see what they have said on issues important to you and read the latest from social media sites. it is that www.q-and-a.or >> this week on "q & a," ray mabus discusses being the 75th navy secretary. >> secretary of the navy ray mabus, you said, "i had a lot of great days. i got to do some of the coolest things on earth." what are you talking about? >> i get to do things like go see sailors and marines around the world and talk to them. i get to go out on navy ships

and fly into them onto an f-18. i get to name every ship that is named for the u.s. navy. the best thing i get to do is to lead this group of extraordinary men and women who make up our armed forces today. i was in the navy over four decades ago. i served a lot of good and dedicated people. we cannot touch the force we got today. the skill, the training, the dedication. just to deal with those people on a day-to-day basis and deal with the sailors and marines and their families and to see the dedication and the skill level, to see what this generation of americans is giving to this country is the

coolest thing anybody can do. >> how does this job compare with your time as governor as mississippi or ambassador to saudia arabia? >> i have had an incredibly fortunate career. i have had some of the greatest jobs you can have in government. being governor of mississippi was an honor because my fellow peers elected me. i threw myself into it heart and soul. i worked on education and health care and jobs, worked on the things that will benefit mississippi and are benefiting mississippi today 20 years later. saudi arabia will always be a great interest to us. it will always have a central role, and whatever happens in that part of the world, to learn about that part of the world and learn by living there, it has been invaluable.

this job of dealing with the sailors and marines that i get to deal with on a daily basis, there's nothing to compare. you cannot beat it. >> you were on a cruiser when you were a lieutenant. give us one thing you took away from that experience that is still with you today. >> i was 21 years old. i reported to the border. i was responsible for 60 guys. they were all men. i was their mother, their father, their psychiatrist, there preacher, their best friend and their worst enemy. that is a huge change for a 21 year-old who came right out of school. it became, those years that i

was in the navy, some of the most consequential of my life. it taught me the importance of making a decision and doing something bigger than myself. you had to be part of a bigger structure. the decisions you made did not just affect you. they could affect thousands of other people who were on the ship. i am not sure i would have done what i did with my life had i not been in the navy and learned some of those lessons at an early age. >> what is one lesson you learned from being ambassador to saudi arabia? >> the one i took away was how important our diplomacy is and how important it is that diplomats represent america. they are the face of america. they represent the values of america.

you have to keep foremost in your mind that you are there representing the united states to the saudis, not vice versa. you are there to protect american interests, to push the view of america and what we stand for and not to translate the views of the country you are in back to this country. second is oil and energy. broughtmething i've into this job. we should not be as dependent on foreign sources of our energy as we are today. it was driven home very loud and clear. not only in saudi arabia but that part of the world. >> the president talked about that in the state of the union message, about the navy and energy and all that. what are you going to do? >> i set five goals for the

navy. the biggest of which is that we will meet these goals by 2020, that's all the sources we use -- by 2020, at least half of all the energy sources we use will be from non fossil fuel. we are too dependent upon either potentially or actually volatile places on earth for energy. we are susceptible to supply shocks. even if we have enough, we are susceptible to price shocks. when the libya situation started and prices went up $40 a barrel, that was a billion dollars additional to the navy. $1 billion additional fuel bill. the only place we got to get the money was operations and training. we train our sailors and marines less. we would never give these countries the opportunities to build our ships or aircraft or ground vehicles but we give them a vote on whether the ships sail or the aircraft fly or the

ground vehicles operate, when we allow them to set the price and a supply of our energy. we have just got to move away from it. we're moving away from it because it makes us a better military. it is a vulnerability that we have to shut down. i will tell you one more story. the marines, who are not known as the most ardent environmentalists, have embraced this in a way that is just astounding, because they know that we import more gasoline and water into afghanistan than anything else. for every 50 convoys, we lose a marine -- either killed or wounded. if we can make energy where we are, we can use less energy, the marines are doing things like solar panels for their headquarter tents, silver --

solar blankets about this big that can power small electronics and gps, saves almost 200 pounds of batteries for a marine company. plus you do not have to resupply them. it cuts them away from their supply lines. it makes them better fighters and rebuild and some off -- and it lets them build will -- it lets them do what they were sent there to do, which is to fight and rebuild instead of guarding convoys of fuel. when you turn off a generator, you can hear far better in terms of what is going on around you. >> what would be the source of energy than if it will not be fossil fuel? >> expeditionary energy like the marines were doing solar and wind. at our bases here, the navy has 3.3 million acres of land.

72,500 buildings. we are doing solar. we're doing wind. we're doing geothermal. we're doing hyper thermal. -- hydrothermal. we are doing the same thing but using a lot less energy. we're putting smart meters to find out where energy is going. we just made the largest purchase of biofuel we think in american history. we have certified all of our aircraft that the navy and marine corps fly. for biofuels. we are doing the same thing with our surface fleet today. we have an f-18 that has flown 1.7 times the speed of sound using a 50 nix of biofuel. -- 50-50 mix of biofuel and aviation gas. >> what is biofuel? >> we're looking at second and third generation by biofuel. it is made from algae in part to -- from algae and and in

edible part of the mustard family. part of the purchase came from an edible grease from a chicken. -- in edible greece from tyson foods, from chicken. we do not have a specific technology in mind. we just need the energy. >> you have not mentioned nuclear. >> we are partly the clear -- we are 17% nuclear already. we are happy with it. the navy has led this country in changing energy for a long time now. in the 1850's, we went from shale to coal, then coal to oil. then we were one of the first people to ever use nuclear power for transportation and now

they're changing it again. every time from the 1850's to today, make you have naysayers. -- to today, you have naysayers. they say you are trading one form of energy that you know about that is predictable for another that is not and you should not do it. every single time they have been wrong. i am confident that they will be wrong again. >> give us the numbers. i have some here about the size of the navy and the marine corps. as secretary of the navy, what is under your responsibility? >> i have about 900,000 people, sailors, marines, reserves. there is a budget that is in excess of $160 billion. it is a big organization. it is the most formidable force

in the world. the navy and marine corps is a weight team. -- is america as a wait team. -- america's away team. >> can you remember the first time somebody said you should be secretary of the navy? >> i do not. i will say that i think the people on my ship were probably the most surprise people in the world. >> how did it come about? >> i was approached during president obama's transition. i was in the private sector. i had just finished being ceo of a company. i had been working in the private sector since i have been in passenger and living in

-- ambassador, and living in mississippi. i had a great life raising children. i was approached asked would i be interested in returning to government. >> you had been an obama supporter? >> i had. >> did you campaign with him? >> i endorsed him in april of 2007. >> why did you do that? >> i thought he'd be a great president. we met here. we have mutual friends. i had a couple of long talks with him and what sort of -- with him about what his plans were for america and what sort of campaign he'd plan on running. i thought with his combination of brains and ability to get things done that he would be one of our truly great presidents.

i have not been disappointed. i did 300 events for president obama during the campaign. >> did you think during that time that you might want to be secretary of the navy? >> i did i do that for that. -- i did not do it for that. i did that because i thought he might be a good president. i had no idea that anybody would ask me to come back into government. it had been a while since i had been in government. i had done a good job. i like to the decision to are -- i like the decisions you are able to make in the things you're able to do. i love the military. when i was in and governor of mississippi, i was in the national guard. when i was ambassador to saudi arabia, there was a big military presence there. i went out to carriers all the

time that where in the arabian gulf or red sea. when i was ambassador, there were a lot of american troops on the grounds from 1994-1996 in saudi arabia. i have this love of the navy. there was this love of what the navy marine corps does for this country. i was asked if i had a preference. this is a preference. i gave a strong preference for this. >> i want to run a video clip of bob gates, the former secretary of defense when you were there. he was speaking at west point. i want to get your reaction to what he said. >> the army must confronted the reality that the most high end scenarios are primarily air and naval engagements. whether in asia, the persian gulf, or elsewhere, the rationale for swift meeting --

swift moving expeditionary forces to be the army are marines, airborne infantry or operations, it is self evident, given the likelihood of terrorism, a disaster response, or stability or security forces, in my opinion any future defense secretary who advises the president to send a big land army into asia or into the middle east or africa should have his head examined as general macarthur stood gently -- so delicately put it. >> your reaction? >> we have been proving that we are the most formidable expeditionary fighting force in the world. when you look at the new strategy that the president announced and that secretary panetta has been speaking about that we have been working on for a good while to focus on

the western pacific and the middle east and being fast and agile and light and being able to get places fast and when you get there or do a range of missions using the same people of platforms, you are describing the united states navy and marine corps. i do want to say that we have got to have a great army. we have got to have a great air force as secretary gates said. the maritime challenges, we can go anywhere by sea. we can do anything when we go there. we do not take up an inch of anybody else's territory. we can project power into everything from high and combat to disaster relief and

humanitarian assistance to irregular warfare to engagement. we cannot not engage in africa or with europe and do training, do exercises, do the things you do to prevent something from happening to make sure that you know the people that you're dealing with. for a lot of people around the world, the only the americans they ever see our sailors or marines. >> why do we want 25,000 marines? in australian. >> we do not. it is 25 under.

-- it is 2500. >> it is 2500. >> i thought it was 25,000. >> when you say a rotational force, they will not be based there. we will not build a big base in australia. the marines will come in into exercises with the australians and allies and get back on their amphibious ships and go throughout the pacific. we got a request for humanitarian assistance or disaster relief about every three weeks somewhere in the world. our navy and marines are the first responders do that in almost every case. we are not going to move 2500 marines and their families and everything there. they will be deployed in the area where they need to be and

where they need to engage to do the things that they need to do. along with that, one of the things that secretary gates said, we have known that the marines have been used as a second land army for a decade. they had been magnificent. that is not the purpose for the united states marine corps in its history or going forward. >> how many active marines do you have? >> 252,000. >> how many are in afghanistan? >> we have about 18,000 there. it was 20,000 at the peak. a few have left. >>your point about these expeditionary forces, but the use of rescue -- why does this country spend the kind of money

it spent to rescue the one woman in somalia and the one danish man that was an involvement with the seal teams 6 + the army and the helicopters. they jumped in. what if we would have lost people? was it worth it? >> i think what our job is to give the president the option to do that. when the president makes a decision that it is worth the risk, and this president has been willing to take risk and to go after things that osama bin laden, this rescue, and you can keep naming them, but when whoever the president is want to make a decision, what ever that decision is, it is up to us

to get in the options to be able to do it. the president has that option. this president has the option to go in. using a completely joint force that are finely honed and can do missions like this, i think if you ask them, they would say it was not that much of a risk. they know exactly what they are getting into. they are the finest trained, highest skilled people that you will ever hope to meet. they are almost all very low key, very family oriented. they are quite a tribe of warriors. one argument i have made is that as high as the skill level is for the seals and the other special forces, as great as

their dedication is and as willing as they are to take risk and as many sacrifices as they made, that is the same level we've got all across our military. particularly the navy and marine corps. >> here is a little politics. you are a former governor. see what you have to say about this. >> the most extraordinary thing that has happened with this military is the president is planning on cutting $1 trillion. our navy is smaller than it has been since 1917. our air force is older than any time since 1947. we are cutting our troops. we're not giving the veterans the care they deserve. we cannot cut our defense budget if the war remained the help of -- if we are going to remain the hope of the earth. i will fight to make sure america retains military

superiority. >> factual reaction. number one, we are cutting $487 billion over the next four years. we are not actually cutting the amount of spending. we are slowing the growth of the amount of spending over the next 10 years. secondly, that number that we had the smallest fleet since 1917 came from our chief of naval operations last year. we have been saying this. to measure the capability of today's ships versus those of 100 years ago is like saying the superiority of a smart phone is to be questioned because we do not have as many of those as we did telegraph machines 100 years ago. these are incredibly capable ships. the final thing i would say is that on 9/11, the u.s. navy had 316 ships in the battle fleet.

when i got there eight years later, we had 283. one of the great military build offs that america has ever seen, -- build ups that america has ever seen, our navy got smaller during that time. we are not building enough ships -- we were not building enough ships to do what we needed to do. we have put in plans to congress. we have been implementing those plans on year to year basis to stabilize the size of the fleets and overtime began to grow that fleet. we have the ships in the navy that we need to be a global force. we have the ships we need to execute the strategy. we have the ships in the people -- and the people to do everything we need to do for

america. i talked to captain and strike groups before they go out. the only thing that is certain when you go to sea is that you will pay something -- face something unanticipated. you have to rely on the training, innovation, skills to meet it. we can meet anything that comes over the horizon this day, in any part of the world. and this administration has been. another thing he said was that the united states navy was in the best shape it has ever been. bob gates said that. under this to administration. we are committed to keeping that. we are committed to stabilizing the fleet. growing it, but doing so at an

affordable cost and with the quality and types of ships that we need. >> what is the chain of command? the secretary of the navy answers to -- ? >> the secretary of defense. >>you don't have direct access to the president? >> in the law, it is an anomaly. it says that i do. i do not. the secretary of navy has access to the president. i am not sure it has ever been exercised. i have a -- i cannot ask for a better working relationship with secretary gates or with secretary panetta. they are both incredibly bright, focused, dedicated people who understand what it takes to protect america. i cannot ask for a better working relationship or a better arena in which to work. >> what does the secretary of

navy not have? under the law, can you tell the chief of naval operations what to do? >> yes. >> what? >> here is the way it works. chief naval operations report through me. they also are members of the joint chiefs of staff who are directly advise the secretary of defense and president. three service secretaries, a navy, army, and air force are charged to recruit, train, and equip the force. the combat commanders, the commander and a central command which includes afghanistan or the specific command, they are the ones that control the ships at sea, troops on the grounds or what ever.

it is the service secretaries' response ability to get the people, the equipment, to buy it, to do the budget, to train, and to get the force ready and acting on the orders of the president when they request troops, to have them ready. >> we found this video from the marine corps. >> with the holidays around the corner, mr. ray mabus has taken time to travel around afghanistan. >> i am here to see marines and

sailors. i'm here because it is the holidays and they are away from their families. i just want to see how they're doing and if there's anything they need. >> it is the best expeditionary fighting force in the world. >> it is important to show people that the whole country remembers them and wish them well on the holidays. >> there is one message he wanted to give up. >> happy holidays, marines and sailors. come home safe. >> the plane you are on there. >> b-22. >> it is very controversial. where does it stand now? how are you going to take delivery on it? >> it was controversial about a decade ago.

it now has a great safety record. it gives the marines and astounding capability. it can get you in and out of places very quickly like a helicopter and then gets you some place else very quickly. it fits about 25 marines in the back. that is with all their gear. it gets them out a danger very quickly. from the ground. it gets them in very quickly. it gets them from place to place. they can land on ships. marines are going to go back to their nautical routes. that is an example of a program that did have some problems in the beginning. to the problems that have been corrected. the marines are planning to buy

the whole program. they're getting close to doing that. i would like to make a comment on another part of that clip. it is exactly what i have been talking about. i think the place i was speaking to the marines was one of the combat outposts, a small one in the helmut valley. they say marines are not really happy unless they are dirty and living outdoors. these guys and women go in for seven months. they have been extraordinarily successful as a military operation. they have also been very successful in terms of engaging

with the local governor, police, and army beginning to train the afghans to takeover. when you visit as i got to do, the thing that clip did not show that after i made my little talk and then stayed in should every -- state and shook hands and talk to the marines individually, everyone a them to the person can tell you the history of the region, can tell you exactly what their objective is. the marines have something have the strategic core. every corporal ought to know what his job is and how it fits into the bigger picture of the marine corps. they are great at it. a little factoid. marines are our young this --

youngest force. they are our flattest force. most come in and spend four years and go back home and do other things. -- ceo's of fortune 5 funded 500 companies are former marines. most of those were enlisted. marines teach leadership. then they go out and practice it. >> you have said that three of four americans do not qualify for the navy. >> they do not qualify for the military. that is true. 18-24.american's they do not qualify because of health issues, mainly obesity, because a criminal record, or because of education. we do not give waivers very often at all, if at all, for education.

you have got to finish high school before you can join the navy or marine corps. we do not give waivers if you have a criminal record. the marines have to shut off their recruiting about halfway through the year because we have so many people are ready to join the marine corps. the navy also has record recruiting and retention once people are in. it is a really frightening thing. it is a statistic that we have got to reverse. three out of four of our young people cannot qualify to defend the country, to have the honor of defending our country. i think that we have to make sure that we did a goes back to what i worked on as governor. it goes back to what i worked on as governor. that we have a great educational system for everybody. that we worry about stuff like

obesity. we have a great future. we worry about things like obesity like the first lady is doing. we cannot maintain a great military indefinitely. we cannot maintain a great country in definitely unless we fix some of these intimate -- endemic issues like three out of four young people cannot qualify for the military. >> how old are your three daughters? >> 21, 19, 10. >> have the others to thought -- have the oldest two thought about going into the service? >> they have talked about ways to get back to the country. whether that is military service or something like teach for america or americorps or some other way, you will see my other two daughters give something back whether it is the military i do not know. i also do not think it matters how you get back. -- give back.

>> here is one of the big critics of the military. let's get your reaction. >> it is part of our national self image. i think that is about to change. if iraq and afghanistan have taught us anything, it is that we are fools to be doing these kinds of things in these countries, occupying them and thinking that we are doing them some kind of favor. my expectation is that along with the change and the vector in the next few years, we're going to see rethinking, just what do we think we are doing out there? what do we need to do to help us what we need to? one of the answers is going to be the aircraft carriers. >> is he right? >> no. secretary panetta announced two

weeks ago when he was on the uss enterprise that we will keep the 11 aircraft carriers. there is a law that says we have to have 11 aircraft carriers. as a matter of strategy, we're going to keep a 11 and 10 aircraft wings to go on the carriers. that is exactly what we got today. he was mixing apples and oranges. one of the things that our strategy says is that wewe will be able to project power and the fast and agile and aggressive where we need to be. we need to be flexible. the carrier is one of the most flexible platforms that we have. he was also talking about ground war in iraq and afghanistan. the strategy talks about how

there will be less emphasis placed on long-term ground stability operations in military terminology. we will not have an emphasis often stability operations. we well on being able to project american power and a flexible, agile, a small footprint sort of way. those 11 carriers give us just an astounding array of flexibility. i will tell you one quick story. last spring the uss ronald reagan was heading to do combat air operations over afghanistan. the tsunami hit japan. that ship change course in a matter of hours and headed to help the japanese.

they used -- i went and visited them a couple of weeks later. they used the same targeting techniques that they are going to use in afghanistan to do disaster relief, a humanitarian assistance. they made the right stuff went -- they made sure the right stuff gone on to the right aircraft and the right sequence went to the right place by using this targeting techniques. they went from going to do a very high and combat mission to doing humanitarian assistance on a dime. the judge did it. -- just turned, did it. when that mission was over, they went back and did the combat. >> you know there are three aircraft carriers. one of them is being built. one is being built. i saw one in 2018. it will cost $13 billion.

>> the john f. kennedy will be 79. we have not gotten. >> those are $10 billion at least. >> as you pointed out, it is a brand new class of aircraft carrier. it is different. the plan when this came of was to put this technology often -- on an three ships to incrementally change its. the secretary of defense in 2002 said we're not going to do that. we're going to put it in one ship. winnie do that, you raise the -- when you do that, you raise the

risk and raise the chance of it being overrun. -- of price over run. >> you have a new launch system. you have a new power plants. you have a new it shape. you have a new islands. that contract was supposed to be signed in 2006 because of everything that was going on. they're trying to jam it into one ship. the contract was not signed until late 2008. when the contract was signed, the ship was only 30% designed. that is one of the things that has been one of the things we have focused on the most. before we start building ships, we're going to have to stable this. -- we're going to have a stable design. before we build it, we're going to have a mature technology. if you agree technology but it is not going to be ready -- if

you have a great technology, but it is not going to be ready,we will put it on the next version. we're going to try to give industry some you into it. -- a view into it. because is trying to jam it all in, there have been some cost overrun. we're focused very precisely on bringing those -- they are working on capping that. there is an article yesterday that said the builder of the ship was going to make no profit on it because of these overruns. >> is it a fixed price contact? >> it started out as a cost plus. while i insist on fixed-price

contracts, the first is usually impossible to do. what we have done is just cap things. if you spend more than this, it is your money. you're not earning any profit on it. all you will be getting is the money that it is costing to build the ship. there are things out of the shipbuilders' control. >> who is building? >> huntington engels in norfolk. i think that while we need a strong base and industry, we've got to maintain that industrial base and maintain a manufacture, we are going to negotiate a contract that is fair to the taxpayers.

we are going to negotiate a contract requires you to do certain things on time and on budget or the taxpayers will not be there to pick up the tab. >> let's go back to personnel. this is the editor of military.com. >> those who are on reserves that is who are in active duty botanically reservists, when they tried to stay on they were told we do not need to you can go home. that kind of thing is already happening. the other thing is that promotion requirements will get more stringent. guys maybe would have been advanced in previous environment will not be this time. it is reason to get shown the door.

it'll be tougher to stay in. those that would have liked to make it a career may be forced out. >> anytime you get smaller, that happens. >> how much smaller will the navy be? >> what i was going to say is that it has gone down 30,000 sailors in the last 10 years already. if you lose those ships that i was talking about, you have also lost sailors to man the ships. the navy is smaller by almost 40,000. i think you will see the navy pretty much the same size. you will go up and down by a few thousand. we are at 323 today. that is not counting the reserves.

we already are ready having to do in listed retention boards and officer retention boards because our reenlistment rates is so high. to his point, it was beginning to clog up. people were not getting promotion opportunities. we have just gone through readings that are overmanned. we have too many. we gave everyone a chance to move into. if they did not take the opportunity, these boards as winter record by record and selected people to separate from the service based on merit and out of sailors they were. they are all great sailors. it was simply we've got too many at this level.

we have too many at this rating. these are always hard. and they're always difficult. the military more than any other organization i have ever been in promotes and manages people based on merit and the job that they do. the marine corps, and i have said this publicly and i said this publicly last spring to congress, we know the marine corps has to get stronger. they had a surge of 27,000 during the surge in iraq. the increased the number by 27,000. we know it has to come back down. the marines will end up at 182,000. it will be completely different

marine corps than it was at 9/11. the marines as they were beginning to look at how to come down, they did not say we are their parents they built one -- we're going to take a percentage off or go back to where we were. they said, was a marine corps do we need for the future. and they built one from the ground up. you will see more marines and cyber in special operations. you will see more marines in some critical things. the marines will get lighter. to go back to see, to be that expeditionary force in readiness. they will be a middleweight force. they will be able to get somewhere fast and when any five -- and fight when they get

there. >> how big of a threat is china? >> what we would like to do it -- and the president and secretary of defense has said this, we would like to engage in china. we do not fear a rise of china or india or brazil or countries that are growing that are coming up economically and militarily. that is not the issue. that is not transparency. why are they building the types of equipment? why are you building the type of military? we would like to work together on this. it is in everybody's best interest. >> they have half of an

aircraft carrier? >> they have an old soviet. i may be wrong. an old russian carrier that they have now got at sea. we will see how that works. they are clearly moving into this area. in terms of whether they are valuable or not, that is a pretty good notion that other people think. >> every time you see the figures that our navy is 10 times bigger than 10 other navies, why should we have that big of a military given the condition of our financial system? >> number one, we're the only country that has a global reach and responsibility. i think it is crucial that we keep that global reach. the world economy depends on the oceans. 90% of all goods flow over the

ocean. 95% of all communications go under the oceans. i think we have a response ability to do that, to be that global navy and military power. i also think that we have a responsibility to extend taxpayers' money wisely. the military cannot be exempt from this job down. i think that is what this is strategy point out. that is what the president, secretary panetta, has been talking about over and over again, the need to get value for your money. i will give you a very navy example. when i came into office we had a new ship. we had two variants.

we've been out three new ones. the prices that came back were unacceptably high. you can understand prices below. it was in the $700 million range. you made my heart stop there. i made the decision that these variants would have to compete against each other even though we wanted both variants. over the next year, the prices came down dramatically. 40%. congress gave me the ability to

instead -- the first plan was that we would buy 10 ships for the winter. they would give us the drawings. they would bid them out to a second yard. congress gave me the ability to buy 10 of each. we got 20 ships instead of 19. we also saved $3 billion. we did it on fixed-price contracts. the last ship will cost about $350 million. the last ship will be far cheaper than the first. that is the sort of thing we need to do in managing taxpayer money. we need to do it in a way that

is fiscally responsible, a blade that is flexible, a way that is flexible. these ships are very fast. they can go close to shore. their platforms are the systems for the air or under sea. they are representative of the future. it is a feature that is affordable. it is a future that is no less capable in terms of the navy. >> i was talking about this. here you are 23 years ago may be. let's take a look. >> my status is about to change. i was reminded of that pretty graphically at a grocery store a few weeks ago. even governors could to grocers stores, particularly future former governors do. there is a woman follow me around. she had been doing it for quite a while. she was looking at me and trying not to be obvious. she came up to me and said

"didn't you used to be ray mabus?" [laughter] i said maybe. when you lose, you have to be able to laugh. you have to have a sense of perspective. in the last eight weeks, i've been given the opportunity to develop one. >> it was 20 years ago. any desire when you lost the race for governor in mississippi any desire to run again? >> not really. being governor of mississippi was one of the incredibly high honors of my life. i was elected by the people of mississippi, the people i lived

with. i think i did a good job of it. mississippi is better because of some of the things that were put in place during that time. i am very, very happy doing what i'm doing. i am very, very happy in terms of being able to work with the military and being able to work with sailors and marines. i do not see any political races in my future. >> can you campaign? >> cannot. >> is it frustrating? >> there are a lot of cool things about this job. i really mean this. one of the great things about it is that it has to be non- partisan. it has to be the interest of the military and american and

not a political party. i think you see that in the service secretary. i am a former democratic governor of mississippi. the secretary of the army is a former republican congressman from new york. another was appointed by george w. bush. it is one of the places in washington where party lines are worked across. you do not know that their party lines. i think that is one of the great strengths of the american military. they're not partisan. they're there for one reason. that does protect america. i am just so happy to be part of that. >> ray mabus, we are out of time. i thank you for joining us. >> great to see you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2012] >> for a dvd copy, call 1-877- 662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at www.q-and- a.org. "q & a" programs are also available as c-span podcasts. >> next, british prime minister david cameron at the house of commons. after that, prime minister stephen harper takes questions at the canadian house of commons. then, a discussion on 2012 fund- raising and the impact of super pacs. tomorrow, a discussion on the tomorrow, a discussion on the state of u.s.