of foreign relations to talk about the relationship of google and china. thank you for joining us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend. . . [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> up next, "newsmakers" with the chair of the armed services

committee. banking executives talk about last year's financial crisis. >> we welcome congressman ike skelton, the chair of the house armed services committee. thanks for joining us on newsmaker. congressman, let me begin with the hearing that will take place this wednesday in which you will be questioning the former army secretary and the retired admiral on the report that was issued last friday by the state's department -- the defense department. what questions would you have for them? >> this will be based on the briefing my armed services staff received this morning. it appears that there are two disconnects. one disconnect is between the actual performance of the person in question, on the one hand.

and the other is between the officers efficiency report and the medical academic report. consequently, people are promoted on what is in writing, and they are moved along in their career path as to what is before the promotion board and the like there is another disconnect -- there is another disconnect that i have surmised between the intelligence reports that evidently came in on the one hand and the superiors of the person or a gentleman or person in question on the other. i will ask questions about those two disconnect. how can they be remedied? can the military do it by themselves or will they need

legislation to require it -- those disconnects to disappear? host: secretary gates saying on friday we need to fix -- guest: efficiency reports would fix it on the one hand, but you have to have a close relationship between intelligence reports on one hand and the military and superiors on the other. i think they can be done in formally or informally, without legislation. but it has to be fixed. on the intelligence side. host: replace. guest: -- rick mays. guest: u.s. had concern for most of your career route that. -- u.s. had concern for most of

your career about that. is this something you can it do legislatively about that? guest: they did change the officers efficiency reports. in the navy, they call them a fitness reports. the change them a few years back to make them more accurate and to make short that there was a better profile of all of the people in the platoon or company, brigade, what ever the case may be. in other words, they have only so many of a certain block in so many in another block. that was a step in the right direction. but so often the reports do not accurately reflect a person's

competency or lack thereof. that is a very subjective thing. guest: do you have a sense why that in accuracy happened? our officers trying to be too nice to each other? guest: officers have a natural tendency not to want to say unpleasant things and move along. i know there are cases. i have made inquiries. there are cases where fitness reports have accurately reflected less than minimum standards of performance. guest: secretary gates mentioned on friday that the military has a hard time self-reporting of problems like the shooting at fort hood or forseen problems like that.

how do change that kind of attitude? how to ensure that the military can self-report better? guest: what you mean by that? guest: the oer's but also at the staff level or the peer level. if you notice that something is going wrong or something is off, how do you change the culture? guest: i wish i had an easy answer for you on that, but if someone it is not performing to standard or acts differently, superiors should know about that and try to correct it. many times is correctable by counseling or by visiting with that person and that person, he or she correcting it themselves. it is a matter of being honest

with themselves as to whether this person is performing, how do they act? do they show up at work? do they show up late? are they unpleasant to their co- workers? all that goes into how someone really performs other duties. and if all of those are accurately reported, i think it would be much better. however, some people would still be prone not to want to write unpleasant things, but if someone fits in that category, i think one way or the other, whether in formal counseling sessions or on a formal officers efficiency report, i think it would do the service a great favor in a accurately reporting that person x. host: is the military tries to

connect these dots, which you call what happened at fort hood an act of terrorism? guest: i think anything like that is an act of terrorism. my definition of terrorism is probably different from others. i think it is a horrible thing. it is a terrible act of terrorism in my view. guest: you are a strong student of history, and one of the worries about reporting people who are acting funny is that mccarthyism that hurt the military at one point, because you need to make sure there is some legitimacy in complains when you have them. guest: that's correct. i am right in the middle of a book on andrew jackson. if any oer's were written on him by superior officers, he never wanted to become a general. he would never have become president.

but there are people that have meant a great deal to american history that had idiosyncrasies. but they have not been of a damaging kind. maybe time to time unpleasant or irascible -- guest: you're talking about john mccain? guest: john mccain is a friend of mine. i cannot say about him. i met rick one time and receive one of his lectures in my office. guest: do you foresee any kind of role for congress in changing policy in for good? do you think it would be too late for the 2011 defense authorization bill to deal with this? do you have any plans to write any legislation on the defense authorization bill. guest: we will have our hearing

at 10:00 wednesday morning. i hope you will see one. -- you will come. they will prove this issue. there may be a requirement to have legislation. we can do it by a stand-alone bill, if that is the case or weekend included in the defense authorization bill which will come out of our committee -- or weekend included in the defense authorization bill. quite honestly, i think it is with iin the jurisdiction but which in the power of the military by establishing rules and regulations regarding fitness reports, oer's, and the medical-academic records to tight knit themselves. if necessary, i will not hesitate to do it. host: do you have trust and president karzai in afghanistan,

that he will begin to turn things around in that country? guest: i did not before. she is the president, -- he is the president, you can argue about the election all day long. i want to see how he acts and reacts and works with us. getting rid of the unsavory people that have eaten their way into that government. i certainly hope that it comes across. we have expanded an awful lot in the way of blood and treasure in trying to get that country to be a non-haven for terrorists it would help all the afghan people -- it would help all of the afghan people, the administration there. guest: this spring, the congress

will debate afghanistan, because president obama is to ask for $33 million more to pay for the search. i was wondering whether you see it as a tough vote for a lot of the democrats, on a potential supplemental, depending on what form the $33 billion will take. do you see any way this supplemental will fail, the vote will fail in congress? guest: i think a lot of it depends on how the situation is coming along in afghanistan. i think our military will do well. we have excellent military leaders. general mcchrystal is a first class. he is as good as they come. the chairman of the joint chiefs, michael mullen, is really an outstanding leader the troops that we have --

the troops that we have -- i have been meeting with them in afghanistan, the national guard, all of them are wonderful. i think our military will do well. the question is how is the afghan government, how do the people in afghanistan relate to all of this? i am hopeful that they will have a positive attitude and positive report later in the year, but i think the answer to your question is how is it performing at the time of the vote? guest: the question remains, the progressives will not -- they have already said they will not vote for a supplemental. speaker pelosi has said she will not ask them to vote for it. it leaves pretty much the vote in hands of republicans and a number of democrats that support the military, they want to pass a supplemental. if anything is added to the supplemental to change the minds of the republicans, would you

see the potential of a failing? do you see an increase debate in congress over this and putting the president in a difficult position? guest: there ought to be a debate on this. where we have been, where we are going, where we should go. i do not think we should cross the bridge until we get there. i am hopeful that the situation will continue to improve in afghanistan. goodness knows we have fantastic young military folks there. we have truly outstanding leader. and the training of the afghans seemed to be coming along quite well, turning that mission over to them gradually to fight the insurgenc and the taliban. there is a good chance we will have a positive report when that comes to pass.

we had better wait. guest: there has been another troubling report and the last week about the suicide rate among afghan-iraqi combat veterans. what happens to military families has been one of the things you paid attention to for your entire time in congress. what are we doing wrong? what do we need to do to fix this problem? guest: it is the age-old problem, rick, that people that are under emotional stress so often will say to themselves, i am fine. i am getting along well. and not report it or not seek counseling or help. truth in fact, that will often help very, very much. it is not just the suicide rate, which is sadly come to pass. i have talked to people in the military, military doctors.

and it is a fact. but it is not limited to that. domestic problems, the forces, all -- divorces, all this happens. that's why i think it is very important that these young americans who do have stress or emotional strains to seek professional help. once you get over that stigma and get over the fear of going to counseling, i think that will help immensely. i know in some cases where it has. i would urge that continue. we have to make sure they have all the opportunity in the world to seek and receive stable, emotional counseling. guest: do we need more people in

the military? we have people that we turned out to it -- for the fifth time? the unprecedented. guest: i have always pushed for a larger military. we increased the numbers in the defense authorization bill this year. i think it was time we did this. you have to really take your hat off to these young folks, particularly those who have been over two, three or four times. they are great americans. they volunteer. this is lost to a lot of people. people in the military are volunteers. -- and their families have to and/endure deployments, separat, extensive training. i think we should do our best. it was cicero, the great roman orator, one said gratitude is

the greatest of all virtues. it would help tremendously if we as americans just say, thank you. on the street, at church or wherever. if we did a bit more of that, letting them know that we, their neighbors, appreciate what they are doing, and their families what they are going through. i think it would help tremendously. guest: is there anything more tangible we can do it then say thank you? do we need a bigger army? do we need to put more money so there are more health professionals around? guest: based on testimony given back in 1995 by then lieutenant- general tense trod stroupe callr an additional size of the army, and we have since that time

made the army much larger. we made the marines larger last year. let's see how it works out on the figures that we authorized in last year's defense bill. guest: with the larger numbers in the army and marines, and the stress of wars and to stress on the budget, do you see it possible to sustain a larger military in years to come? guest: that is what america does not do real well. it is the ups and downs of budgeting for our national security. after the cold war, the peace dividend can along, and a good number of professionals left the military, noncommissioned officers. , officers. and then along came what we

have in iraq and afghanistan. we certainly wish we had some of those folks back. i wish there was some way to keep a substantial non-seeswaing type -- non-seeswaing type of military in times of peace. when those conflicts to come to pass, they would be all the more ready for them. guest: can we ask you about don't ask, don't tell? what do think should be done about that? guest: i am personally not for changing the law. however, there will be hearings in the subcommittee, the personnel subcommittee the sheis year. that is all i can tell you right now. guest: why do not want to change

it? guest: we are in the midst of two major conflicts, and i think a disruption of this type could very well cause some serious problems. wait until the hearings. let's see what the hearings unfold. guest: are you open to change, or are you pretty fixed? when they tried to do it in the clinton administration, you were opposed then, too. guest: i was involved with the statute that is now written. guest: involved is an understatement, sir. guest: you mentioned, last summer, you promised there would be hearings. you just mentioned there would be a subcommittee. you will not hold one yourself at the committee level. guest: i doubt it at this time.

that is the proper place for it. i was chairman of the personal subcommittee, and i think it is within their purview to do that. guest: president obama has made it clear during the campaign that he wants the law repealed. speaker policy has spoken on strongly about that. -- speaker pelosi has spoken out strongly about that. were you see yourself? you do not one repealed, but where do you see yourself in the process? if congress start something this year, would you oppose it? guest: probably so for the very reason i just said. guest: would you try to get speaker nancy pelosi not to bring it up this year? guest: i could not convince anyone else. guest: but you cannot stop them?

guest: if the rules committee makes one. guest: can we talk about the size of the defense budget, more than $700 billion for the first time in history? guest: all we can get are the rumors coming out of the pentagon. we will wait and see what it is. i have a feeling it will be substantial, because we are involved seriously in the conflict in afghanistan. we have people in iraq, even though we are redeploying from iraq. we have people in kosovo. and it was not mentioned as much as it should be, but i am really proud of the young folks now today being deployed to haiti for the work they are going to be doing, to bring order and relief to a very, very sad country. the american military face will

be there to be of help to these folks. i am very proud. guest: any sense of how long that commitment will be in haiti? guest: it will change. right now it is a rescue, clean up. longer term, it will be in a sense of reconstruction. it is up to the haitians to do that. the american corps of engineers could be advised of them. guest: you issued a statement on friday saying that a number of red flags within the pentagon were ignored. what is it about the culture and the military that allowed these things to go unchecked? guest: it is the culture of not wanting to say unkind things. in the oer's or fitness reports, so many of them say the

offer -- the officer is outstanding. i think that is in so many, many of them. but there are magic words that convince the members that this person is really outstanding. for instance, the top officer i have of -- i have 50 officers who work for me. phraseology and words like that -- this really is a very outstanding young officer. xdhost: last question. guest: is part of the reason this a lot -- this was allowed to happen isok because it was in the medical field and we have a shortage there? guest: i have raised this issue.

i received no answer as to whether an academic report was not fully reflective, and rather the officers efficiency report is not fully reflective. and that is the veryxd questioni have asked. i will probably ask that question of the witnesses who testified before us on wednesday. guest: the quadrennial defense review is supposed to come up with the budget. are you getting any sense of any big changes coming up that you have been informed of? do you expect to see any? guest: no, i expect it will be geared toward two things. in the short run, it will be how to handle insurgencies. in the long run we have to keep our military posture ready for the very unforeseen. çi have been in congress now

several years, and so much of international relations and conflicts have come to pass that were really on forseen. -- unforeseen. i]during the post-cold war period, everybody thought, we could cut back on the military and not realize, my gosh, i hhere comes real problems for our country on the battlefield. i hope as we look forward, we can keep a strong military without the ups and downs in the budget and frankly, ups and downs for those in the military. çthey deserve a solid, steady budgetary process. that is what i would like to see. host: congressman ike skelton is the chairman of the house armed services committee. guest: thank you very much.

host: we continue the conversation with roxanna of the hill newspaper and read. ç-- and rick. this next week, one of the first times that congress will have the chance to question the independent review that secretary gates completed. what will come out of this? guest: it is a little like the underwater bomber, and that there is a series of flights were should appear attention to but nobody connected the dots and put it together. the military system is very hard to do. it is not clear how they fix it. there will be a lot of questions. there will notç be a lot of immediate answers in how to stop this thing from happening again. this was a medical officer accused of doing this. they are treated special. they are in their own world in terms of the office -- how their personnel system works,

there are shortages of them. you do not have to be a superior officer in some cases. it is a very difficult thing for them to handle. most members of congress to not understand how the military works, well enough to understand what it is they need to do. host: congressman skelton it appeared surprised by your question. guest: i also got the sense that congress will step back and let the hearings go on and not get involved so much and writing policy, but rather, find the answers first and let the military assault the problems themselves at least for now. it does not look like the congress, in trying to write legislation or policy, will change anything as far as policy is concerned. host: we heard from the administration with the attempted christmas day bomber, and for good, two strikes against the u.s. -- and in