he is expected to talk about budget cuts. that is live at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> c-span radio is another way to keep up with politics and public affairs offering a mix of the most relevant events from the c-span television networks. if you are in washington, d.c., listen to us 90.1 fm. you can also listen on our iphone and blackberry apps. we are now in our 15th year. >> the chairman of the house armed services committee, representative buck mckeon. we have two reporters here to

help us with questions. john donnelly is a senior writer and editor of "congressional quarterly." charles is from politico. >> good morning. the first question -- the big question in washington is obviously the budget situation. with regards to the defense budget, a law passed would cap senate appropriations of the next 10 years in a way that your committee and the pentagon said would reduce defense spending by $464 billion. you have said that is enough. 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 you? >> it is hard to predict how would vote. i would probably vote no.

that is depending on what the rest of the packages. 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 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. -- so horrific that we have to cut drastically. 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, 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 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 leader cantor this week and have a meeting with john boehner. we have not seen how deep these cuts are want to be. -- going to be. they will take place over the next 10 years. 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. we had a meeting yesterday. 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 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 -- cut 35 major programs the last few years. we cut the f-22. there was a reason for that. when i came to congress, we were building the the b-2, and it was supposed to be 130 of those.

there was a reason for that. somebody looked at the risks and said, this is what we need to defend the country. started building and then cut them out. we have 20 b-2's. $40 billion was spent on r&d. building was built. everything was put in place. 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 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 the red will all be cut. 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. chuck, why don't you jump in? >> we mentioned the afghanistan war. a lot of people are still wondering, can win win there? almost 1800 lives lost. what does victory look like? what are your thoughts on those issues? >> i not only 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 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. we opened a school while i was there. it was raining. it is not a school like we know.

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. generally, they are not really excited. these kids had not been able to go to school. almost half of them were girls who could not go to school under taliban rule. i think it is a huge improvement. 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 may. 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, three-years-old, and they have more education than they do. roll call will said we need to get them educated so we can -- general caldwell said we need to get them educated so we can communicate better. 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 -- pin the 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 corruption in the government -- there are serious concerns about pakistan's role in encouraging 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. -- over 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 able to. -- general dempsey said it will be able to give us some. >> gays in the military. don't ask, don't tell has been repealed. your appeal, which has passed the house, the defense authorization, would bar same- sex marriages. i would wager the senate is not want to do similarly.

that is setting up as a conflict between the chambers in the conference. 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 vote on the floor of the house. i am hopeful the senate will look at those votes and understand our feelings on this issue. 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. >> they would not be forced. they would be allowed.

>> the distinction for you? >> 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 it 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 have military tribunals? this is something the white house is opposing to the point is holding up the senate bill. >> 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 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. 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 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.

it will go to conference. our positions are strong. hopefully, there will be things they want. it is a give-and-take process. but you are not going to give on those two issues? >> do you have a final question? >> iraq? the immunity issue. the rockies want to have american troops stay past the end of the year. the secretary of defense said yesterday no immunity, no troops. what is your position? >> i discussed this yesterday with general dempsey. this is something we are working on. we have not come to agreement. i met with the speaker of their

parliament several months ago. i told them if they wanted us to leave troops, a lot of people feel we should not put at risk the gains we have made. we have won the war and need to win the peace. we're going to have a certain amount of security there to protect our people in the state department and the contractors left there. my hope is that we will get that resolved quickly. he thinks we will be able to work through this. i met with the ambassador from afghanistan yesterday also. i encouraged him to watch what is happening in iraq. we have a couple of years before we talk about moving our troops out of afghanistan. >> we have to leave it there.

thank you for being our " newsmaker." we talked about the deficit reduction committee. he is saying from his understanding that there are no more defense cuts on the paper. that is what he thought everyone agreed to when they created the deficit reduction committee. is that true? >> i do not know if that is true or not. i would be surprised if it is. i do not think even the super committee knows. i think there are people on it that would disagree with him. i think it is to be determined. he was saying this week we may hear from the pentagon finally on where they might make some of the cuts in the first $450 billion that has already been enacted as a law. whether there will be additional cuts or not, i am not sure if it is as determined as he said. >> it does sound like he has

some allies on the deficit reduction committee. senator kyl has said defense cuts for him are off of the table. >> one of his biggest allies is secretary panetta himself. he has used his moral authority as a former omb director to say the super committee needs to look at entitlements and raising revenues and stay away from discretionary spending, including defense. >> it sounds as though there is another showdown coming between the senate democrats and house republicans over defense authorization. >> it was stunning to hear him say he would rather see no bill at all. this would mark half a century this year. he would rather see no bill than have these two provisions

get stripped out of the house. the senate has not finished their billion. we're just projecting the senate will not be near the house on these two issues. one is same-sex marriages, which he and his colleagues are very much opposed to in the military. the other set of issues is connected to how detainees are prosecuted and tried. >> i was a bit surprised that they would like to revisit the debate over don't ask, don't tell. the senators have shown no interest in doing that. the detainee issue is one where they believe the polls are on their side. there are indications that is true. most americans are wary of having detainees tried in civilian courts.

a lot of democrats probably would prefer to have them go to military courts. this will be a tough vote for them. it will be a tough vote for the white house. it looks like they are trying to avoid it. the chairman is saying it could be at the cost of the bill. >> we have to leave it there. thank you both for being here. we appreciate your time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> our road to the white house coverage continues tomorrow with president candidate jon huntsman and southern new hampshire university where he will talk about foreign policy. that is live starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern. also in new hampshire tomorrow, president candidate mitt romney at a town hall meeting. that is live at 5:30 p.m. eastern. both events are on c-span, c-