetown university center for children and family. we have a special line for those who received c.h.i.p. benefits. if you do, we would like to hear your story. it's (202) 748-0003. we also have line spreads split up regionally. we will look for your call. one question i have for you, we talk a lot about the supreme court case on before the care act subsidies that we are expected decision from sooner rather than later. could this impacted? guest: and certainly impacts
9:37 am
if c.h.i.p. funding is not extended. it could deftly up the number of kids that lose coverage if c.h.i.p. were to go away. it could up many kids who do not have coverage options if c.h.i.p. were to go away at the end of the year. host: from twitter, arctic kids g -- are kids with c.h.i.p. coverage getting better cover? guest: and compares at least to marketplace coverage. they just aren't robust enough to get robust coverage that gets me. especially, if they need speech there the or occupational therapy, or autism services. host: are doctors required to take children under c.h.i.p.? guest: no. just like medicaid.
9:38 am
often, and some states c.h.i.p. reimburses doctors more. it can be seen as an incentive. a lot of states do. that is up to doctors. host: let's go to benjamin, calling in from spring grove pennsylvania on the line for those in a family who received c.h.i.p. benefits. tell us your story. caller: good morning. i'm married and have three kids. they are all on c.h.i.p.. thank god for that because if i had to get health care through the marketplace, which i had to get for my wife and i, i would be a more than my mortgage on health care. c.h.i.p. does abo help out for that fact. we are limited to thing to doctors and to dentist that will take it faithfully within a 50 mile radius of where i live. needless to say, those doctors
9:39 am
are bottom of the barrel. c.h.i.p. will only cover certain things. both my kids into breaking their arms. c.h.i.p. would only pay for one x-ray. that was it. right now, i have almost a 600 dollars bill of coverage that c.h.i.p. wouldn't cover because they decided that they knew better than my doctor. the alternative is again, pay more than my mortgage to have health care, which right now under the affordable care act my wife and i -- i have to shell a almost $500 per month for health care with a $9,000 deductible. i make around $60,000 per year. this year, the $129 subsidy, i have to pay back more than half of that. i'm fairly frustrated with
9:40 am
health care in general. cynthia ford will health care act, it has put me so far in debt, from having to shell out all this extra money, and then at the end of the year you have to pay in some of the subsidy the you got. it's absolutely absurd. they should call it the unaffordable health care act. in my situation, it does nothing than burden you with more debt. that's food on the table below for my kids and things that we can do. it's insane. i'm so sick of hearing democrats talk about how great the informal care act is. it is the most her reddest thing that has been done to the american people in my opinion. host: benjamin, stick around. i want elisabeth burak to address some of your comment specifically as to c.h.i.p. guest: every state that subject of early. he mentioned access different doctors. every state makes decisions as
9:41 am
to what the network needs to look like for kids. i'm pleased to hear that without c.h.i.p., it could be worse. i'm glad to know that your kids are covered and i'm sorry that health care coverage has not been affordable for you. i encourage you to look at your options again. hope the there are more affordable options in the future. i think a lot of the frustrations that he mentioned our frustrations that we are seeing across the health care system. access to direct writers certain doctors and services. limit sentience conveys my put on certain services. i think unfortunately those frustrations are systemwide and not limited to c.h.i.p. host: what about the experience that doctors are forced -- that he is forced to see within a 50 mile radius are bottom of the barrel, to use the term. guest: i think every state sets
9:42 am
of the system differently. we have heard from families for years who have had only positive experiences. i have family had doctors that i preferred that were not on my insurance plan. i think a lot of things are very much systemic. host: benjamin, are used on the line? caller: yes im. host: i wanted to let you weigh in on that and how it relates to your experience. specifically, how long has your family use the c.h.i.p. benefits and how long do you think you will use them into the future? caller: we've had the kids on c.h.i.p. for probably about three years. every year it gets worse and worse. the same thing with health care in general. the co-pays go up or your deductibles go up. c.h.i.p. really doesn't have a lot of co-pays or deductibles,
9:43 am
but it will what it will do is say, we will not pay for this or allow that and the doctors telling you you need it. again, for me, he goes back to the affordable care act. this is one thing that should have been a limitn eliminated. it doesn't matter what your doctor says, to me that is absurd. the cost of health care is outrageous. host: his family has received c.h.i.p. benefits for three years. what's the average amount of time that someone takes advantage of c.h.i.p. benefits? guest: i don't know the average amount of time. i think it's like with a lot of programs, there are some kids that need it for long. periods. others really during a time
9:44 am
limit, maybe they are between jobs and they will have a for sure. the time. most a relatively short and terms of link the program. especially before the informal care act with insurance largely tied with jobs, and you have a lot of small businesses, it might be longer. host: let's go to patty and houston, texas. caller: with his affordable care, i know because i have grandchildren and everything. it was so terrible that they have to pay so much. now, they want to another company getting a lower deductible and everything else. the thing is people are talking -- you have to look and see what is what. this affordable care act, like they call obama care --
9:45 am
the children need this insurance . a large odor get sick with school. they break their on, or whatever. host: thanks for the call from houston, texas. how long can summon stay on c.h.i.p. versus being on their parents planned through the informal care act? guest: there is no limit. as long as they are eligible, they can say on-chip. as far as age children can stay on until they turn 18. with affordable care act, what it did was it allowed children to stay on their parents plan until they are 26. it also did similar things for foster kids so they can stand medicaid until they are 26. it gives that option two children who may be grew up
9:46 am
without parents. host: lena is calling in. caller: good morning. this is not my first time calling. thank you for taking my call. i'm calling in reference to the man from pennsylvania. obamacare, or the affordable care act, is very good. i am from maryland but i moved up here going on 10 years. i get all my insurance from maryland. it's the best thing, the ford will care from maryland. it's a good thing. what it is in pennsylvania, your government -- governor rather -- did not endorse obamacare in pennsylvania. we've a new governor. i'm quite sure that he will endorse our president.
9:47 am
i think he should get some kind of improvement, maybe going to another site and get some affordable insurance. i hope i'm expressing myself ok. i'm sort of nervous. host: i appreciate the call and your experience. we want to hear from our viewer's experience in the segment. especially if your family received c.h.i.p. benefits. lena was the second caller from pennsylvania. can you talk about your experience -- you help the expansion coverage in arkansas under former governor mike cut to be. guest: i personally didn't but the organization that i worked for did. i think what we saw is that one of the reasons c.h.i.p. passed in 19 a seven is because states were starting to see this need of uninsured children in higher
9:48 am
income levels. they were expanding the medicaid program to high-level for kids. congress came together to provide more incentives to provide more options for kids. then governor huckabee established a program that predated c.h.i.p. a lot of other states expanded coverage for kids, including pennsylvania, which has a very successful c.h.i.p. program. it was really a model for c.h.i.p. federally. in those states, we have seen similar trends to what we have seen nationally. they have really substantially german the rate of uninsured kids down. in arkansas, it is now about five percent of kids. very few kids have no insurance. it has been very popular. we have -- i remember, caller who is now probably about 10 or 11 years old. he came to a rally that we did with his grandmother a number of
9:49 am
years ago. she didn't have insurance through her employer because he was her rants. she realized that you had some hearing problems needed surgery. he had a number of developmental delays early on that made it difficult for him. by the time he got to kindergarten, he was in kindergarten with kids of his own age. it was really an investment that paid off for him and paid off for the taxpayers of arkansas. host: who determines the level of what each state offers? is that one official in the state? do they have to coordinate with the federal government? guest: there are some federal minimum requirements as far as benefits that easy offered. they could expanded medicaid program, a very copperheads
9:50 am
of benefits for kids. they could based on the state blue cross blue shield plan. they could based on the state government employee plan they had a number of options that they could then plug-in. what happens if because states -- and some of them have task forces of pediatricians. hi jazz at the federal level has to approve those benefits. in all cases they were built specifically with kids in mind. that's why we see a very robust service intensity you may not see a private coverage because children were in mind when they were creating these programs. host: let's head up to michigan where david is waiting period david, good morning. caller: good morning. i am an rn, and have worked in the field of nursing and health care for almost 35 years. i've seen the problems with
9:51 am
people in the emergency rooms in the past. getting 10 times the amount of billing that they would get unless they had a normal provider protecting that. i had myself. i was on cobra and it didn't take in. michael was reduced by almost $8,000. what i think democrats need to do is we educate the american public. when before came out, there was -- when the affordable care act came out, there were basically a bunch of bullies going to these congressional or senatorial meetings and bullying them. i don't know where they got their backing. there's an ignorance -- i shouldn't say ignorance, but a lack of education for why we would want public health care,
9:52 am
especially for children. why would you not want to cover your children? why shouldn't they get benefits? i was actually disappointed when i heard the one caller from pennsylvania -- the runaround, having to go to doctors he didn't agree with or whatever -- substandard. this country, we are the most developed country in this world. why don't we had better incentives? why don't we push our politicians to do that? host: the caller talked about the politics of the broader affordable care act. how much disagreement was there on either side of the aisle on this extension of chips that we saw last week that was booked into this medicare doc fix program? guest: it predates the a photo care act. it is a program because the states have made their own.
9:53 am
governors on both sides of the aisle have made it their own. it was a bipartisan achievement in 19 night seven. it is not as controversial as the affordable care act. because it has been so successful and we know millions of kids have benefited from it. host: let's go to mike. his family receives c.h.i.p. benefits from texas. caller: good morning. i can say only good things about c.h.i.p.. i have a question. i'm in texas. i have a daughter that has been on c.h.i.p. -- she is 11 now and she has been on c.h.i.p. about three years. now we have a second daughter who is eight months old. i made my change according to changes in financial conditions and things relative to my c.h.i.p. agreement, and i went to put my second one on the c.h.i.p. program, and i talked to someone there, and they looked at -- i talked to somebody and availability
9:54 am
section, and i have the right amount of income for both my girls the on-chip c.h.i.p. when i made my application, i got it back that might second daughter only qualifies for medicaid. our pediatrician that we go to now does not accept medicaid but she accepts c.h.i.p. isaac is one of the finest programs. i cannot say enough from a father that needs children taking care of. i pay taxes. i make a low-wage, but not a terrifically low-wage. i know i qualify for a second. my question is this -- is a somewhat indigent program that i can talk to who can explain why? i would like that have my second daughter on-chip and i make the right amount. is there someone, an agency, or
9:55 am
someone who doesn't privately that i could talk to with my appeal -- i guess it's an appeal, where i'm proposing to move her from medicaid to c.h.i.p.. host: i want to give elizabeth barak to -- elisabeth burak a chance to answer your question. guest: i think what has happened is when families expand, it takes your income into account in different ways. that means -- it sounds like you're younger daughter, potentially both daughters, but your younger daughter qualify for medicaid. i'm not entirely sure of the income levels in texas, and you should deftly go back and talk to the office there in texas. when it sounds like is your dr. doesn't take medicaid, and that is unfortunate. texas set up a different program for medicaid.
9:56 am
i'm sorry to here that your children would be a different programs. what i can say is medicaid is actually more robust set of services in your state, and you would likely have even fewer co-pays and premiums because a factor in the fact that you have an extra child to take care of with your income. i would deftly consider that if the coverage is available to you. host: elisabeth burak is from the georgetown university center for children and families. we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you so much, john. host: that is our program today. we want to take viewers now live to the edward m. kennedy institute where the u.s. senate is opening. that is a formal dedication in columbia point boston. present obama, vice president biden, and first lady michelle obama are set to attend that
9:57 am
ceremony today. here is what "the new york times" wrote about the institute . adjacent to his brothers presidential library, it originated when the center was pondering a post senate life. the designer, married to caroline kennedy, presented him with a rough drawing an idea for the facility, which would represent more of a overview experience the naturally being in the senate. edward kennedy was so in love with the senate, he said this is not just to learn about the senate, but learn what it's like being in the senate. it became integral to the institute which received integral support through $30 million in public funding over the years. we will now take our viewers led to the dedication.
9:58 am
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> again, the president, vice president, and first lady are in boston today for the ceremony dedicating the edward m. kennedy institute. this is live coverage. senator kenny passed away in august of 2009 from lancaster. he was the fourth longest-serving senator in history. he served from 1972 until his death in 2009. secretary of state john kerry also centers -- senators john
9:59 am
mccain and elizabeth warren will also give her remarks. this is live coverage, it will be underway in just a few moments.
10:00 am

109 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on