host more than 45 speakers this week from across the government, the private sector and academia. we would like to have vector and the american gas association for their additional support, and if you missed sessions, please go to aspen cyber summit.org. that's aspen cyber summit.org to view earlier days and sessions. i know i've had a lot of people to see the recording and it's cybersummit.org. thank you for watching and be safe. weeknights this month we are featuring american history tv programs to review what's available every weekend on c-span3. tonight two best-selling authors on how they use restore cal research on their work. beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern and enjoy american history tv every weekend on c-span3. >> and we welcome aaron minton,

who is deputy editor and senior pentagon correspondent for defense news here with us to talk about the efforts to pass the defense authorization bill. aaron, the bill sets programs and policies for the pentagon. how important is it for pentagon operations and for the funding that those programs require? so the national defense authorization act, essentially, it's the defense policy bill. this is seen on the hill and it's one of the must-pass bills and this is how much we'll pay members of the military and this is how many plane, how many ships and how many guns we're going to buy and this is how we want to invest and it can include policy, and regarding some movements in some cases and overseas exercises and things like that. it is very much the bill that sets the next year of the military and in some cases the next five years of the military planning. >> it is seen in the pent fwon as something they need to get done every year and it is done

as a point of pride they get done every year and it is backed each year by the congressional leadership. this year it might get tricky and we'll see what happens and this is a bill that at the end of the day members of congress will come together and make sure it gets through. >> the house and senate versions, how far apart are they? >> there's differences, of course. we just went through the conferencing process. so essentially now there's one version now and the two sides have come together and made their agreements. as you would expect, the republican senate and a democratically controlled house there were definitely issues of contention and they should be able to smooth those out and they basically came together in the fall and were very clearly saying, we know that with the election, this is too politically challenging and too politically charged to get through some of these issues that we have to work through right now.

>> they kicked it until after the election and two weeks of conferencing and now we have an agreement. >> the defense bill is snagged in trump's war on social media protections. this is this section 230 that the president's tweeted about. what's the president calling for? it threatened a veto over the bill. what's it about? >> this is the second veto threat that trump made about the policy bill. it was about the changing of names for confederate generals. he first threatened to veto that over the summer when it was being discussed. >> the most recent thing, the section 230 thing came out of nowhere for the defense bill. it's something that's been talked about for a while by the president and this is the circle of people and essentially, section 230, and it allows at the most basic social media companies and internet companies are not liable by users of the

product. so someone on twitter comes out and says i'm going to do x crime, twitter is not liable for that. it's the person who set it on twitter liable. >> there's been angst that this is allowing bias speech and there's been talk about going after it, and people that are more expert in this, look, if this got repealed, the president's tweets themselves would probably be liable for legal action. that said, the one thing that seems to be in agreement across the hill is this is no place in the defense bill especially because trump tried to force it in in the last couple of days as the bill was on both sides. you saw jim inhofe who is the senate arms service chairman and a close ally of president trump and talks to him frequently and said i want to repeal section 230. i think we have to get it done. i support the president on this and this is not the place to do it, and that's something that

we've seen with the authorization act in the past is the sense that, look, you don't want to load it up, and people try to load it up with stuff. the defense committees always spend a lot of time trying to fight that off and trying to keep it purely as defense focused as possible. >> both republicans and democrats agree, this is not the place for section 230 and we'll have to see now if the president follows through on his veto threat. >> the language there on the confederate monuments and excuse me, the confederate naming bases after confederate generals. what does the final language in the bill say? >> so we don't know for sure because we have not seen the final language out. they just finished the conference officially yesterday and they always like to delay it to make our lives miserable. it looks like based on reporting that we've seen, it will be a situation where the army is given a three-year period to come up with alternative names and the army will have a final

say -- the final say in terms of what the names actually look like. that's different from some language that democrats and they'll rename them all. the other wrinkle here is in theory, joe biden would issue an executive order and why are the democrats still pushing these confederate base names and why not just kick it to the biden administration, but i think this is a sense of congress wanting to put its foot down, again, in both chambers and both party's way essentially saying, you know what? it is time to change these names and we have other alternatives and we'll do it through a slower process instead of an executive akd. >> our guest, aaron meadows, deputy editor and senior pentagon correspondent for defense news. we welcome your calls and comments, 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, it's 202-748-8000, and if you are active and retired military, that line for

you is 202-748-8003. yesterday the chair and ranking member of the senate arms services committee, adam smith and thornberry released a statement saying that for 59 straight years the ndaa has pass said because members of congress and presidents of both parties have set aside their policy objectives and partisan preferences and put the needs of our military personnel and america security first. the time has come to do that again. given that it's the very end of the 116th congress, is this late in the day for this bill typically to pass? >> you know, it's not ideal, but not atypical. we've seen a lot of up to the wire ndaas in the past. let's be honest. over the years you've seen a lot of funding bills pass on the appropriations side and it looks like it will be that situation again. the ndaa is something that the members takes great pride in

saying the military is an apolitical institution and the national security of the united states of america is the goal. we can work our issues out and come together at the end of the day and make this happen. >> max thornberry who is the ranking member of the house arms services committee is retiring this year. he certainly was want going to be the first ndaa that doesn't get through on his last time going through it. the other leaders on these committees, they understand this, too. it is one of the areas on the hill with the most agreement and most bipartisanship in the sense that yes, they fight about these policies and yes, there are disagreements and at the end of the day they'll come together and make sure it comes through? you mentioned this is the defense bill setting the policy for the defense and the coming -- and the current fiscal year in the 2021 -- the 2021 fiscal year budget. so what amount of funding does this authorize? >> so this authorizes about

740.5 billion and that's with a "b" because of course when we talk about the pentagon it is also a "b," for defense spending and that's 720 for the pentagon itself and other agencies get parts of that, and it's things like troop levels and pay raise and members of the military and the details of how many f45 fighters do you buy? how many ships do you buy? it's kind of the all-encompassing defense standard bill. >> it is one of the legacies of the trump administration is the establishment of space force. how much money does this bill authorize for space force and what other policy changes are included in the bill regarding space force. >> we'll have to see the final numbers and we expect it will increase and the path that you expected with space force. they started to add more people in, and graduating classes are going from the air force academy

into space force for the first time. so you're seeing as people come in and the force grows, its budget is also going to increase. in terms of policy things, it's still a lot of reorganization. with the military, there are space offices kind of everywhere. every service, they had their own version of space and inside, typically the air force there are different space offices kind of scattered about. a big thing that space force will be doing for the next couple of years and you are seeing through things in the ndaa is essentially saying there are offices over here and why not bring them into space force and maybe they need to be two offices in the space force, and where do we shift the money and it's a lot of bureaucracy, and one thing when you talk to people who are dealing with this is they understood the ridiculous bureaucracy that's going into standing up into military service. i think that's what we will see the ndaa going forward in the

next couple of years with the military. >> justin amash tweeted this about the defense authorization bill. he says president trump should just veto the ndaa not just for the nonsensical reasons he cites. she should oppose funding, and detention of americans without charge or trial ask corporate welfare for the military industrial complex and yet he hasn't vetoed a single ndaa. if he does, if the president were to veto this and he leaves office, what does that mean? >> well, it sets up a couple of interesting things. first off, my colleague joe gould, and the chairman last night and smith said he thinks trump would be foolish if he tried to veto it because there are the votes in his mind, there are the votes from both republicans and democrats and both chambers to be able to pass the bills as a veto override and that would be an embarrassment for the president. if he vetoes it then they have

to go back and try to re-work something with the new administration. >> my gut level on this, frankly, is the president, if he's seeking the repeal of 230, there are other legislative ways to do that and there are other bills that are coming up. >> the fact that both speaker pelosi and leader mcconnell have agreed to bring the ndaa to a vote is a big sign because mcconnell is famous for not bringing things to an actual vote if he doesn't think it will pass or there is a real threat. it isn't likely that the president would veto this particular bill and the republicans would get the 230 repeal elsewhere. that said, if there was one thing we've learned over the last four years is the president prides itself with unpredictability and we'll see what happens in the next couple of weeks. >> line for military, retired and active military is 202-748-8003 and joe in fayetteville, south carolina.

good morning, joe. >> good morning. i just find that this is a politicization of something that has not been politicized before, just like they've been politicizing the judiciary and several other things that's never been up for a vote before. what do you think about this, sir? >> i think the question of politicization in the military has kind of been an issue throughout the trump administration raised by experts and particularly those who study the military affairs. remember, the military is a civilian-controlled organization and there are issues and okay, are civilian, many of whom are in acting capacity, non-confirmed at capacity and are they being railroaded by the white house or inside the building by the officials. i think one of the things that

you will see whoever the next secretary of defense is and we can get into that, if you like and there will be an e for the to assert civilian control and up to the white house and reasserting it should not be used as props and the president should not sign a policy bill not related to the military. we saw with the lafayette bill situation in june, there is a lot of blowback with mark esper saying the military shouldn't have been there. both of them said that was a mistake and we regret that. that's an issue that certainly the next administration will take on in some form. >> you mentioned the next secretary of state might pike. who are the candidates? >> many of us thought that it was basically a lock for michelle floornoy, former secretary of defense for policy was seen as the clear-cut choice for hillary clinton's secretary of defense in 2016, and is a

well-respected person by republicans and democrats. very liked by both parties and very well respected in both buildings, as well. in the last couple of weeks a couple of names have floated out. jeh johnson former head for president obama and former counsel at the pentagon ask it was the lead internally there for repealing the don't ask, don't tell policies and his name has floated up as a top tier contender and the other name that came out last week is the retired army general and former head of u.s. central command for 2013 to 2016 and the interesting thing with off the sin that he would require just as secretary mattis did a waiver because if you are a former general and you are active within the last seven years, which he was, you require a waiver from both the house and the senate. full majority from those chambers to make that happen. that's a tricky proposition

given the current makeup and republicans who mae not want to throw the new administration a bone and democrats who say why are we putting another general in for those? and also because we want to get out of wars in the middle east which he essentially ran. so it will be interesting to see where this goes. apparently, biden is doing interviews this week on some of this and the thought is he will announce soon. it is very traditional for the secretary of defense to be in place immediately after the inauguration. the congress will hold a hearing beforehand and get them cleared and essentially wait to pass the vote until the president is inaugurated and the senate goes back in and has its vote and the secretary of defense within hour the president being inaugurated is working. it is hard to see the waiver fight happening this quickly especially given the georgia political runoff where no one knows what it will look like until early january.

>> it could get dicey and tune into defensenews.com for more on that. we have profiles of fluornoy and other candidates already. it will be for the first time not a white man who is rung tni the pentagon. >> carol is next up in minneapolis. welcome. >> good morning. yes, i was hearing on the news last night that president trump before he is leaving is really hollowing out the pentagon as much as he can and putting young political a poims including t a including the isis task force and are they doing this to take away the information that the biden administration could be getting from these personnel and just to make it more difficult for biden? thank you. >> so, yes, immediately after

the election there was a significant waive, and the most clear-cut one was secretary mark esper who was fired and the undersecretary of policy, james anderson and joseph kernen who was a tier below the secretary of defense were also forced out along with parts of their staff and replaced by people who were seen as trump loyalists. one is named ezra cohen wattnick at the security council very early and another is taba who had been placed in the pentagon after he couldn't get a confirmation by republicans in the senate for the policy job. he is now in charge of the policy job in acting capacity and the secretary of defense's chief of staff was replaced by cash patel who is a devin nunes aide and a republican attack dog on the russia probe. >> these are people who are very loyal to the president and they're not afraid of that either.

they are very loyal to the president. the president is the commander in chief. he has the right to fire and hire as he wishes among the political appoint sees. >> these political appointees are also going to be gone come january 20th and the question people are concerned about is called burrowing which is a situation where political appointees are given non-political jobs and hence are harder to fire. that happened in the obama administration and the clinton administrations and there is a theory that the trump administration is doing it more than others. i haven't seen the numbers to back that up and it is something people are tracking. just broadly speaking, we put up a story last week where we did the numbers. 40% of the pentagon senate confirmable jobs are currently filled by performing the duties of a technical difference and they' they're aking officials. that's not ideal because when you are an acting official you don't have the full authority that the confirmed person is,

also, it doesn't have as much juice in the building with a giant bureaucracy. sometimes you're want able to advocate for your office the way you should. that is a highly unusual number. 40% of 60 not being phil confirmed by people and the senate. they've struggled getting nominees in particularly to the pentagon. just in terms of being slow to send the names of the senate and getting through. inhofe, the senate arms service committee multiple times has told reportes, i want to confirm these guys and the president said he'll nominate this person and three months later he still has not sent paperwork. what am i supposed to do? this has been building for a while. it's hard to fill some of the spots and you will not see new people coming in right now. so this is just the situation that we're in. >> let's hear from darryl on our military line in fayetteville, north carolina. darryl, good morning. >> hey, how are you doing? >> what i think our country

needs is the draft, and what that draft does is it promotes people with no other draft. and it's two people in a fox hole and they'll do one of two things. they will love or kill one another, and the military teaches us that. and let's see what the country think about it, and let's not take one man's opinion and that's another thing about our country, we are so quick to vote for people and once they get in office, and we need to vote on issues. vote on issues, not on people and that's all i've got to say, and draft, draft, draft. >> more broadly, how have the recruitment, forts be

recruitment efforts is been during the pandemic? >> particularly in certain skill positions, things like cybertech tech, i.t., there's just, frankly, there is a competition for the skills and the lifestyle doesn't fit them. we've seen the military services change that to say, look, we can hire special people who do computer skills who don't need to be expert riflemen at the same time and to be in the best physical shape because frankly, they're not sitting in a computer every day and they're notity on in the field. >> there have been starts and stops on that. it's been interesting. air force retention has been a big issue for the last couple of decades and now with the commercial airlines struggling, they were the higher rate for retention and we've seen it in decades because people are saying, i'm not getting out right now and i know i'm secure and i know what it is and i'll sign up for another tour. i do believe it's being seen elsewhere in terms of retention.

it's an interesting thing. the question of the draft, there's been a lot of talk recently with the national service. there is a commission that looked at this and the question of a draft. should there be as some countries do military service, and that would be a public service -- >> you're breaking up a little bit. we'll try to get you back here as we read a headline from the washington times. this is their headline on general millie, the chairman of the joint chiefs. a modicum of success has been achieved after a 20-year afghan fight. here's what the general had to say yesterday at the brookings institution. >> national decisions to go ahead and reduce our military footprint in afghanistan down to 2500 soldiers by 15th of january. president trump's made that decision. we are in the process of executing that decision right

now. what comes after that, that will be up to a new administration that we'll find that out on the 20th of january and beyond. rid now, our plan we're executing is to go to 2500 troops by the 15th of january and that is also in support of the agreements that were signed by the taliban in february. so that's happening as we speak in iraq, the iraqi government wants the united states military to continue the program with the iraqi military. we think that that's an important thing to do and we think that that helps contribute towards the interdicting and preventing further aggression in iran in the region and we also think that that is important to continue to sustain the defeat of the isis caliphate so it doesn't generate and come back.

the president has also made a decision to reduce our force posture in iraq to 2500, and also by 15th of january and further decisions after that will come from the next administration. >> general millie from yesterday. aaron, i guess i'll ask you to look forward into the biden administration on what their potential troop plans are for iraq and afghanistan. >> one thing that happened is maybe it is time to consider the middle east plans need to change in some way. that's probably driven by fear in congress in the pentagon with a rise in china with the future threat and whether or not the u.s. has taken its eye off the ball in terms of china by focusing on the middle east for so long. >> you know what, that is a bipartisan issue that is popular in both parties that we've been in the middle east too long and

we need to bring people home. >> at the same time, the biden administration has to consider the safety and stability of those countries. the line from the pentagon for years has been, that if we are aren't there they can become terrorist havens and they can strike the homeland. >> the 2500-soldier figure is just widely ak nged and that was a number that was agreed upon between the pentagon and the white house. they delete some forces. these numbers can be tricky and it's spearly basketball that you move forces out of iraq and kuwait, and you r a lot of armed forces in wait. so we have to keep an eye on this and see what the actual numbers are. the biden administration and it will be hard for them to come in right away and put troops in, but it is hard to believe that they'll not increase it at some point over the next four years. >> back to the defense authorization bill. this is a defense bill and how

much sway does congress have in determining and help determining troop numbers overseas? >> so troop number and troop movement is something controlled by the commander in chief. it's not controlled by congress by law. so if the president wants to remove troops he can do it. they put blocks in their own way, we request these troop movements not be done until there is a study and we'll cut funding over here as a way to control that. ultimately, if the president decides they want to move troops around the world, he can do that as long as there are not legal obligations of treaties and such. ultimately, congress over last -- post-9/11. a lot of people say congress has advocated a lot of its responsibilities and authorities in terms of force movement and the use of force and the authorization to use force and allow the executive to take

charge on that. a lot of people we talked to even in the military will say congress needs to take more of a hand on this. it will be interesting to see if there is a split congress with the biden administration what that looks like. >> let's go to chandler, arizona. democrats line. carey, you're on the air. >> i would like to ask a question about the two planes -- the defense planes that were decommissioned and taken off line that was out surveilling russia, china and whether or not the trump administration, you know, they took those planes out of action and they sold them and chucked them. where does that money go? >> do you know what he's talking about? >> yeah. he's talking about the oc-135

which is part of the open skies treaty. that was an agreement that the u.s. left a couple of weeks ago that essentially allowed u.s., russia and other countries to do surveillance flights over each other's territory. these flights are very well controlled. they had to be announced ahead of time and laid out where you were going and they would have observers from the country as being looked at on the plane, so the u.s. came on the planes with them and essentially it's an arms control verification trust mechanism. >> it was left after the trump administration argued that the u.s. doesn't get enough out of it, which technically, most people who say the u.s. doesn't necessarily get information out of it because the satellites and other systems that we have and it is a good trust mechanism and the european nations rely on it more than the u.s. does. >> the planes were reportedly -- the oc-135 or the planes that do this mission were reportedly going to be scrapped by the

trump administration as a sign of, we're out of this thing and you can't go back, joe biden if you want to. at the same time, the base pushed back and said no, we're still buying these things and there's not an active plan to scrap these things and there was a report that jumped the gun or wishful thinking with the folks in the trump administration. >> that said, it might not be easy for the biden administration to jump back into the open skies treaty and legally, it's something that's disagreed upon. some lawyers say the trump administration may have left in an illegal way and there is an easier way for joe biden to get back in. other people say regardless of whether they should have left or not, the senate would have to weigh in and if that happens it is very unlikely that it would be here. this is very unpopular among republicans for a long time, so it's something that there will be legal wrangling in the first year of the biden administration about this. as of now the planes are still

sitting off in the air force base and has aren't been scrapped. >> it's defensenews.com for the latest on that story and pormor. senior pentagon correspondent, thanks for joining me. >> thanks for having me. >> freedom caucus chair representative andy biggs will hold a news conference to discuss allegations of election fraud. watch live coverage beginning at 3:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. >> we are joined next by senator bill cassidy of louisiana on "washington journal" this morning. good morning, senator cassidy. how are you? >> thank you for having me. >> a timely appearance. we are seeing a headline in the washington times and elsewhere about a potential deal happening. pelosi agrees to compromise on corona relief package, and coronavirus relief package. there was a bipartisan group of senators that announced this package on tuesday. what's the status