college in the 1970's so it dawned on me that this is a very different process than what it was. >> find out if he catches up tonight on c-span's "q&a." you can download a podcast of "q&a" available online at c- span.org/podcast. >> buck mckeon is our guest on newsmaker this week. rick mace is army times congressional editor. gentlemen, thank you for being here.

>> you are talking about cutting things from the budget for fiscal 2012. can you talk about some of the things you would like to cut, and if you cannot be specific, can you be more general about what you'd like to do? >> it is ludicrous to think that out of a $550 budget -- $550 billion budget you cannot find some savings. the pentagon says because hear, hear, and here. my concern is, what we are fighting two wars and also now engaged in libya, it is not a great time to be cutting the military. i also understand how bad our financial situation is in the country. when i came to congress 18 years ago, the whole budget was $1.50 trillion. this year, our deficit is going to achieve that.

one year, over $1.60 trillion added to our del. it does not take a genius to figure out we have some serious problems. defense funding has to be part of it. my approaches, let's look at the pentagon. the slick at how we buy things. we buys look at how things. we just cut out major programs. we cut the f-22 when that was proposed. we needed 725. now we are down to 187, and we cut the program. the efv, 20 years we have been investing in that, and now we decide it is too expensive. did some light bulb go off somewhere within the last 20 years or maybe 10 years ago, sang potentially we will not be able to afford this? why did we spend all that money

and then cut it out? what kind of protection are they going to have to be able to move around the country, and eventually, aircraft wear out. what we need to do is go in -- i have met with people that come to me with ideas and ways to save. we will be looking at every one of those. i have asked our subcommittee chairs as they go through the hearing process and the markup of their bills at the subcommittee level, look for every way you can find savings. >> are there any specific areas this time around in fiscal 2011, operations and maintenance funding to the big hit. can you speak of other areas where you might be looking for that? >> i would say in all areas. look everywhere. i think purchasing is one of the big things.

i heard a number yesterday that judge shook me to the court. how many people we have working in the pentagon buying things. the number that was given to me was 140,000. i went back to staff and said break this out for me. 29,000 are actually buying. i was meeting with a guy who is ahead of a major defense company. i said, i wonder how many people walmart has buying? they got the number for me. 150 people. if you want to sell something to walmart, you go to arkansas. you go in and take a number, like going into baskin-robbins, and wait in line, and then you go in and sell what you are trying to sell. i am not comparing buying shampoo on the shelf and walmart

to buying an f-22. there is no comparison, 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 little excessive. i am thinking, let's look. let's pick up every stone. did you ever build a house crystalline >> i have done some work on houses. >> i mean build a house. >> no. >> i did one. one in a lifetime is enough. i still remember the contractor. we worked it all out beforehand. we thought we would have a lot of decisions made, and laid out the plans. we agreed on a price, and everything goes great until you decide to make a change. you want a different doorknobs. you want a different door. you want a wall move. as soon as that happens, it is

katie, bar the door. the price goes up. that is how we have been buying. one plane started out as an unmanned plane for a certain mission. as soon as it goes so far along in the process, someone says we ought to be able to do something else with that. maybe if we put this weapon on its corporate this computer in it, it can do more, and you keep building up the mission, and pretty soon it gets too heavy and have to go to another engine to get more thrust. >> that is a cultural thing that is built into the military. [laughter] i am is expressing some doubts. i have been covering the defense

area in washington for 30 years and i have yet to see someone who has been able to reform the acquisition process in a way that, at the end of the day, has made it faster, better, and cheaper. i am saying, what do you have that is special, other than that very nice story about building a house. >> sometimes you get to a point where things come together, where needs drive desires, and we may be a that point. i think the american people understand how serious this is. that understand how serious the debt problem is. they are willing to look at ways that maybe we can save everywhere, including defense. and i understand that.

it might be a time where the powers that be can come together and say look, because it has always been this way, doesn't always have to be this way? i am hoping we can get people together and say look, we need to look at this. we need to find some savings. at the same time, i concern is that our defense needs have been driven by budget rather than buy it needs to protect certain areas. we were sailing along and all of a sudden the president says let's go into libya. boom, a couple hundred missiles real quick, at about a million of pop. >> we don't have anything cheaper in the arsenal that we could use in this kind of war?

>> we were just about ready to close up, we did not need them anymore. production a year's in less than a week. so who knows what else is over the rise and? december 31, 20010 -- when we were all sitting around making new year's resolutions, did anybody foresee egypt, libya, tunisia? i don't think so. >> on january 6, when secretary gates came out and we were up there on the hill, you are very upset about the $78 billion cut over five years and no $100 billion cut of three allocation money, and you were basically saying this is dangerous. do you feel like the united states national security is at stake when we start to make these kinds of cuts? >> i definitely do.

if you go back a year ago, secretary gates was giving us different numbers, projecting out ahead we were saying we would not go below 01% increase over and above inflation. now we are actually cutting from those 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. >> could we do another $400 billion? over 12 years. >> i am assuming you are not saving that much money in your review of the defense programs. >> i am hoping that which just a opening shot in a presidential campaign. i was not able to see the whole speech, but i have read reviews. to pick a number out of that and say we or wrong to cut that, if

he is reelected, then at most he is here six years, and he is planning a four hundred dollars billion cut over the next 13 years, 12 or 13 years? >> i am just doing the math in my head. you are talking about basically $11 trillion that the defense department is projecting to spend over the next 12 years. that is an enormous amount of money. four hundred billion dollars is chump change when you compare it. >> we are not talking about the other $120 billion for iraq to christie's are relatively small numbers. why is it domesday to be talking about $400 billion over 12 years? why isn't the defense department perhaps putting up more money? when you look at the at-35

program, there are about $100 billion beyond what they projected it would cost. they are spending money in enormous quantities and oftentimes on mistakes. why is it outrageous to ask the defense department to come up with four hundred billion dollars over 12 years? >> can i just read you some of these numbers? army degrades in 1990, we had 76. today we have 45. navy ships, 546. we are down to 283. when we did the quadrennial defense review, they really did not go out 20 years like they were supposed to. that came back, both sides of the aisle, they were unanimous saying -- secretary perry was the co-chair who was the secretary of defense under president clinton. he said we ought to at least get

the navy up to what was supposed to be back in 1990, and we are not. we are not protected to get there. we have 283 ships today. granted, the ships we have have greater capability than they did in 1990, but still, at some point, no. also count. fighter squadrons, we had 82 then, we have 39. 360 strategic bombers, now we have 154, and going down. the average age of our strategic bomber is 34 years old. we are still flying b-52s. i am just saying that we do come out of iraq, it is 50,000

troops. whether some are staying or not, i think there are people in the administration that think we should still have some troops there to provide security for our state department people and the people trying to help the iraqis rebuild a country. that remains to be seen. that is not the big driving number, but the contingency fund, we ought to be able to pull back on that, unless we get involved in something else. >> are you saying the four hundred billion dollars this undoable or unreasonable? >> where does it come from? maybe we should ask the military what their roles are admissions. what do we expect from the military? right now we have 19 ships and about 18,000 forces in japan

helping in a relief effort. i don't know if we still have people in haiti, but i would not 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 cost money. maybe we should just say we are not want to do that anymore. that is a way to save some money. >> that would be a big roles and missions change, wouldn't it? >> what is the role going to be? at some point, the president decides we have some people at risk in a country, set up a no- fly zone. that cost money. >> realistically, do you see a day when this is a nation where we would do that? >> we are to talk about it. we are going to cut back on defense and get a lean, mean, machine that would just protect

the homeland, and if somebody comes after us, then we will respond, everybody should understand, decisions have consequences. i don't think you can have it both ways. i l little older than you guys, and i was a child during world war ii, and i remember the sacrifices that people made. i remember my mom giving me a dime so at school i could buy a stamp and put it in my book and get a savings bond when i got enough stamps. we did not have rubber. we had synthetic rubber. when we started that war, our troops going through northern africa totally ill-equipped, it will train, and the same thing happen in korea and vietnam.

we decide we don't need the military until we need the military, and then playing catch-up is really hard. times have changed. world war ii lasted for years. we built the pentagon in one year. i don't know if i have towed to the story yet, but i have told it many times. if we wanted to build the pentagon right now, first of all, we would probably not be able to build at. probably some endangered species would stop us. say we got through the process and we finally turned the first spade of dirt and started building a, we would probably not be -- we would be in the vietnam war before we could get the pentagon bill. we have taught ourselves up with

so much bureaucracy. tolet's move from budget policy issues. >> let's talk about iraq and whether you think the troops ought to pull out or not. it does not seem like the iraqis at this moment really want us to stay. >> i hope that there is a request to keep some troops there and provide some security. i am not convinced that the iraqis are totally ready to handle all of the security, and we are going to have contractors and state department people and other citizens over there helping the country rebuild. i think that will be put at much greater risk. >> i wanted to ask you about women in combat. a study came out recommending that women be allowed to fill these roles.

people in the senate and house are saying it. are you willing this year to talk about inserting language in the defense authorization bill to prevent women to play actual combat roles if they are able to meet the standards? >> this is the first time and has been brought up to me. it has not come up in any of the hearings i have conducted. i don't know if it has come up in the subcommittee level. we have a personnel subcommittee that handles those issues. >> it was the military leadership diversity committee that reported it. >> i have not seen the report. >> do you have an instinct on the s? >> i have a granddaughter that just joined the reserves. i don't know if she wants to go into a combat role. i cannot imagine that little

blonde out there on the front lines, but that does not mean that others may not be qualified. we have lost men and women in afghanistan, whether they call 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. it was a woman, a captain. she was in the truck with him when he was killed. what is the definition of combat? right now, they are at risk wherever they are. >> it sounds to me like you are leaning yes. >> let's say i try to keep an open mind about things. i also don't think i am the smartest person, and i like the fact that we now have the

majority, and i liked openness that we are pursuing. i believe that every member of congress was elected and they should all participate in the process. so i am open to debate and hearing what other people have to say. in our committee, we are especially bipartisan. i am working hard to keep that culture. >> one more question on the hunter provision. congressman hunter wants to add a provision that would lower the bar for certification to the level of certification for gays to serve openly in the military. the congress passed a law last year that permits gays to serve openly. once it is certified that the military is ready for it, that it would not harm readiness, represented 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

would now also include the cheeks -- it include the chiefs -- >> i would not call that lowering the bar. i think my interpretation, the way this whole process was rammed it through, it was done politically. we were given a hearing -- not a hearing, a briefing. the senate got a hearing. we were given a briefing. the secretary and general ham and j johnson, the defense council, 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.

they gave us the report as we sat down. we had no time to go through the report. you can do a lot with numbers if you ask a bunch of people questions and some say as strongly support and some strongly disagree, and a lump all the ones in the between over to the ones who strongly support, you get a different number. number. i think it makes it a better process. >> you have never really said what you personally think about it. what you personally think about gays serving in the military? you know that there are gays in the military today, serving honorably and without any problems.

is it going to bother you tremendously if gays are only allowed to serve? >> it does not bother me at all. what i am 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, our recruitment, and retention. i don't think we have fully answered those questions. that is my concern. i am not in a foxhole or on the front lines. i am not in the military, but i think my job is to help protect the military and see that they have what they need to carry out their missions and return home safely. if there is something that is 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 am not sure we have fully answered this question. i don't think -- there is a lot of discussion about it, but i

talked to people in positions of combat, and they have a little different view. >> one final question. >> your very good it reassuring troops just before the government shut down that they would not be harmed by this. now there is another risk if the debt ceiling is not race, that there is another threat that troops might not be paid. >> we just passed -- the government will now be funded through the end of the fiscal year, september 30. the debt ceiling will be in the next month or two. that would not affect the payment of the troops unlike the

appropriation fun we are facing a week or two ago. i think we should do everything we can to make sure that the military is never brought 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. we cannot reach something here, shame on us, but don't make them ponds in the process. >> thank you for being on "newsmakers" this week. after talking with the chairman of the house armed services committee and a week when budget cutting is on the minds of both parties, what did you learn from the chairman about the likelihood of tax cuts in the years to come? >> i think there will be defense cuts, and they will be as small

as possible. >> it is walking a very, very thin line. in one breath he is saying let's do cuts and then he is saying that national security is in danger if we start to make these kinds of cut. 400 billion dollars over 12 years is relatively tiny compared to that defense budget, and he is acting as if that is enormous. >> the house republican budget has no changes whatsoever in the obama request over the next five years. the only cut the have agreed to so far in the defense budget is a modest, 10% budget in the printing budget. >> that have not faced up to the facts of the pressure they are going to be under. >> the u.s. has 40% of all

global defense spending globally. the chairman suggested, ask the military what the mission should be. is this country ripe for debate about how and what to be militaristic lee, and where should the debate originate? >> we have been through that many times before, but in the end it comes down to what are the national security threats. look at any number of independent commissions looking at the subject. in the end, if there are three americans in danger somewhere in the world, we are going to send the u.s. military to protect them. there is no other way of doing it. >> the reality is that even within his caucus, there is extreme pressure to cut funds.

there is just enormous pressure right now to find cuts. the democrats are not just going to let the republicans cut domestic spending without saying defense has got to be on the table. defense will have to ante up something. it looks like they have to get ahead of the process as much as they can. they are trying to shape this as best they can, but it is quite obvious that events are overtaking them. within a couple weeks time, the congress cut $20 billion of the request for defense in fiscal 2011. fiscal 2012 will have to be completely rewritten because of that, and there will be even more cuts there. it's probably going to be overtaken by events at some point because his own caucus will have to demand these things. things.