changed go over the last 30, 40, 50 years and has even declined somewhat in the economic downturn. when you lose your state job, then you go out and be an independent contractor, but that really has not happened. i am not sure why that is. perhaps there are fewer plumbers working on their own or mid- sized companies, but that surprised me that there were not more self-employed people. host: dennis cauchon joining us from "usa today." all this week, we went to the sea to different people on the president's commission on debt and the deficit. tomorrow, we begin on "washington journal" as with the issue of government spending and how you bring down a $50 trillion debt. we bring you douglas hotlz- eakin and later in the program, commission member john spratt.

we will look at the one-year anniversary of the spill in mexico. frances beinecke. we are live on c-span radio and on c-span television at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. on the west coast. they give for joining us on this palm sunday. hope you enjoy the rest of your week. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, "newsmakers." then president obama will talk about the deficit followed by

senators mitch mcconnell and rand paul. rand paul. >> rick mays is the congressional letter. frank, we will start with you. >> good to see you again. you talk about your concerns about cutting the defense budget and saying that you did not think it should be cut. a few months ago we spoke about this. yesterday, now you said you are talking about cutting some things from the budget in fiscal year 2012. can you talk about what kind of cut to would like to do. if you cannot give specifics, can you speak generally? >> i do not know if there are any cuts that i would like to do. it is ludicrous to think that out of $550 million that you

cannot find some savings. anyone in the pentagon has said we can cut her, her, -- here, here, and here. fighting 2 wars and now in libya, it's not a great time to be cutting the military, but i understand how bad our situation is. when i came here 18 years ago, the whole budget was $1.5 trillion an thid this year, our debt will pass that.w we have some serious problems. defense has to be part of it. let's look at the pentagon and who -- how we buy things. we have just cut out major

programs, cut the f-22 when we needed 725 and now we are down to 187, the efv, ? the dictionary fighting vehicle, we have been working on that -- the expeditionary fighting vehicle. did a lightbulb go off? why did we spend the money and cut the presidential helicopter? it's not about him. it's not about him. it is about the presidency and what kind of production they will have to move around the country. eventually, aircraft wears out.

people come to me with ideas on how to save. i have asked our subcommittee chairs when they go through the hearings process and do the mark above their bills. look for everywhere you can find savings. >> are there any specific areas that you think our prime? in fiscal year 2011, operations and maintenance to give big hit. can you speak to other areas? >> all areas. we are looking everywhere. purchasing is a big thing. i heard a number yesterday that shook me to the core. how many people we have working in the pentagon buying things. the number that was given it to me was 140,000. i went back to my staff and asked them to figure it out. 29,000 are actually buying the things. man.

i was meeting with the guy who was the head of a major corporation. i wonder how many people wal- mart has buying things. but they got the number for me. 150 people. if you wanted to sell something to wal-mart, you go to bentonville, ark., and you take a number like you're going to baskin-robbins and wait in line. then you sell them what you were trying to sell. i am not comparing dwyane -- buying shampoo to an f-22, but still. i think we probably can look at that and then we have 10,000 attorneys at the department of defense. that may be a little excessive. when in thinking we should look and pick up every stone to find ways.

have you ever built the house? >> i have done work on houses. >> have you ever built a house darks i have done one. one in a lifetime is enough. i remember the contractor. we've made a lot of decisions, laid out the plans, agreed on a price. everything went great until you decide to make a change. you want a different doorknob. you want a different door. you want to move this wall. until that happens, the price goes up. that is how we had been buying. we buy global hock. as soon as they get so far along

in the process, they think they should be able to do something else. maybe we should put this weapon on it, this computer, you could do more. you keep building up the mission of. pretty sure, then it gets too heavy. >> those are cultural things built into the military. built into the military. on and as expressing some doubt . i have been covering defense for 30 years in washington and i have yet to see someone who has been able to reform the acquisition process that has made this faster, better, cheaper. what do you have that is special? other than a very nice story about building a house? >> i kind nobility's that these

others have not had when they tried. sometimes you get to a point where things from gather --, together, and needs drive desires. we may be at that point. i think the american people understand how serious this is, they understand how serious the debt problem is. they are willing to work on ways where we can save everywhere including defense. i understand that. there may be a time when the powers that be can come together because it has always been this way does not mean it always has to be that way. i am hoping that we can get people to gather and say we need to look at this and find some savings. like the same time, my concern is that our defense needs have

been driven by budget rather than needing to protect certain areas. we were kind of sailing around and all of a sudden the president says we go into libya. boom. a couple hundred missiles real quick >> we don't have anything cheaper in the arsenal that we can use in this kind of war? >> there are designs for a certain function. you know, we were just about ready to close off the line. we didn't need them anymore. we shot over a year's production, you know, in less than a week. so who knows what else is over the horizon? when we were all sitting around making new year's resolutions, did anybody foresee

egypt, libya, tunisia? >> but this brings into the point. on january 6, when secretary gates came out and we were up there on the hill talking to you about it, you were very upset about the $78 billion cut over five years, the $100 billion of reallocation money. and you were basically saying that this is dangerous. are all of these proposals, these cuts that are happening, do you feel like the united states' national security is at stake when we start to make these kinds of cuts? >> i definitely do. and if you go back a year ago, secretary gates was giving us different numbers. projecting ahead, we were saying we would not go below a 1% increase, each year, over and above inflation. and now we're actually cutting from those projection

projections $78 billion. over and above the $100 billion that the chiefs were asked to go back and find but they got to keep most of that. they had to come up -- >> can we do anothe another $400 billion? >> over 12 years. >> i'm assuming you're not saving that much money in your review of the defense programs. >> no. really not -- i'm hoping that that's just what was an opening shot in a presidential campaign. i wasn't able to see the whole speech, but i read about it and read reviews. to put that number out, i'd have to say we're going to have to cut -- i mean, if he is re-elected, then at most he's here six years and he's planning a $400 billion cut over the next, what, 13 years? 12, 13 years? me ask you a question. i'm just doing the math in my head. you're talking about

basically $11 trillion that the defense department projects spending over the next 12 years at roughly $550 billion, give or take, annually. that's an enormous amount of money. $400 billion is literally chump change. >> talking about the other $120 billion for iraq and afghanistan. >> these are relatively small numbers. so why is it doomsday to be talking about $400 billion over 12 years? why isn't the question -- why isn't the defense department, perhaps, putting up more money when you look at, for example, the f-35 program, projected prices. they are about $100 billion beyond what they projected it would cost. so i'm wondering, you know, they are spending money in enormous quantities and often times on mistakes. so why is it outrageous to ask the defense department to come up with $400 billion over 12 years? >> can i just read you some of these numbers? >> yeah. sure.

>> army brigades in 1990, he had 76. today we have 45. navy ships, we had 546. we're down to 283. and when we did the defense review, you know, they really didn't go out 20 years like they were supposed to. so we set up a independent q.d.r. they came back, both sides of the aisle, unanimous saying we ought to release -- and secretary perry was the co-chair who was the secretary of defense under president clinton, said we ought to at least get the navy up to what it was supposed to be back in 1990. and we're not. and we're not projected to get there. 546 in 1990 and we have 283 ships today. granted, the ships we have have greater capability than they did in 1990, though some of them are the same ships. but, still, they have greater capability. but at some point numbers also

count. fighter squadrons. we had 82. now we have 39. strategic bombers. we had 360. now we have 154 and going down. the average age of our strategic bombers, 34 years old. we're still flying b-52's. i'm just saying that when we do come out of iraq, it's 50,000 troops. whether some stay or not if iraq requests them, i think there are people in the administration, some of us think that probably we should still have some troops there who's going to provide security for our state department people and the people that are trying to help the iraqis rebuild this country. so that remains to be seen. that's not the real big driving

number. but the contingency fund that's we ought tollion, be able to pull back from that unless we get involved in something else. we don't know. >> are you saying that the $400 billion is undoable or unreasonable? did it come from? >> maybe we should ask the military what their roles are and missions. what do we expect from the military? right now we've got 19 ships and forces in japan helping in a relief effort. i don't know if we still have people in haiti. but i wouldn't be surprised if we still do. any major tragedy that comes around the world, we expect the military to jump in and ride to the rescue. it all costs money. maybe we should just say we're

not going do that anymore. that's a way to save some money. >> well that would be a big roles and missions change, wouldn't it? >> what is the role and mission? at some point the president decides we have some people at risk in a country, set up a no-fly zone. that costs money. >> realistically, do you see a day when this is a nation that would do that? >> we ought to talk about it. if we're going to cut back on defense and get a lean, mean machine that will just protect the homeland, and if somebody comes after us, then we'll respond, everybody should understand. decisions have consequences. and i don't think can you have it both ways. we've had hollowed out force before. i'm a little older than you guys. i was a child during world war ii. and i remember sacrifices that

people made. you know? meat rations. i remember my mom giving me a dime so at school i could buy a stamp and put it in my book and buy a savings bond when i got enough stamps. my mom didn't have nylons. we didn't have rubber. we had synthetic rubber. but when we started that war, our troops going through northern africa were totally ill equipped, ill trained, and they were fodder. and the same thing happened then in korea. and the same thing, we chewed troops up in vietnam. and we've done that. we decide we don't need the military until we need the military. and then playing catch-up is hard. times have changed. world war ii lasted four years. we built the pentagon in one year. i don't know if i've told you this story yet, but i've told it many times.

>> that wasn't the house you built. is it? >> no. different story. but if we wanted to build a pentagon right now, first of all, you wouldn't probably be able to build it. it's a swamp out there. probably some endangered species. but say we got through the process, all the court indicateses and everything -- cases and everything, and we finally turn the dirt and started building it. we'd probably not be in world war ii. we probably would be done with korea. we'd probably be in the vietnam war before we could get the pentagon built. we tie you ar -- >> i'm going to jump in. we have about seven minutes left. let's move to policy issues. >> let's talk about iraq and will you think the troops ought to pull out or not. it doesn't seem the iraqis really want to us stay. what's your view? >> i hope that there is a request to keep some troops there to provide some security.

i'm not convinced that the iraqis are totally ready to handle all of the security. and we're going to have people in the country, contractors, state department people, other citizens, private citizens not in the military that are over there helping the country rebuild. and i think they will be put at much greater risk. >> just to jump on a couple -- we are running out of time. i also wanted to ask you about women in combat. a study was done it came out. it's recommending that women be allowed to fill these roles. people in the senate are saying it. people in the house are saying it. are you willing, this year, to talk about inserting language in the defense authorization bill to permit women to play combat, actual combat roles if they're in fact, able to meet the standards? >> people maybe talked about it, but this is the first time it's been brought up to me. so i don't know -- it hasn't come up in any of the hearings

i've conducted. i don't know if it's come up at any subcommittee level. we have a personnel subcommittee that handles those issues. >> that was the military leadership diversity commission that reported. so you guys did get that report at least. i think. right? >> i haven't seen it. >> the other thing i wanted to ask you about -- >> do you have an instinct on this? >> i have a granddaughter that just joined the reserve. i don't know if she wants to go into a combat role. i can't imagine that little blond out there on the frontlines. but that doesn't mean that others may be qualified. we've lost men and women in afghanistan. whether they called it a combat role or not. i was at a funeral for one of our young men in my district. and his company commander was

there. and it was a woman, a captain. and she was in the truck with him when he was killed. so what's the definition of combat? right now they're at risk wherever they are. >> so it sounds to me like you're leaning yes. >> don't -- let's say i'm -- i try to keep an open mind on things. and i also don't realize -- don't think i'm the smartest person that ever walked the planet. i like the fact that we now have the majority. and i like the openness that we're pursuing. and i believe that every member of congress was elected and they should all participate in the process. so i'm open to debate in hearing what other people have to say. and our committee we're especially bipartisan. i'm working hard to keep that culture. >> about five minutes left. >> i just wanted to throw one

more question out there the hunter provision. congressman hunter wants to add a provision in that would -- certification for gays to serve openly in the military. the certification that would -- you know, the congress passed a law last year that permits gays to serve openly once it's certified that the military is ready for it that it would not harm readiness. representative hunter wants to put a provision in that would basically lower the standard and say secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs. but now also include chiefs of services. >> i don't know that you call that lowering the bar. if i understand this correctly, he would also bike the combat and combaters into the process. >> on the certification process? the certification process. and i would support that. i think the way this was kind of -- my interpretation, the way

this whole process was ran through, it was done politically. we were given a hearing -- not a hearing. a briefing. the senate got, i think, the hearing. we were given a briefing. and the secretary came. no. it was general hamm and jay johnson, the defense counsel. they were the ones appointed to be in charge of this for the department. they came on the hill to give the house a briefing on the armed services committee. they gave us the report. we had no time to go through the report before. they threw out a few numbers. and you can do a lot with numbers. if you asked a bunch of people questions and some of them say i strongly support, some of them i strongly disagree, and then kind of lump all the ones in between with the strongly support, you get a different number.

and we didn't have a chance to really review that. i just think the whole thing was kind of jammed through to get it done in that lame duck -- >> presuming these people make it tougher. >> i think it makes it a better process. >> but you talk process a lot. you've never really said what you personally think about it. i'm wondering, what do you personally think about gays serving in the military? you certainly know there are gays in the military today and that they're serving honorably and without any problems. it going to bother you tremendously that by the end of this year gays are allowed to openly serve? >> it doesn't bother me at all. what i'm concerned about is the troops that it may bother. i don't have a problem with it. other than what it does to our readiness what it does to our recruitment what it does to our retention. i don't think we've really fully answered those questions.

that's my concern. i'm not in a foxhole. i'm not on the frontlines. i'm not in the military. but i think my job is to help protect the military and to see that they have what they need to carry out their missions and to return home safely. if there's something that's going to be a distraction to that, that might put them in a difficult situation, i don't think we should be doing that. i'm not sure that we fully answered this question. i don't think it fully got -- there's a lot of discussion about it. but i talked to people, people in positions of combat. and they have a little different view. >> let me jump in. you have one minute. you have a final question, rick. >> reassuring troops just before the government shutdown that they were not going to be harmed

by this. >> tried to. >> you did try to. and now that there's another risk of the debt ceiling, apparently isn't raised, there's another threat troops might not be paid. >> no. no. we just passed -- the c.r. is now -- the government will now be funded through the end of the fiscal year, september 30. >> about 30 seconds, sir. >> the next month or two. that would not affect the payments of the troops like the appropriation fund we were facing a week or two ago. it's a different bill. but i think that we should do everything we can to make sure that the military is never into this again. we have bills out there that people are pushing, that i would support to take the men and women in the armed services off the table in negotiations -- if

we can't agree something here, you know, shame on us. but don't make them pawns in the process. >> general mckeon, thank you for being on "newsmakers" this week. >> thank you. >> "newsmakers" continues. gentlemen, after talking with the chairman of the health foreign services committee in a week when budget is on the mind of both parties and both sides of pennsylvania avenue, what did you learn from the chairman about the likelihood of defense cuts? >> i think we learned there will be defense cuts. and if buck mckeon has his way, they're going to be as small as possible. >> yeah. he's ok -- we talked about this he's walking a very, very thin line here. in one breath he's saying let's do cuts. in the next breath he's essentially saying national security is in danger if we start to make these kinds of cuts. and when we talk about cuts, about $400 billion over 12 years, which is relatively tiny compared to the defense budget, and he's acting as if that's enormous, yeah, i don't expect he's going to be talking about

big cuts. >> the house republican budget has no changes whatsoever in the obama request over the next five years. that's the house republican plan. the only cut they've agreed to far is a very modest 10% cut in the printing budget, which if my memory a right is something like $140 million over five years is what they've so far -- they just haven't faced up to the fact of the pressure they're grog to be under. >> this week the annual survey of spending globally in the military came out. the united states, as it has for as long as i've seen it, is far and ahead number one. 43% of all the military spending globally, all countries measured. number two, china. way below what the united states spends. i was interested the -- is this country on the right for a debate about how we