committee and the pentagon said thawould reduce defense spending by $464 billion. my question is, if the super- committee puts the bill before the floor of the house that would cut defense any further than that, will you vote no? how many of your colleagues do you think would join new? -- you? >> it is hard to predict how would vote. i would probably vote no. i have told the world -- i am trying to tell the world that $464 -- we are using $465. i hear there is $489 now. this has all happened very quickly in the last year. we believe we need a strong defense. in my lifetime, i have seen us

cut back after every war. we cut back the military greatly, it seems like so we won't be prepared for the next one. each time you do that, when you have to ramp up and we are attacked, it is very costly, both in treasure and in blood. we use all -- lose a lot of people unnecessarily. after the last election, people came and said everything needs to be on the table. the budget situation is terrific. we have to cut drastically. this is a situation we built up over decades. it's going to be very hard to fix it in one budget cycle. i understood, at of the defense budget the size that it is, we should be able to find -- out of a defense budget of the size that it is, we should be able to

find cuts. i think this is cutting more than that. -- fat. it is cutting into muscle. i have said i think we can live with that. secretary panetta says he thinks he can live with that. the chiefs have said they think they can live with that, but any further cuts would start into the bone, and that is excessive. the deal that we made when we voted for that debt-reduction bill is that we would cut no more out of defense, that the super-committee would find entitlement programs, other mandatory spending that would come up with the $1.20 trillion to $1.50 trillion. that is what i am expecting them to do. that is what i am encouraging them to do, to keep on track the

plan that was already made. i have let people know that we should cut no further on defense. instead of everything on the table, defense has been half of the table so far. that is more than should be cut, especially when you're fighting a war. usually we wait until the war is over to start cutting back on defense, but we're still fighting in the war. >> you said you let people know that. have you let people know on the super-committee? do you have anyone in particular -- any one particular ear on that committee? >> i have had a couple of meetings with senator kyl. he has been a stalwart on this. i have talked to dave camp. i have a meeting with jeb hensarling this week to go into more detail on these cuts. i met with leaders can tour --

leader eric cantor this week and have a meeting with john boehner. we have not seen how deep these cuts are want to be. we have not received the actual -- other than a number -- what the effect will be on the military, other than what my staff has been able to put together. we have had three hearings with former chiefs of staff, chiefs of the different services. and next week, we have secretary panetta coming and the new chairman of the joint chiefs, general -- >> dempsey?

>> yes. i talked to him last night. i had a mental block there. they are doing their best to make sure we cut where we will still remain strong. but when you cut so deep -- in fact, this little chart here shows, last year at this time, the blue is years past. this is what we actually spent for defense. the line here, including the blue, red, yellow, was projected defense spending over the next 10 years, $464 is the yellow. that is what has already been cut. there is the tranche of cuts that says we will take one

carrier task force out of commission. it looks like we will take the george washington nuclear aircraft carrier, when it comes into charge the batteries, to rebuild -- >> the nuclear refueling. >> they will just take it out of commission and lose the last half of its lifetime. that may be one of the things. we have not seen the final yet. it is just a story. >> can i follow up on the overall issue of defense spending? clearly, you think -- you are arguing in favor of maintaining a high level of defense spending. that does not include war spending. it is just the base budget, which has nearly doubled since before 9/11. that is the baseline we're starting from. you said we should not have waste in the defense department and there are things we can cut.

>> we should not have waste in any of the department's. -- departments. >> what you want them to do? is there anything they are buying that they should not be buying? >> we have got major programs in the last few years. we cut the f-22. there was a reason for that. when i came to congress, we were building the be-2, and it was supposed to be 130 of those -- the b-2, and it was supposed to be 130 of those. there was a reason for that. somebody looked at their risks and said, this is what we need to defend the country -- the risks and said, this is what we need to defend the country. we have 20 b-2's. $40 billion was spent on r and d -- r&d.

if you spread that over 130, you get one cost of the plane. if you spread it over 20, it becomes a lot more expensive. people are saying, this was so expensive. >> going forward, anything we can cut? >> i am sure there are things we can cut, and we're looking at that. the defense department, when we meet next week with secretary panetta, he will give us some specifics on what they're going to cut, and then we will have a chance to hold hearings and look at that. there is no question, all of this bill is going to be cut -- yellow is going to be cut. this will come out of manpower. the end strength will be reduced by 100,000. that is people who will no longer be wearing the uniform, defending the nation. and there will be programs cut. if the super-committee is not able to come up with their

program, the charges they have been given, which is a very tough, very tough job for these 12 individuals. if that does not happen, then cut.ed will al bel be and that is pretty drastic. that has gone to help some of the baseline things that were not enough to cover what was needed. we know that that is going to be cut. it was already cut. it was running $150 and now it is $120. >> we have about 15 minutes left. jump in? why don't you >> we mentioned the afghanistan war. a lot of people are still

wondering, can win win there? what does victory look like? what are your thoughts on those issues? >> i not only thing we can win, but i think we are winning -- think we can win, but i think we are winning. when i got the job as ranking member, i knew that i needed to go to afghanistan right away. and i did. i went to camp leatherneck. they were just moving out in force. i went again last february. i went to camp leatherneck and marjah. we were able to walk down the street without wearing body armor. we saw standards that help

merchants keep their stores open later. they are mud buliding -- buildings that open up. i talked to merchants. i saw them smiling and feeling good about the security they felt. the marines have done a fantastic job there. open the school i was there -- we opened a school while i was there. they have a few classrooms, 500 kids, 10 teachers. the excitement on the faces of those kids that they were able to go to school -- our kids kind of -- at the end of summer, maybe they are happy to go back and see their friends. these kids had not been able to go to school. almost half of the more girls who could not go to school under taliban rule -- them were girls

who could not go to school under taliban rule. i saw the general yesterday. the army caucus had a meeting and we had a chance to visit a little bit. he came home in maiy. he has done a great job. we were recruiting army and police to provide security when we leave. but a lot of them were not staying. and a lot of it is because they are very backward. these people are not dumb. they're just not educated. they told me at the time that a sergeant was trying to teach them how to fire their weapons -- put four cartridges in the weapon. they did not know what "four" was. we look a little kids, two-years old, and theyears-

have more education than they do. they recruited 70,000 of for the army. they have most of them educated up to a third-grade level. they're excited. i was able to attend a purple heart with two of my colleagues -. we had our marines and the formation. we had the afghan security force army in formation. they were equipped. they had been trained. the time line is by 2014, we should be able to pull out and they should be able to provide their own security. i think we're doing well on that timeline. >> there has been measurable progress in training the afghan security forces. there has been measurable improvement to security, particularly in former taliban

stronghold, helmand and kandahar provinces. when admiral mullen last gave testimony, the correction in the government -- call russian -- governmentin tehe -- there are serious concerns about pakistan's role in encouraging a t -- attacks. do you have a sense that pakistanis are just trying to wait us out until 2014? if so, what should we do about it? >> when i was last there, i met with the government and military leadership. it is not utopia, by a long ways. pakistan is not america. but we must remember they do

have nuclear weapons. it is a very touchy situation of a there. and i think we need to help pakistan. afghans need to help pakistan. the border is not secure. it is a very tough spot. as we have been able to improve things in the south, the forces now are moving up to the northeast, where they can concentrate more on that area. i have concerns about the president pulling the surge forces out early. i think we're going to be able to keep them in the fight through most of this year, which will be helpful. but next year, the other 20,000, he has said that he wants them out by september, which means they will pull out while they are still in the middle of the fighting season. i am concerned about that. hopefully, that gives us almost a year from now till then,

to get the afghans more solid in their ability to carry out operations themselves. so, maybe they can fill in some of that gap. that is what i am hoping. >> we have a little bit more than five minutes left. go ahead. >> as the pentagon said that, when secretary panetta testifies next week, that he will be able to provide some details on where they're going to cut some of these programs? >> i had a meeting with him, with adam smith, the top democrat on the committee. it was a couple of weeks ago. we were all, by the way, in agreement that the $465 billion was as far as we could go, that it would be tough working that and being at full capacity to be able to respond when the president calls. i asked him specifically to be able to give us some of the

numbers. my understanding is he will be -- general dempsey said it will be able to give us some. >> days in the military -- don't ask, don't tell has been repealed. your appeal, which has passed the house, the defense authorization, would bar marriages i. i would wager the senate is not want to do similarly. how strongly you feel about this? is that something you're going to the mat over? >> i feel very strongly about that. it passed out of our committee 60-to-1, with a strong flow -- vote on the floor of the house.

this is one of the concerns we had, that we are rushing to eliminate this before we have fully prepared things. doma is the law of the land. >> the defense of marriage act. >> right. and we think chaplains should not be forced to do something that goes against their conscience. and they would not be forced. it would be allowed if it goes -- >> they would not be forced. they would be allowed. >> it is -- as soon as it happened, there were already calls to have marriages. we knew this was going to happen here that is why we asked to take a little time and not rush into this, solve a political problem on the backs of the military. we will see how it moves forward. i know it is very important for

us to have a defense authorization bill. we have not missed having one for 49 years. and i am hopeful that chairman levin and mr. mccain will be able to work this through and get their bill to the floor and get pasit passed. >> is this issue, for you, worth not having a defense authorization bill? >> yes. >> why do you think it is so important that suspected terrorists be held in military custody and not get -- have military trials? >> this is something we have been talking about for years now. when i got this job, i wanted to go to guantanamo. i had not been there.

we have spent a lot of money in guantanamo. we have a courthouse set up just to try these terrorists. the five detainee's that we have that for the mastermind of the 9/11 -- detainees that we have that were the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks are there. the courthouse was set up so they could have their own interpreters, legal counsel, the media could be there, the world could see what is happening. and it is very secure, very safe. president and administration wanted to bring those terrorists into new york, into the most densely-populated part of our country, and try them. that -- we went to the mat on that and they backed off of that. and we have the military tribunal. they are going to move forward on a case.

i just saw this. they are indicting one of -- >> the u.s.s. -- bomber? >> i think it is the way to go. why would we want to bring these terrorists who have done these kinds of things into the country and put us at more risk? to me, it does not make sense. we have spent the money. we have to set up. we have the security. we have the ability to do it. let's move forward and use this facility. >> we have time for two quick questions. >> is this something where you would prefer not to have a bill, you would go to the mat on? >> yes. these are things we have done in the house in a bipartisan way. this cannot average -- this came out of our committee 60- to-1. >> while we are compiling a

list, is there anything else you would rather risk not having a bill? >> let's go through regular order. we have a process. we passed the bill in the house months ago. we're waiting for them to take action in the senate. i am hoping they will. will go to conference -- it will go to conference. our positions are strong. hopefully, there will be things they want. it is a give-and-take process. we have a lot of good things in our bill that i think will have strong support in the senate. >> one more question. , it is a give-and-take process, but you're not one to give -- >> it is a give-and-take process, but you are not going to give on those issues? >> right. >> final question? >> how about iraq? the immunity issue.

the iraqis want to have american troops stayed past the end of the year, but not with immunity from local -- stay past the end of the year, but not with immunity from local prosecution. what is your position on that? >> i discussed this yesterday with general dempsey did this is of the we're working on. we have not come to agreement. unfortunately, the timeline is getting very late. i met with the speaker of parliament several months ago and told them, if they want us to leave troops -- which a lot of people think, with all the loss we have had there, we should not put at risk of the gains we have made there. but we're going to have to have a certain amount of security there to protect all of our people in the state department and the contractors that are left there. my hope is that we will get that resolved quickly.

general dempsey things we will be able to work through this. i met with an ambassador from afghanistan yesterday. i encouraged him to watch what is happening in iraq. let's not make the same mistakes there. we have a couple of years before we are talking about pulling the troops out of afghanistan. let's make sure we have our ducks lined up. he assured me they are making progress and moving forward. >> chairman, thank you for being our "newsmaker." >> thank you. >> we talked about the deficit reduction committee, the super- committee. he is understanding there are no more defense cuts on the table. that is originally what he thought everyone agreed to when they created this deficit- reduction committee. is that true? >> i do not know if it is true or not. i would be surprised.

i do not think the super- committee even knows. i think there are people who would disagree with him. it is very much to be determined. one interesting thing was, this week, we may hear from the pentagon, finally, on where they might make some of the cuts in that first wave, that first $450 billion that has already been enacted into law. whether there will be additional cuts or not, i am not sure it is as determined as he said. >> he says he has some allies. senator jon kyl has said defense cuts are off the table. it sounds like he is meeting with others as well and the bending their ears. >> one of his allies is secretary panetta himself, who has repeatedly used his moral authority as a former director they need to stay

away from all discretionary spending, including defense. >> it sounds as if there's another showdown coming between the senate democrats and house republican publicans -- the house republicans. and it was stunning to see him say he would rather see no bill -- >> it was stunning to see him say he would rather see no bill than to have these two sort of sets of provisions get stripped out of the house. the senate has not finished their bill yet. we're just projecting the senate will not be near the house on these two issues. one is same-sex marriage, which he and his colleagues are very much opposed to. the other is a set of issues connected to how detainings -- detainees are prosecuted and tried. >> what are your thoughts?

>> i was surprised they would like to revisit the debate on don't ask, don't tell. the detainee provision -- this is an issue where they believe the polls are on their side. there are indications that is true. most americans are kind of weary of having -- wary of having detainees tried in civilian votes. this is a tough vote for democrats and the senate -- in the senate, although they would probably prefer them to go to the military courts. >> we have to leave it there. thank you for being part of "newsmakers." we appreciate your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> you can watch "newsmakers," again with house armed services committee chairman buck mckeon at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. today, ""road to the white house " coverage continues with michele bachmann at town hall meeting in new hampshire, part of her three-day campaign tour in the state. on monday, live coverage of presidential candidate jon huntsman at the world affairs council of new hampshire, where he is expected to talk about foreign policy. we will have that live starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> during deliberations, the only people allowed in the supreme court's east conference room are the nine justices. so, who gets the door? >> this is my first or second conference. i was playing close attention to the discussion, as i remember,

and i failed to hear the knock on the door. the two otehrs go -- others got up and answer the door. it made me feel like i was two- feet high. i learned that one of the most important job of the junior justice is to remember that you are the doorman. >> retired justice john paul stevens, tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> next, "the contenders." this week, charles evans hughes. then treasury secretary timothy geithner testifies on the u.s. economy at a house financial services committee hearing. later, mississippi governor haley barbour on the republican economic agenda. >> next, from washington, d.c., a profile of the life of charles evans hughes on the